James Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis” has challenged conventional thinking about the nature of the earth as an integrated system. Gaia proposes that the earth acts like a living organism — that life is part of a self-regulating system, manipulating the physical and chemical environment to maintain the planet as a suitable home for life itself. Lovelock has developed this idea in a series of books, from “Gaia: A new look at life on earth” (1979) through to “Revenge of Gaia” (2006) and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia” (2009). He argues that as changes in the physical earth system occur, living systems respond so as to mitigate such changes.
How can a planet be alive?
In claiming that Gaia is “lifelike”, Lovelock notes the difficulty of defining life. He points out that a biological emphasis on (potential for) reproduction would, for example, exclude postmenopausal women. On the other hand, a physical emphasis on entropy reduction would include refrigerators. This leads Lovelock to emphasise physiological self-regulation as the defining characteristic of life-like systems – networks of interacting processes serve to regulate each other to preserve the functioning of the organism
In discussing the concept of Gaia, Lovelock now distinguishes:
Gaia hypothesis: the original version — the Earth’s organisms regulate the physical and chemical components of the earth system so as to maintain the planet as an optimal habitat for life.
Gaia theory: the revision in response to critics — the combined physical, chemical and biological components of the earth system regulate the planet so as to maintain it as a habitat for life.
Various analyses have tried to distinguish between “weak” and “strong” Gaia, with weak Gaia differing little from conventional earth system science.
But isn’t Gaia for hippies?
The name Gaia has been widely used as a metaphor, as well co-opted for a large amount of pseudo-scientific baggage. This does not invalidate any underlying science any more than the majority of physics is invalidated by similar appropriation of terms such as “relativity”, “crystals”, “force fields” etc.
After stripping away such baggage, one has to confront the question: is what Lovelock is saying science and mysticism? While Lovelock has used the term “geophysiology” to avoid some of the mystical associations, he notes that all that has been achieved is that the term geophysiology now carries the same suspicion as the name Gaia.
The confrontation between Gaian theory and “conventional” science is largely focused on a few key words: “Gaia is like a living organism … whose goal is to maintain the planet in state fit for life”.
A powerful argument against the Gaia hypothesis is the assertion (such as that made by Richard Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype) that Gaia cannot arise from Darwinian evolution of life — the planet as a whole is not a unit of selection.
Dawkins can be answered by an anthropic argument (wherein observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the existence of the conscious life that observes it):
The emergence of Gaian self-regulation through the course of evolution is allegedly extremely improbable.
Nevertheless, the long-term survival of life on a planet without Gaian self-regulation may well be even more improbable.
Therefore, intelligent observers are most likely to find themselves on a planet with Gaian self-regulation.
Personally, I find this sort of argument unsatisfying. However, similar arguments seem to be needed to “explain” the physical universe — it is a very precise combination of physical constants that allows the existence of atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium. Anyway, if Gaian self-regulation has arisen by chance, one would still want to know how it works.
For me, one of the most intriguing possibilities is some form of “innate Gaia” — rather than being highly improbable, some degree of Gaian self-regulation is inevitable.
Writing in Nature Tim Lenton has proposed that if:
- the physical system is stable, and
- the biological system has self-increasing growth, and
- there is a physical optimum for growth
then the steady state will be whichever side of the optimum leads to negative feedbacks, thus enhancing the stability of the physical system. The “optimal for life” in the original Gaia hypothesis is replaced by “mutually enhanced stability of the physical and biological systems”.
A theory with gaps is still a theory
While Thomas Henry Huxley famously talked of “the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact” such discrepancies can also mean that the “ugly facts” are being misinterpreted.
For example, the gap in Wegener’s account of continental drift was that the continents aren’t ploughing through the crust — they are being carried by the crust. The gap in Darwin’s argument 150 years ago was the implicit assumption of blending of characteristics, so that new traits would be diluted. Mendel’s experiments showed that this is not so. Working out the details has been the work of subsequent generations of population geneticists.
Returning to Dawkins’ argument as quoted above, the hidden assumption that may represent a weak point is the assumption of a single level of selection.
In Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock quotes William Hamilton: “Just as the observations of Copernicus needed a Newton to explain them, we need another Newton to explain how Darwinian evolution leads to a habitable planet.” This echoes Alfred Wegener: “The Newton of [continental] drift has not yet appeared. His absence need cause no anxiety.”
To summarise: gaps and discrepancies in a theory imply a case for serious further study, not necessarily a reason to panic and immediately abandon any consideration of the idea.
What does Gaia mean for humankind?
In his recent books, Lovelock argues that humanity is like an army with over-extended supply lines — there is no option but to retreat (allowing Gaia to recover). Depending on humanity’s choices the retreat could be comparable to the British from Dunkirk or Napoleon from Moscow. We can take control of population ourselves, or see it plummet as Gaia kills us off.
My interpretation of what Lovelock is proposing as the potential relation between Gaia and humanity is the 20th century concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” rather than "revenge”.
These concerns seem to be based on Lovelock’s expectation of a third climate state. The last 500,000 years show an alternation between quasi-stable warm and cold states, flipping on a 100,000 year cycle.
Lovelock (using simple modelling described in Vanishing Face of Gaia) proposes that higher CO₂ will lead to a third, hotter, quasi-stable state. The proposed causal chain is: warming from more CO₂ → more stable oceans, less circulation → less nutrients at surface, so less algal production → less pumping of CO₂ into deep oceans → more CO₂ remains in the atmosphere, locking in the warming.
But is there real evidence for a “third climate state”? Apart from the general principle that once self-regulation of a system fails, the failure can be very abrupt, are the arguments really Gaian?
So does it work?
An “ideal” summary would answer the question: “Is Lovelock right? Does the Gaia concept describe how the earth works?” I hope you won’t be too disappointed if I fail to commit to an answer. Indeed the whole process of preparing my talk and then editing it for The Conversation would have been less fun if I had been working from a preconceived view.
At times Lovelock seems to equate “Gaia” with “earth system science” by asking “would you have bought The Vanishing Face of Earth System Science?” A more substantive question is to ask: “is the (strong) Gaia concept established science?”, to which the answer is “not yet, and maybe it never will be”.
We come back to the statement that for Gaia “we need another Newton…”. Would a complete theory be a matter of filling in the gaps, as 150 years of accumulating evidence has “filled in the details” in Darwinian evolution? Or would the survival of Gaian theory mean morphing into something different, in the way that continental drift morphed into plate tectonics?
My best guess is that if “strong” Gaian theory survives (with or without the name Gaia) it will be through some such similar transformation. The “innate Gaia” implied by negative feedbacks being an “automatic” consequence of an interaction between expanding life and a dissipative physical system may well be part of such a re-synthesis.
Assessing Lovelock’s role as a “key thinker” raises the question of whether, regardless of its validity, the Gaia hypothesis has had a positive influence on the development of earth system science. (Lovelock’s other contributions to science through instrumentation have been invaluable). If, as I do not, one equates Gaia to current earth system science then the question largely disappears — the implication is that the rest of science has caught up with Lovelock.
