I assumed you were talking about the complexity of the whole system, not one individual species.

Quite right. I was talking about the whole system. I was just subconsciously adding mammals and humans into the mix, and figuring that new classes, orders, families etc., as well as new structure (middle ear or big brains for example), have appeared since then.

However, you made me rethink this. I don't have a clear definition of the word complexity which can be used to say the we currently have more complexity than the Permian. It's just a gut level feeling or opinion that I have. I can't help but be biased and feel that a mass extinction in our time would be much more tragic than the Permian mass extinction.

Even with all our flaws, humans are amazing animals. The extinction of humans, or worse yet, the entire Mammalian order, or even a large fraction of it, seems like a great loss. The distilled complexity in the human brain was the product of a hard fought evolutionary battle through the eons. Will a caldera or a meteor ultimately snuff it out? Some theories suggest that the Permian extinction was partially due to caldera/volcanic explosions. Also, there is a theory that a huge caldera explosion about 75 thousand years ago brought the human population down to only a few thousand people. That was close, and similar events in the future are inevitable. It's difficult to think on the time scale of millions of years when our recorded history is less than 10000 years old, and our species history is less than 1 million years, but that's the kind of forethought needed to beat the odds.

 

I have long had more than an amateur interest in geosciences, mostly the geophysical side of things steering clear of paleantology.

However I recently read a hugely accessible book by Professor M J Benton

called

When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time

which I heartily recommend.

 

I guess the climate for climate change is a little too hot for this Nobel laureate.

COPENHAGEN -- Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Source: Associated Press

John

 

The above is a purely political assessment, intended to impugn an action for which the actual reason is not verifiable. Let us not slide into partisanship. There is more to climate change than parochial interests can encompass.

 

The above is a purely political assessment, intended to impugn an action for which the actual reason is not verifiable. Let us not slide into partisanship. There is more to climate change than parochial interests can encompass.

Simply put, Mr. Gore is an internationally prominent spokesperson for global warming. Unlike what we would expect in any intellectual inquiry, even a political debate, Mr. Gore has refused to debate his position or to respond to critics. That is simply a statement of fact. It is not a partisan statement. His action with respect to the Copenhagen conference speaks for itself and is yet another refusal by him to face critics.

John

 

I believe we have a situation where one political interest has a solid reason for casting climate change as this, and another interest wishes it to be seen and interpreted as that. Al Gore has no more fact and science on his side than does anyone else. But the issue is becoming highly political, in that someone's interests are advanced or harmed by asserting that there is/is not a crisis.

Science has been, but should not be politicized. Asserting that the data do not support Mr. Gore is acceptable. Comments that

climate for climate change is a little too hot for this Nobel laureate

is personal commentary.

You may indeed have a deeply-held personal position on this issue, but that hardly advances the interpretation of the data. Taking any arbitrary position before data have been assessed is to politicize the issue.

We have confusing data with regards to ocean acidification and actual increase of global temperature. We have incontrovertible evidence that glaciers are melting and global weather patterns are changing. This may or may not constitute a "crisis", but change is ongoing.

 

Just to make life interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3424270...ce-science/ns/technology_and_science-science/

The point these scientists make is they don't have an agenda, they are just trying to interpret existing data. You can bet other people will take it and run with it though.

 

I imagine using cyclic event coincidence may be less than accurate (and who cares? - remember that the Mayan calendar "predicts" the end of time [or space on the rock] in 2012. Hardly time to get chilly). I did find this little paper on the last ice ages, though - http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

 

Surely the point of any average is that it is made of components, some of which are above and some below?

So we are perhaps currently above average temperature, and have in the past been below.

 

Its a cold comfort being it -20°F weather knowing it is only going to last 20 or so years.

 

Here is part of an email from the Director of the (CRU) Climate Project (Phil Jones) who recently stepped down temporarily. Sorry for the formatting.

Highlighting has been added of some items, shown in blue.
John

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

 

The problem I have with the Charles Choi article (thanks Bill) is that as I understand it the water from the large North American prehistoric lake was discharged into the North Pacific, not the North Atlantic.

Apart from this rather obvious slip, the worries about the 'ocean conveyor' are very real and pressing. We are a long way from fully understanding it.

 

That Pacific discharge path is correct for at least one lake. The water flowed over portions of Washington state, washing off the topsoil and leaving the equivalent of stream rifle marks ground into the underlying bedrock. Those riffles were about 100 yards peak to peak.

http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/

There was another series whose discharge carved the Mississippi valley. http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/glacflds/glacflds.htm

 

It was recently shown that ice in the arctic that has been there over 3000 years is breaking up. I don't know about you, but I think that is a little bit alarming! The satellite photography from outer space is the definitive source for the gobal changes that are occurring; ie: it is greening earlier in the year and farther north than usual. When the waves start lapping at the foot of the white house steps, that will be the administration's confirmation that the world is getting warmer!

Regards, DPW [ Spent years making heaters out of op-amps.]

 

Not really a field of huge interest with me, but pretty sure they taught in school that the planet was a much warmer place during the dinosaur days on Earth, up until the Ice Age, which created much of the glaciers and polar ice, that is now melting at such an 'alarming' rate. I just don't buy into this is something man-made, or there is much we can do to effect it. Seems to me the the planet is just recovering, from the Ice Age that was apparently cause by the impact of a huge meteor or small asteroid.

Instead of wasting time and resources trying to control/slow a natural process, that is going to keep on, regardless of our puny efforts. We should be working on ways we can adapt to the changes that are coming. People are going to need relocating, business too. Rich guys are going to have to accept the loss of their high dollar, ocean front properties. These are the guys pushing the Global Warming hype, since they didn't get rich, spend their own money, and they most likely already know it's not going to amount to much.

I do believe in cleaning up the mess we have been making, these past thousand years or so. We shouldn't waste our resources, and make better use of what we take out of the ground. Maybe it takes some over hyped, catastrophic doomsday visions to get people doing the right thing for our only planet.

I don't think any of us will be around to see things get to point being sold by Al Gore, least not much to stir a panic over. Most likely, someone will get a hold of nuclear weapons, and use them in a car bomb or something.

 

Its a fact that 63.7% of statistics are made up...

 

Interesting segment last night on TV where a number of Canada's older Inuit where interviewed and they had the same story, and that was that thier skys have been changing from previous generations. Appears that simlpe observation indicates a slight shifting of the poles.