My view is that even though “strong Gaia” and probably “innate Gaia” currently lie beyond the boundaries of established science, Lovelock’s role in pushing the boundaries of thinking about the earth system has spurred the thinking of many in the emerging earth system science community. This is a valuable legacy, regardless of the ultimate fate of his ideas.
This article is based on a lecture delivered in April 2009 as part of The University of Melbourne series of public lectures on Key Thinkers.
The Conversation
Comments (144)
Comments on this article are now closed.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Ian - having followed Lovelock in his many guises has done us more good than harm.
Starting out with his alternative view of our remarkable ecosystem and following other thinkers in earth sciences to numerous to mention, it was Lovelock who allowed us to see the planet through different eyes. The one thing that is certain is this amazing planet is far more interrelated than anyone has come close to describing. As for 'sentience' or not, this will still be debated [hopefully] two hundred years…
show full comment
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
I don't think that "sentience" is up for scientific debate. Lovelock keeps pointing out that self-regulation doesn't require sentience.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Ian - couldn't agree more.
There are still those Marc is referring too, who are still "true believers". This was the premiss of James Cameron’s film "Avatar" and certainly must be seen as a legitimate exploration of thought, although highly improbable.
The human body has at least ten times as many bacteria as human cells or around 10¹⁴ vs 10¹³, we are a walking example of a collective living organism having “sentience”.
It is easy to see how the concept can seem plausible to some.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Nice to see someone reporting the reality that "we" are mostly "them", and wouldn't be alive without most of "them". Drink those pro-biotics, but of problems persist, ask your Dr. for an excrement transplant!
But back to Gaia -- there have been more than the one Gaia that Gaiasts seem to concentrate on. Remeber, those "them" all throughout us aren't doing what they do for "us".
So, about 1.6B years ago, some of Ma Nature's so-far-evolved bacteria 'discovered' photosynthesis. They were in…
show full comment
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - I am waiting for the probiotics that gobble food and excrete it at a faster rate. Those will be a winner, a range of bacteria do this in some people and they eat like horses don't exercise and remain lean. I remember reading about them in a Lancet or Scientific American, and the internet ran with it for a time. I live in hope as I age : /
We know far to little about out small part of the universe to have a definitive answer about pretty much anything. Science is adding layers, and some…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Paul,I too need those little guys to help me!
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
And Paul, you know Feynman grew up as a charlatan, fixing neighbor's' radios without explaining that all he had to do was wiggle a connection or a tub in its socket, before collecting the $...?
I like the recent discovery of why our brains can pop up so high, compared to our 98% DNA cousins -- chimps. All apes' jaw muscles are big & strong, and from birth, limit the upward growth of their crania, thus cortexes (cortices?, cortii?, cortia...?)
We, a few million years ago, however, lost 1/2 of each or 2 adjacent DNA letters (bases) encoding the growth of our jaw muscles. We're defective!
So, our baby crania can continue a fast upward growth, unrestrained by apelike jaw musculature. What did we do with that new space -- shoved more cortex neurons into it. Nature abhors a vacuum, eh?
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - so we are unique, when was listening to Craig Ventor, we all came away amazed at how complex a bucket of sea water was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
The illusion was shattered when he discovered every time they lifted a bucket of sea water sieved the micro organisms, did the genetic analysis and found the diversity was evident. Their first voyage rewrote science, up till then all sea water micro organisms were thought to be similar world wide. Wrong, massive diversity every nautical mile, complete sets of tools with every bucket.
That's why it is humorous to read the dogmatic comments demonstrating a mindset unable to explore all sides of a story, they miss so much. The second voyage is under way; http://www.sorcerer2expedition.org/version1/HTML/main.htm
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
If we can only make it past our comfort with ignorance!
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Might pay to understand the climate basics first before trying to build a false reality in a supercomputer. As they say GIGO, regardless of Moore's Law or the flawed reasoning and pseudo-science, mumbo jumbo that a thousand more "Lovelock like minds" might bring.
As to human "abuse" I don't see it in such emotive terms. We are and will continue to modify the 'planet's environment to suit our needs. Hopefully we will eventually expand this practise to other planets in the solar system and beyond.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc as for the word - Abuse - this link and story illustrates my meaning, please come back to me and explain my meaning is wrong.
I welcome the dialoge on how this story and other like it are not - Abuse.
http://www.programavip.com.br/noticia?codigo=5473
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc - no comment, about the relevance of the term - abuse - to our thread?
It's not surprising, the definition of "needs" is subjective.
Those tribesman had needs and for thousands of years lived in the forest and gave back what they took. The current controversy is over the "needs" perceived by the level of civilisation above theirs. A level of thought with value systems by a people that will never give back to the forest that gives to us all freely. Are you sure the following levels of more evolved humans will see it their way?
This unbalanced value system destroying the Amazon basin is abusive to us all, don't you agree?
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Paul,
I have a day job.
The link provided is a story about construction of a new dam in Brazil. I'd hardly call this abuse, it's a positive development. So no, I don't agree with you.
In regard to "giving" freely it seems to me the natives take what they can, when they can, while they can. If they don't they starve. If their lifestyle is so attractive I don't see many putting up their hands to join them. I guess the prospect of dying a miserable early death from a tropical disease one thing not listed on the travel brochure.
More on this development in Wikipedia (sorry unlike your link it's in English).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc - you have a day job away from a terminal, I am sorry. Many here have day jobs with access to the internet and are free to use it. As for your browser not translating, all I can recommend is trying Chrome, it just translates automatically. But then again we are apple users and I am only familiar with our platform. Good luck with that one, technologies a bitch at times.
The people displaced in the Amazon have not taken more than needed, have rejected modern civilisation and this dam will…
show full comment
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Don't be sorry Paul, I thoroughly enjoy my work. I have access to the internet and if I so desired could have wasted my time whiling away the hours, but instead I chose to do something more productive with my time. I use Chrome and use the translate feature, but have it set to manual so I can enjoy the text in its original form before translating. I am not that brand conscious and not a member of the apple "cult" and yet in no way find technology a "bitch" as you appear to do.
Looking over Google there remains vast areas of the planet covered in lush forest.
As economies improve more funds are available to set aside areas for conservation. If you want to save the trees encouraging economic growth and increasing wealth is probably the best way forward.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc - pleased work is fulfilling, and agree there does appear to be a great deal of "baby boomers" and "silent generation" in this forum. I guess they feel useful if sharing there perspective, truth is earlier in our history most of us would respect that. Times change, change is so rapid, it's just old think to me.
In the media industry apple just dominates, it's less 'brand' and just tools. But I know what you mean about branding, my industry makes a living out of it.
I never though of about "not translating", interesting perspective. I guess every language has it's visual appearance, and I get that. Thanks for that, I'll try it.
So what it boils down to with Google Maps / satellite is comparing - Extremely Vast forest from 10 years ago to - Vast forest now.
I was naive thinking with your value system you could visualise the loss, I apologise.
So stand corrected.
It's the old "glass of water half empty - or half full" My mistake, perspective is everything.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I can see the loss I just don't see it as a permanent thing. Is this your half empty glass speaking?
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc - respectfully why is that? Humans have no history of reforesting sustainable ecosystems, mono cultures yes. If you are talking about the Gaia principle. I hope it is real as well, but there is little real proof it's just a theory and hardly developed like evolution.
All the logging done of the "Cedar" trees along the Spanish, Italian, Greek, Lebanese coasts that went right down to cliff faces or near the waterline are gone. Removed to plant crops of grain, those too are long gone. Neither…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Good points Paul. And even our N. American natives weren't benign, as viewed by the large mammals that lived here when they arrived, and don't now!
Even thousands of years later, here in Calif., our 'Indians' controlled their sources of food via fires -- selecting Oaks that gave them acorns to mash, while killing other species. But that was picayune compared to what the Spanish friars brought with them & then taught the Indians to raise & eat! It's hard to find natural grasses in much of Calif.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Alex - we are about to be once again be over run by rabbits here in Australia. Rabbit who thrive in open deforested areas, no doubt the cane toad will continue with increasing across northern Australia as well and last as long, or longer.
Our indigenous people, never had to contend with rabbits, or toads, they were introduced by homesick "english sport hunters". Cane toads introduced in the 30s for biological control of a introduced cane beetle. Now the rabbit and toad are causing millions and…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Paul, as the old farmer says: "There's no substitute for human stupidity" -- English sport hunters, or Phoenician cedar cutters, or Easter Island mismanagers. Reality's a bitch. Gaia only has meaning inside some folks' heads. And, they could make better use of their20 Watts of brain metabolism.
;]
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - I like believe we are capable of more than "viral" like behaviour.
Viral infections in living organisms provoke an immune response that usually eliminates the infecting virus. We fit the definition of a "virus" by our observable behaviour, any anthropologist will verify this.
But I can see you dont' believe the planet is a living organism, let alone a sentient one.
Ergo, so exponential use of a systems resource is "ok". We all get that, and it is appropriate for your level of thought, fine no drama.
Whether the earths ecosystems are "collectively" living in balance is crucial to accepting exponential growth is appropriate or not, just won't matter. As thankfully the generations who are going to make these crucial decisions are more evolved than us.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Interesting use of terminology "your level of thought". Says a lot about your state of mind!
I look forward to being marched into the gulags by jackbooted soldiers with the other viruses.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - that's the great thing about proving science the method can't be fooled, just added to. If we had a thousand "Albert like minds" working with the "Tool" as the yet to be built super computer we may have the ecosystems modeled in time.
It was just a "topical illustration" the mindset that thinks outside, what psychologists call the conservative "group" was all I meant. Leonardo, Galileo, Bohm, Pribram, Feynman all did this. Matching such minds with processing power and software will be amazing.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I think Feynman would have recognised the "Gaian hypothesis" for what it is: Cargo Cult Science.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Thanks Marc. You raise an interesting issue - climate - and I have attempted to help your education on several comment webpages in the past.
Prof Enting summarises Lovelock's prognosis for earth's overall climate in the next several centuries of this Anthropocene epoch as "Lovelock (using simple modelling described in Vanishing Face of Gaia) proposes that higher CO₂ will lead to a third, hotter, quasi-stable state. The proposed causal chain is: warming from more CO₂ → more stable oceans, less circulation → less nutrients at surface, so less algal production → less pumping of CO₂ into deep oceans → more CO₂ remains in the atmosphere, locking in the warming."
Can you comment on Lovelock's mechanism?
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Can you comment on Lovelock's mechanism? Yes its a load of cargo cult BS.
The notion of a third climate state. If you look back into the geological past you'd note there are many more than three. But of course the past is something climate alarmists prefer to ignore as it shows the current "climate crisis" is figment of an active imagination,
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc, yes Gaia is dwemostrably false, and climate deniers are equally falsifiers of reality.
A conservative approach to evaluating risks of adding CO2 to the atmosphere >100 times faster than the fastest natural event since the Permian Extinction would be to say, let's look carefully.
But, what the Moncktons & other charlatans of climate-change denial do is ask everyone to engage in a Pascal Wager -- a bet that will have a nice payoff if right (didn't have to do anything), but an unlimited…
show full comment
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Reality is that current climate models, built with one conservative premise cast on top of another are exaggerating the climate's response to increased CO2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Seems that a lot of $ is being scraped out of the public purse by activist scientists trapped by confirmation bias in self re-enforcing, self regulating feedback loop of the highest order. Sadly when reality hits home and the globe does not melt as predicted (but warms by a modest, non catastrophic degree) they will take the reputation of science with them.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
It's fun to see how folks wriggle around the facts & do as we say in statistics "play games in the variances".
It's also amusing to see how they avoid clear, damaging evidence that makes their climate-change denials silly. For example. sea rise has been measured for centuries and is not abating.
Ocean acidification has increased in the last several decades by about 0.1pH, and is now half way to preventing carbonate ions from being extracted from seawaters to build skeletal structures in animals…
show full comment
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Given you are resorting to name calling; Alex you are a loony!
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
From you Marc, that's high praise.
But do try to raise you technical level to an appropriate one and explain why things like sea rise & ocean acidification aren't a problem for anyone.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Alex, given the tone of your posts here I suspect that, like a recent convert to Hillsong, little in the way of evidence will disturb your firm conviction that the end of the world is nigh.
I offer the following papers that provide key insights and evidence that indicate the specific problems you note above sea level rise and ocean acidification have been exaggerated.
Ocean acidification:
High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
http://www.plosone.org/article/info…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc, are you saying facts cause you tonal challenges?
;]
You're apparently cherry picking reports, and English: "sea level rise shows a deceleration". -- let's see, when a wave goes by, levels accelerate upward, the accelerate downward, the decelerate, etc. What you try to hide is the very real, measurable trend, for centuries, of sea rising continually, with very natural accelerations & decelerations. You know this, so why fudge? Plenty of data, even in Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…
show full comment
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Alex, If you actually paid attention to what is contained in the peer reviewed papers I referred to you would find your extremist alarmist nonsense "blown to dust".
Who's the "denier" now?
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Forgot to mention Marc, your reference was a quick read...
"Page Not Found"
C'mon, you can do better! Or, maybe not.
;]
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Aaaaaaagh! The "peer review" silver bullet! Marc, you sly devil
Well, as a member of two worldwide science & engineering groups whose publications are all peer reviewed, I can only say, your popgun examples are so easily swamped with "peer-reviewed" facts that it wouldn't be near a fair fight.
And remember, you even had to couch your blarney with sea rise "decelerating" -- remember? Decelerating doesn't mean "stopping" or "reversing", last I checked my driver's manual.
But keep stirring up the fluff. You could always take the bet Monckton & others have shied away from, if you really believed the junk 'science' you refer us to.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I will pass your thoughts onto the authors concerned. I'm sure they will be surprised to see their work referred to as "pop gun" and "junk Science". I was going to endeavour to find out why you consider them as such, but then I remembered you are a loony so I won't waste my time.
Here are those peer reviewed references again that provide evidence that the Climate Armageddon advocated by Alex, is grossly exaggerated:
P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377.
Hofmann GE, Smith JE, Johnson KS, Send U, Levin LA, et al. (2011) High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison. PLoS ONE 6(12): e28983. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028983
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc, I'm sure you will pass on my thoughts to those authors, because you're undoubtedly as intimate with them as you are with facts.
;]
As to the "loony" question: "Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?" -- so you agree seas are rising? It's just the acceleration you seem suspicious of, eh Marc?
Here's the latest (various, peer reviewed, just for you)...
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=34293
Again, Marc, no one's trying to convince you of anything. Just being sure that whatever BS you put out doesn't mislead others.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Agreed, the notion of "stable states" is somewhat problematic; "quasi-stable" might be more suitable.
I think what Lovelock refers to as "stable states" are the bifurcations between glaciated and interglacial climatic states that have characterised the latter Pleistocene, ie the period of the "100 kyr"world. Throughout the Pleistocene, I understand atmospheric CO2 to have varied between ~180 ppm and 300 ppm, with a gradual decrease in atmospheric CO2 in the coldest parts of the glacial periods…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
David, suggest you lok at Milankovitch Cycles, which show orbital influences on Earth's climate...
www.google.com/search?q=milankovitch+cycles&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=umn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bPE6T9rYAurM2AXJpsUm&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1030&bih=676
The ~100k year cycles of the 'recent' past show no head toward "snowball" planet. But we surely have driven the future (Antthropocene) firmly away from even mild versions of the 100kyr cycles…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Thanks Alex.
My understanding of climate history for the last 4 million years is that the formation of the Isthmus of Panama lead to a fairly rapid global cooling, which I understand is attributable to increased reflectivity as the Greenland icesheet and Arctic ice pack formed. Cooling oceans increased dissolution of CO2 from the atmosphere - couple this with CO2 reaction with the silicate rocks of newly-uplifting mountain ranges, and possibly also carbon sequestration as boreal wetlands are…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
David, you can go to the various long-term measurements, such as the Vostok, Antarctic ice cores, and Greenland cores, to get a view of the orbital influences, and solar-activity influences...
http://www.google.com/search?q=vostok+temperature&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lxn&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XSo8T73mAeaiiQLU_pmjAQ&ved=0CGIQsAQ&biw=1062&bih=716
Several of the Vostok data plots also include CO2 increase and forcing, showing how we've swamped…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Thanks Alex. I see we are in substantial agreement on these issues.
Perhaps we can therefore assure Marc that our present trajectory is away from the Pleistocene past for at least the next several tens of millenia.
It seems the very concept of"stable state" is problematic in such a complex, ever-changing system as earth's climate; to be fair to Lovelock, I think he was initially setting out his ideas in a milieu in which paleoclimate history was envisaged as a succession of such "stable states".
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
David, yes, and I think folks like Lovelock got caught up in New Age kind of mysticism, without realizing how much Nature has to teach us, if we just drop our biases & religiously-held & comfortable beliefs, and just observe.
AS a scientific mentor tom once said: "The electrons know what they're doing. It's up to us to find that out."
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
David, I'll just add 2 cents and say the notion of "stable states" isn't in the record of earth's history, nor is it desirable, simply for iour benefit, or the self-confirmation of anything like th eGaia hypothesis/theory/axiom...
As said elsewhere here, Earth started out lifeless, gained forms of life using Earth's chemistry in ways almost no species have for a billion years, and went through massive chemistry changes becuase of both life and internal heating, both residual and radioative…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
"Moore's law will propel our collective knowledge..." -- apparently not including the knowledge that Gordon Moore didn't come up with the "law", a colleague did, for an Intel talk. Moore at first acknowledged that, but over the years decided not to continue fighting for that truth.
As Marc says, clinging to particular individuals as 'seers of truth' is in fact being cultish, not just faddish.
Ma Nature doesn't care what we do to our planet. We can be as dumb, exploitive, manipulative and…
show full comment
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
On Moore's law, from Wikipedia on "Stigler's law":
" In its simplest and strongest form it says: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." Stigler named the sociologist Robert K. Merton as the discoverer of "Stigler's law", consciously making "Stigler's law" exemplify Stigler's law.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - the thorium issue clearly has the best chance, agreed.
Please don't infect this stream promoting nuclear. Radioactive decay and it's human use hardly has a history of compatibility with life on earth.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Paul, recall I asked in my other post "why are we able to live on Earth's surface?"
The answer is, believe it or not, radioactivity.
Without out atmosphere, we'd be bombarded every second with solar protons & electrons, cosmic rays (protons, helium nuclei, electrons, positrons, gamma rays...) and so on. No biologic molecules could stay together. that's why we can't live on the Moon or Mars without protection. So yes, external radiation is indeed a threat.
How did we get an atmosphere…
show full comment
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - you are the quintessential analyst and as usual right. If it wasn't for the stuff of suns we literally would not exist on this dimension.
However, I was talking about a very specific set of - radioactive decay - caused by human intervention and not radiation from the true source, our sun. Which we both know is in use and made in a very specific medium within the MNEI.
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
Paul, I agree this isn't the place to reopen that debate. But you really might want to reconsider that last sentence. Nuclear reactions and even reactors are perfectly natural (there was one in Gabon just over a billion years ago) and thereby self-evidently are compatible with life on Earth.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Mark the Gabon story was in a Science magazine last year, can't recall which and when. At the time it struck me that we had the ideal model, and if we actually copied this single natural reactor we might be on the right track. My take is we could build the whole nuclear reactor business underground five k would be brilliant, waste storage included. Snowballs chance in hell ; )
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
And, the inventor (after Nature did) of the light water reactor (LWR) that we know & love, invented the molten-salt reactor later, because he wanted something safer, and able to use Thorium.
He got fired because he was so concerned with safety, and a Thorium reactor wouldn't make Plutonium for bombs.
Progress!
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Mark you to are right. See my amendment under Alex, thank you both. It was along week last week, the mind is still in flight / fight mode and is re engaging to higher levels of thought.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
I definitely learned something new -- Stigler's Law!
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Thanks Mark, it's also rare to see someone who knows Ma Nature did nuclear fission naturally, long ago! There wa much more 235U then. It's rarer than Silver now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf
And this is truly fortuitous...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ancientatomicwar/esp_ancient_atomic_05.htm
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - apologies to your sensitivities, you are right of course. That was loose language. Point taken, I will be more careful, consider me chastised.
One technology moving faster than silicone based exponential growth, however is genomics. Many possibilities.
As Craig Ventor said;
"we have just found the toolbox and are just now exploring how they work"
- 2009
Shauna Murray
Research Fellow (logged in via email @unsw.edu.au)
I don't completely understand the criticisms... to argue over the definition of whether the planet acting as a steady state system = life or not... it seems to be semantics and somewhat beside the point.
Of course the planet is not a living organism in the same way as we are, because it doesn't consist of DNA/RNA/proteins/lipids/nuclei etc etc. Its not necessary to even discuss whether or not its a unit on which selection acts, in my opinion.
But if the planet is acting as a steady state and is in some way self regulating, that is extremely interesting. To make a metaphor with a living system then is appropriate and can help determine future questions to investigate, ie mechanisms?.
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
In my view, the question is whether or not life plays a significant part in the
self-regulation. Basic physics sets the broad-scale limits.
Bruce Moon
Bystander! (logged in via email @imap.cc)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Ian, while your article is thought provoking, like so many others contemplating the concept of Gaia it misses the central point.
Imagine yourself back in the 1960's, when the 'men in white coats' (or the emerging power of science) concept was both challenging and rapidly replacing the hierarchical model of knowledge.
As the falsificationist method of scientific endeavour means that concepts become adduced to discrete statements, it then took a brave person to proffer…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Just a comment, Bruce, the folks in th e 40s were concerned with a world war. The folks in the 50s & 60s were concerned with a Cold War and our climate & fossil-hydrocarbon waste & emissions. They indeed viewed Earth as a whole system, including life. And that's precisely why physicists, like Seaborg, Wigner, Weinberg and many more, advised our executives & Congress on what to do to stop the hydrocarbon combustion craze. I posted one example before...http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
There was even…
show full comment
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
"media laxity"
why so kind to the media?
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
;]
Well, I guess because I'm just naturally nice. Look how nicely I treat Marc (with a "c" even)!
paul magnus
it consultant (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
The Gaia theory is reasonable.
There is nothing that has disproved it.
It obviously needs refining as more comes to light.
Take for example the reproduction issue. How would an organism as 'large' as Gaia replicate itself?
Well it would basically have to eject life material to some other place in the universe where the process continues. Gravity is its biggest problem, so how would 'it' overcome gravity?
We may be the reproductive mechanism of Gaia! (Amongst possible other things…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Paul, if you read the other comments and Earth;'s tumultuous history, you see at once Gaia says nothing that matches reality. If it were true, we'd not be here, since there was no life originally. If we give it even that exception, then we'd be the same forms that lived ~3billion years ago, metabolizing CO2, H2S & SO2, yuk.
But we're not that, though there are still such creatures around sub-ocean volcanic vents. Maybe that's all that's left of Gaia #1 and we're Gaia #2, or #3 , or...??
A theory that fails its first test is not a useful theory. It may sell books, however.
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
This is in respone to Alex, not really saying anything new, so if others read my post above I'm only elaborating and explaining it.
1. None of my comments were derived from religion but from my biological knowledge- I derive none of my beliefs from religion. The point I raised about the brain was the debate that the neuroscientists etc have about the evolution of the brain involving a religious component. I, therefore as a reluctant admission that there will always be people who do argue from…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Your word count is your formidable weapon, Caroline! I give up!!
Naahhh, just kidding. I'm from NJ. Y'know what that means, eh?
So you write 'unreligious' things like: "...the process of increased complexity of life such as the evolution of photosynthetic organisms is unlikely to have been purely "an accident", unless perhaps you take the religious view and don't believe in Darwin! "
Really? Read that again Caroline -- "unlikely to have been purely "an accident". And you're a biologist…
show full comment
Andrew Glikson
(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)
Thank you Ian for a thought provoking article.
The use of the mythical term 'Gaia' has unfortunately clouded the issue. Terms such as 'inter-connectedness of biological and physical systems', 'physical forcing of biological evolution' and 'biological feedbacks affecting the physical state', although a mouthful and less imaginative, would describe the planetary biological system more correctly.
Had pre-historic humans discovered a discarded computer on the beach, they could hardly be blamed…
show full comment
Andrew Glikson
(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)
I should have written "the speed of light" (not of life").
Gideon Polya
(Cessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University)
Setting aside the controversial "strong Gaia" notion of the animate and inanimate worlds generating a steady-state through through feedbacks (e..g the "Daisy World" example) , it is quite clear that ecosystems can influence climate (e.g. albedo shifts due to deforestation; the huge impact on South American climate of the Amazonian rain forest) and that climate change can impact ecosystems (e.g. global warming linked to polar migration of ecosystems, loss of Arctic ecosystems, mass species extinction…
show full comment
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
One of the reasons that I pulled out my 2009 talk, was Gideon repeating this "0.5 billion" claim as if it was well-established science, and actually look at what Lovelock was saying. Three points i tried to make are:
1. "revenge" seems a bad word for what he is saying
2. I found "Vanishing Face of Gaia" to be much clearer than "Revenge of Gaia"
3. The whole concept of flipping the a "third climate state" must be treated as (at best) "quite speculative".
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"threatens humanity with a climate genocide catastrophe"
"only 0.5 billion humans will survive this century"
Seems you have a very light grip on reality there Gideon.
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
The problem is that the Gaia theory and its interpretations are broadly self-evident: one thing happens, affects other things in a particular way, which affects something else; thus, populations, food supplies, animal life in general, etc., are all interacting and certain results occur and, sometimes, predictions are attempted, often inaccurately. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Earth as a living organism or as a self-regulating entity, something which presumes a deliberation from an unknown source. There is nothing purposeful about the nature of the Earth: things simply happen for one reason or another, and affect other things. There is nothing new in this and to formulate a concept such as Gaia to 'explain' the nature of the world is sophistry at best, charlatanism at worst. The Gaia theory is axiomatic and entirely superfluous, in common parlance, a beat-up.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
A self-regulating entity requires no deliberation. An evolutionary mechanism (random variation, filtered by survival to the next generation of random generation) is sufficient to produce an appearance of systemic regulation.
Systemic regulation is an emergent property, where the success of one group of replicators (plants harvesting CO2 producing O2, for example)* provides opportunity for another group of replicators (animals using O2 to generate CO2).
* It's worth remembering that plants also use O2 for metabolism, burning sugars back to CO2; the entire animal kingdom gets by on the surplus of plant growth over plant respiration).
Tim Dean
(Philosopher at University of New South Wales)
It does frustrate me that many scientists forget that not all their ideas need to be in the form of scientific theories. Scientists (and, indeed, anybody) can engage in philosophy and make useful contributions.
I've always (perhaps charitably) interpreted Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis as an exercise in philosophy of ecology. It offers a useful metaphor that helps us knit together many disparate disciplines to gain perspective on how we fit into the global ecosystem.
However, I've never bought…
show full comment
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Derek,
Sorry if I go off track from your original comments but I wanted to pick up on your comments and I guess I'm a bit talkative!
Yes I did misunderstand your emphasis on "luck" as I thought it was referring to evolution i.e. of photosynthesis. Alex and I seem to be stuck in semantics there where he seems to be saying photosynthesis did arrive by "luck" due to mutations etc. and I understand that process, however it seems to me evolutionary selection has resulted in more complexity (shouldn…
show full comment
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Caroline,
I have no objection to saying that the earth with its biota now constitute one highly complex dynamic system - perhaps even a superorganism. And any such system has domains and cycles of relative stability. The central question is whether life has made the system as a whole more resilient to perturbations. That's not easy even to define, let alone assess. E.g., a chaotic system may be perceived as less stable at face value, yet the long term pattern of its behaviour might be more stable…
show full comment
William Grey
Philosopher (logged in via email @uq.edu.au)
"Strong" Gaia under many interpreations is implausible (and "weak" Gaia looks like Earth Systems Science). John and Mary Gribbin in their biography of Lovelock ('James Lovelock: In Search of Gaia', Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2009) suggest that the Gaia hypothesis can be upgraded to Gaia theory. Hypotheses progress to theories when their conjectures are vindicated by successful predictions, and they suggest that Lovelock's theory has cleared this hurdle. For a review of the Gribbins' biography of Lovelock see:
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2010/02/grey.html
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
"Hypotheses progress to theories when their conjectures are vindicated by successful predictions,"
sure, but I think Lovelock is using "hypothesis" vs "theory" for
two different versions. While his "hypothesis" remains just that,
whether what he calls the "theory" really deserves that description remans to be seen. (I have yet to read the Gribbins' book)
Gideon Polya
(Cessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University)
@ Ian Enting
I am NOT "repeating [Lovelock's] "0.5 billion" claim as though it is established science" I am merely quoting the expert opinion of a top climate scientist , Dr James Lovelock FRS, who was reported in a Rolling Stone (2007) thus: "“By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin" and has further estimated (2009…
show full comment
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Talk about living in La la land!
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
I am dismayed by the number of supposedly intelligent people who give credence to the idea of Gaia and the extenuating discussion of its various ramifications.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
But it's easier to put down, Sam, than to discuss how long the next Kardashian marriage will last.
;]
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
Thank you, Mr. Richards, I am well aware that scientific discoveries can sometimes take time to be accepted, and that there are no absolutes in scientific investigation. If there was one scintilla of scientific revelation in the Gaia theory I would be the first to support its consideration, but when the theory contains nothing new I do not think it unreasonable to regard it as unsupportable. In my view, it belongs to what I call the school of 'California Dreaming', where every crazy idea is given credence by some group or other. It should also be remembered that while genuine scientific discoveries have sometimes lain fallow for extended periods, science is also littered with unsustained bizarre theories and downright fraud.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Sam
Look at the headlines in the Newspaper of the 1860, 70s, 80s, 90s and later they read like your copy of GAIA. Darwin didn't really have much data, it was easily disputed scientifically and was rightly challenged.
No so much now baut over hundred years ago yes. But who cares one way or the other this is hardly worth worrying about?
Must admit "California Dreaming" is a tell that you are an early baby boomer and I am here to tell you a "California Dreamer" changed the world and has died already, Steve Jobs.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Hey, no knocking Calif! We may be billions in debt, but we did get rid of Rev. Moon & Manson didn't get paroled!
;]
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
This topic was no doubt presented because of its highly controversial nature, with the hope that it would create new arguments between the new-agers and scientists. The whole proposition of Gaia is unscientific nonsense, is unworthy of further consideration, and should be rejected out of hand by any scientist worth their salt.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Sam - you may very well be right, but it is well to remember that has been said
"........because of it's highly controversial nature" about all great discoveries. Galileo come to mind immediately.
The Wright Brothers couldn't get a newspaper to take them seriously for months after they flew. We could a list hundred or more stories like that. An open mind until conclusive is worth considering, unless your value system out weighs it.
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
My challenge to Sam (and Marc) is that if you think it Gaia is "unscientific nonsense" or "JUST a cult" [my emphasis], read Tim Lenton's article
(link in my article) and explain why "Nature" should have rejected it.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"explain why "Nature" should have rejected it."
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
Nature publishes all sorts of unsubstantiated non scientific rubbish these days, just look at the first hockey stick paper!
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Is it science yet? NO, it's just another cult.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - although not a Gaia true believer the overview of the follower put forward by your comment hardly fits the definition of a "cult".
But your distane is noted and understandable.
The word cult in current usage denotes a bizarre system of ritual practices. Although Gaia hypothesis of "sentience" is bizzarre there are no rituals, churches, enclaves or any government tax relief of typical modern "Cult"
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Thanks Paul,
There are a number of definitions of the word. I content that "Followers" of the Gaia Hypthesis are covered by more than one of these: eg from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cult
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - all relevant points - Just stick to "cult"
Do people follow this old Lovelock hypothesis "religiously" absolutely positively and defiantly yes. Like a non practicing Catholic.
But "cult" they are not.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Yes they are.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - I was in a cult from a child until to my mid twenties. Believe me, by no stretch of the imagination you might have, do people who hold Gaia as a plausible theory remotely meet the criteria. Four conferences since 1985, the last in 2006, a 91yo exponent, a web site that is next to useless - http://www.gaiatheory.org/
No enclave, no regular meetings that's it literally.
Cults - literally have you, 24 - 7 under supervision.
What you do have though is a conservative mindset or world view of outsiders, which is ok. Until you grow through it that is.
Lorna gave me this link to an interesting paper you might enjoy;
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdf+html
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
By the way Paul. Seems that study has already been debunked. Care to try again?
"Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics."
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - debunked? Ok lets do some critical thinking on this.
Who debunked it?
Did they publish through peer reviewed publications?
Was the individual qualified to discuss psychology?
Was the individual from the group under discusion?
What major organisation was the author thrown out of for conservative views?
Is the individual a climate change skeptic?
This list could be longer but "that'll do" as Arthur Hoggett said to "Babe"
We both know all these answers are rhetorical.
I have no desire to drag this discussion through this thread.
That paper was for you to read and personal, bin it. IDGAF.
I actually thought you might see some value in it. I can't even imagine what offended you, unless you are amongst the group concerned. From comments made though out "The Conversation" this doesn't seem possible.
But than again, you have concisely revealed your world view with that link.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Paul your double standards are showing. You post numerous references here to blog articles then get your knickers in a knot when I provide an article that thoroughly debunks your attempt at humour, that hasn't appeared in the peer reviewed press.
Regardless of whether it was peer reviewed or not, did you bother reading it? Do you have the necessary skills in statistics to understand why the paper you ignorantly spruik is so flawed? Please do make sure dearest Lorna reads it so she doesn't get caught out spruiking cargo cult science again.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - where are these numerous references to blogs? I feel you may be confusing me with someone else. I do reference film makers works, but they are hardly blogs. I gave you a single 2012 academic paper, and some news media stories.
My memory is clearly going.
I think this is a clear case of judging me by your standards, I have done a review of your comments and they indeed do have "numerous reference to blogs" as you put it.
Remind me of the "... numerous references here to blogs .... "I have made.
Your blog author has a history of manipulating data and was exercised from a major US institution for it.
"spruiking cargo cult science again" Marc Hendrickx
Please remember this is a conduit for academia and the peer review system you are questioning has proper channels for criticism of the paper you refer to as "cargo cult".
We are only to happy to discuss academically criticised papers , it's healthy.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I find 5 links above that you use to back up your spurious claims that are not peer reviewed. Here's the breakdown.
There are 2 links to a non peer reviewed news article that you rely on Chrome to translate-not peer reviewed.
There is a link to a glossy marketing website spruiking the Sorcerer 11 expedition-not peer reviewed.
There is a link to Youtube Ted talk-not peer reviewed
There's a link to the Gaia Theory blog-not peer reviewed.
You provide one peer reviewed paper that appears to be…
show full comment
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
" .... I find 5 links above that you use to back up your spurious claims ...." Marc Hendrickx -
Your reference has changed to "links" not "blogs", interesting.
"you ..... post numerous references here to blog articles ..." Marc Hendrickx.
“ ...paper has nothing to do with the subject at hand “ Marc Hendrickx.
Marc you are of course right. The paper was kindly passed on to me by a PhD student, I was paying forward to you.
You wouldn't be the first to confuse my use of short links…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
C'mon Marc, your "peer-review", paper-mache 'club' is getting limp. You can find hundreds of reviewed docs all over the place, if you wanted. But, you don't, do you, because you know what you're proffering is BS.
But if you actually want some facts to open your zippered mind, try AAAS.orgm, or Nature.com, or any of the public research at NOAA, NASA... at 'minor' universities, like Caltech, Oxford,Stanford, MIT... The ones that aren't free have free abstracts, then you can decide how valuable facts are to you. So far, that's an open question to us.
;]
.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Alex, I was replying to Paul. But feel free to join in.
I frequently read Nature, view the AAAS site, look over NASA etc etc , All these show trends far below dodgy IPCC model projections. Based on the facts presented at these esteemed institutions it seems your climate Armageddon dear worrisome Alex, is well and truly falsified.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Gee, Marc, thanks so much for letting someone else comment here! You're just so desperately generous. It's not just an act? -- please say it isn't!
;]
However, since I am a member of the professional societies that publish what you "frequently read" or "check", I read them all and indeed they do show as severely important changes, etc. as any the IPCC has come up with. IPCC, has, in fact, been conservative on predictions vs realities.
What? You don't trust what the Koch Bros. funded? You trust some guy who measured our snowpack without reporting how our climate is influenced here in Calif? And you think that shows good scientific procedure on your part? It shows someone should believe what you say? really?
You continue to make it too easy, Marc. But the real question is why?
Hmmmmm.
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Seems you went from one cult to another and didn't even notice.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - and in your considered opinion which cult would that be?
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Why the Paul Richards cult of course.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Marc - touché best answer yet.
I stand corrected and totally agree with your perspective.
I could mirror that, but there are to many references to "blogs" for it to be real.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
In Calif., one can start a religion with $25, a standard signature form, and just have to have 7 people meet together 'regularly'. Tax free!...
Such a deal! Gaians welcome!
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Alex, speaking of California, have you seen the latest peer reviewed research on snowfall in that marvellous state? Before you look down do you expect it to be:
A: increasing
B: decreasing, or
C: about the same
Here's the answer, that once again demonstrates that the case for climate catastrophe has been exaggerated:
(I post it here as I doubt you'll read the headlines at the aptly named Con.)
"For those regions characterized by consistent monitoring and with the most robust…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Marc, as a geologist, you should have a pretty good education in weathering & its causes.
"138 years" of Calif. snow[pack convinces you of something? Really?
Are you unaware that our climate is exceedingly coupled to Pacific currents and the El Nino & La Nina cycles? Sure, you're smart, you know that. Why hide it?
So keep track of this year's snowpack. Last year;'s was near record high. Keep your eye peeled for this year's results, as I'm sure your peer-reviewed "snowpack-man" author…
show full comment
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Alex - light and timely as alway. Yeah, it's not that serious if Marc needs labels to pigeon hole. As I am sure we all did once.
It's a little stricter here on religion, we were reading this week about a muslim cleric in Melbourne that was sick of seeing clandestine operatives at prayer times seven days a week : )
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
The problem is that there is no data. Nothing contained in the Gaia concept cannot be explained by simple cause and effect. The best that can be said for it is that is whimsical musing.
Jim Wright
Retired Civil/Structural Engineer, IT Consultant/Contractor (logged in via email @acslink.net.au)
Many years ago, as a Civil/Structural engineer, I worked for a planning consultancy, one of whose clients was a well-known university. The Building Committee was largely populated by classics professors (mostly in charge of residential colleges) and it used to irritate me that meetings took forever to reach any conclusion, because everyone was trying to produce a latin tag to top the last one quoted. All of this talk about cults and so forth, to me has a certain resonance with my memories of those…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Good points, Jim. Problem is that models don't satisfy the more determined anti-whatevers. And, models are mathematical abstractions in a language we know is incomplete. So Nature has more going on than math can ever derive or "predict" -- this irritates many mathematical physicists who love fancy, abstruse theorizing...
http://library.nu/docs/SX4C97BV2P/The%20Unknowable%20(Discrete%20Mathematics%20and%20Theoretical%20Computer%20Science)
So Ma Nature will do things we can't model and our math models will produce statements we can't prove! Math is a human invention. As Russell said: "Mathematics is a science in which we don't know what we're saying nor whether what we say is true."
He tersely illustrated the reality of math/language undecidability in...
"This statement is false."
If it's indeed false then it's true? But if it's true, it's false....But if...
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
Jim Wright feels that rather than dismiss the Gaia concept out of hand, scientists should investigate the theory and prove it right or wrong. This is rather tall order when the idea is eminently explicable in simple cause and effect terms and has no discernible need for an overarching theory. A more sensible approach would be for the Gaia proponents to explain scientifically why such a theory is necessary. Mr. Wright says that a comprehensive model is badly needed but I'm buggared if I know why…
show full comment
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Professor Enton, thankyou for this article as the debate certainly needs to be maintained, especially as more and more evidence of self-regulation involving both biotic and abiotic components arises (e.g. recent UNE lecturer's contribution whereby bacteria form a self-organised community to aerate a soil structure), and of the creation of order within the biota e.g. Kaufmann's book. Thus we have some things to come to grips with.
The first of these is the term "Nature". Now physicists discussing…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Aha, so now we see the religion enter, Caroline. You may have whatever religion you wish, but don't expect statements you derive from its beliefs to be taken as fact.
For example: "After further considerable (now evolutionary i.e. natural and genetic) selection, photosynthetic life arose, not in some random or lucky event Derek, rather in the process of natural selection, which increases complexity and order by improving efficiency (evolution is not "luck")."
Really? You can prove photosynthesis…
show full comment
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Caroline,
You misunderstood my reference to luck. The luck was that a side effect of photosynthesis was to cool the planet, and thereby counter the undesirable consequences of a warming sun. You cannot claim that this linkage somehow helped drive the evolution of photosynthesis.
You could argue that, by chance, sometimes life tends to stabilise and sometimes to destabilise, and it's the former case that persists. But then consider how you're measuring stability. If you think temperature is key then you will feel justified, but if you consider the atmospheric gas mix as the measure you get the opposite conclusion.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Excellent points Derek. That's why I asked before: "When was Gaia?" -- when the atmosphere was volcanic N2, H2S, SO2, CO2 plus water?
Or, was/is Gaia, as you note, after air was 'polluted'by Oxygen from photosynthesis, which also corroded Earth's rocks and sent vast amounts of oxides, etc. into the seas via erosion?
Similar questions can be raised about continental effects, such as the breakup of Pangea.
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
Whenever are you lot going to stop talking about Gaia? Never have so many words, in the guise of intellectual exchange, been devoted to an idea that has no substance whatsoever. It's time for you to descend to our permanent and inevitable residence, planet Earth, a place we are very fortunate to inhabit and which has absolutely nothing to do with the balance of life forces and being a living entity.
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Sam - am I missing something? Isn't that the point of "The Conversation" on an "Gaia theory: is it science yet?" To answer no or yes and give reasons for your perspective.
As for a turn of phrase below;
"Never have so many words, in the guise of intellectual exchange, been devoted to an idea that has no substance"
I think you will find the evolutionists promoting the then new theory in 1859 - Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 /11/1859 has led to over 161 years of what Christians could say is the "guise of intellectual exchange". And for that matter exchange by evolutionists of "no substance" as well, "Piltdown Man" comes to mind as just one incidence.
Evolution is still catorgerised as a theory, but who really challenges it now.
Gaia is still a theory in infancy.
I am not a believer, but still open to data.
We now know you aren't open to data, all is good, fine and appropriate : )
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I've always held Lovelock's views to be dangerous in that, whatever he was actually saying, they would be widely interpreted to mean "she'll be right".
Start with a lifeless Earth. It is already a highly complex mechanical system with an energy flow-through, subject to all sorts of feedbacks and forcings, some cyclical others sporadic. We should expect such a system to wander through a variety of states, some more stable than others, some being in cyclical patterns. It will spend more time…
show full comment
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
I think we have had a number of variations of the implications of self-regulation:
1. She'll be right - doesn't matter what humanity does
2. She'll be "right" -- the self-regulating will remove humanity
if that is what is needed for stability of the planet.
3. She'll be right for a while, but when self-regulation breaks down, the breakdown is often abrupt and catastrophic.
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Quite so, and my concern was that it would be widely taken as (1), with the next most common being (2). The only problem I have with (3) is that it verges on tautology. Any system spends most time in more-or-less stable states, which means that it will bounce back from a small perturbation but not a large one. This is true with or without life. The challenge for Gaia Theory is to show that life enhances stability, in some sense to be defined.
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
"The challenge for Gaia Theory is to show that life enhances stability, in some sense to be defined"
Indeed.
http://tracer.env.uea.ac.uk/esmg/papers/Lenton.pdf
is an attempt to start down such a track.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Ian, then if life adds stability is the underpinning of Gaia logic, then we know it fails.
Life indeed destabilized Earth's land & sea cheistrys when life evolved photosynthesis.
Life further destabilized Earth's surfaces when plants & associated bacteria/fungi invaded the land.
And, of course, there's us, doing it faster & better than any before us!
The Gaia hypothesis/theory/axiom disproves itself. by observation.
By the way, ~85ppm of H2S in air breathed by a mammal, will put it (or us) in a suspended state of animation by checking our HC oxidative metabolism. Thus our own cells and energy subsystems (mitochondria, etc.) have components harking back almost 2 billion years. Genes are history machines, as well as construction machines. Ma Nature has staying power. Don't know about Gaia.
;]
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
OK Ian, I read it, and don't see anything to perturb my state ;-).
As I remarked elsewhere, no mechanism is suggested by which the warming sun triggered the development of photosynthesis. Thus, the cooling effect that resulted has to be placed in the happy accident basket. Suppose the forcing had been a weakening sun. The cooling from photosynthesis would have accelerated the cooling. Indeed, it could have reached a state just a little too cold for life, resulting in very long term cycles where…
show full comment
Mark Duffett
(logged in via Facebook)
Derek, my understanding is that, far from there being 'no evidence from prehistory for planet+life being more stable than planet alone', this is actually one of the main pillars of the Gaian hypothesis. You mention energy feedbacks and forcings that are cyclical or sporadic, but there's at least one very big one that's secular. Four billion years ago, solar energy input to Earth was 30% less than it is today, steadily increasing from then to now. Yet there's abundant geological evidence for liquid water (implying a quite narrow range of temperature/pressure conditions) on Earth for pretty much all of that time. This is the so-called 'faint young Sun paradox', and the Gaia hypothesis goes a long way to explaining it.
Having said that, to nail this down it'd be useful to know much more about the evolution of surface conditions on Venus and Mars than we currently do, they being the controls in the experiment.
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Mark,
In the absence of a mechanism, it's hard to claim this as an example of stability, let alone life-enhanced stability. Stability is a tendency to bounce back from perturbations. We know that photosynthesis removed a lot of co2 from the atmosphere, cooling the planet. There's evidence of a snowball earth being a result. If that's the reason earth's temperature hasn't gone up as much as it would without life, it's not a response to perturbation. The warming sun did not trigger the evolution of photosynthesis. Rather, it was sheer luck.
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Alex, response to post about mutations.
You are quite right about my wording in terms of "improvement", and believe me I do understand the process you describe, and you word them well. I refer to the collected changes as a whole as not being accidental because they were subject to the process of selection. Therefore if what I thought Derek was saying, which he was not, was that the first photosynthetic organisms arose by chance, as though they had dropped out of a hat, rather than being selected…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Caroline, thank you for further clarification. So when you say:
"I refer to the collected changes as a whole as not being accidental because they were subject to the process of selection."
You think then that a sequence of random events have some non-random purpose? It may indeed be that one random event then opens the possibility one other, later, random event to have more value for selection. But, it may as well not. We've no idea of the anti-selections that occurred after any single…
show full comment
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Derek,
If you have one system, Gaia etc., then it may or not be resilient to perturbations as you say, but then surely the perturbations would need to be major and possibly external e.g. asteroid. However if you have two intersecting systems, biotic and abiotic, it is possible that that interaction has resulted in increased if not permanent stability for one or the other, or both.
In my opinion the abiotic system if taken on its own is subject to the (better not say laws as I'll upset Alex…
show full comment
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"surely the perturbations [from which it does not resile] would need to be major"
You're not giving me any reason to suppose that is truer of a biotic system than of an abiotic one. We're all aware of the butterfly effect, whereby a chaotic (i.e. nonlinear) system can follow a very different trajectory from a small change in initial conditions. Are biotic systems any more or less linear than abiotic ones? I would have guessed less so.
"Furthermore no-one will ever convince me there is anything…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Caroline, you surely must wonder when reading: "no-one will ever convince me there is anything much on the positive side of e.g. earthquakes or tsunamis, and therefore perturbations certainly do not always lead to usable niches, and are inflicted on the biota by the abiotic system."
If you can't ever, ever be convinced of something, then why write so many words to us? Why go to school? That's religion.
And, as a biologist, do you really not understand the essential reality of nuclear fusion…
show full comment
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
A lot of what you say is very true Alex, but it does deny the "overall effects" of selection often as something that can generally be seen as an "improvement", and I reiterate that may not have been the greatest choice of word. But if you take say the discussion by Dawkins on the evolution of the eye (no I am not religious let me say that again I am a true believer in every sense which is a lot easier in Australia than the US so you may have me confused), then the gradual progression for whatever…
show full comment
Caroline Copley
student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Far from being a single random act in the first couple of billion years of the planet, the arrival of the first photosynthesizing organisms occurred as a result of a step-by-step process with genes promoted, discarded or ignored in natural selection, until sufficient complexity arose from the earlier protocells. There is an argument that the taming of the oversupply of the energy from the Sun by sufficiently complex organisms in a step-by-step catalytic process was highly likely to occur at some…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Wow, you've blasted through your previous word count, Caroline!
But, let's tease out some religiousity...
"There is no doubt a long period over which that level of complexity occurred, and the further development of the photosynthetic apparatus is also unlikely to have arisen out of thin air in a random act of chance"
"there is no doubt"; . "unlikely to have arisen out of thin air in a random act of chance" -- Belief system? religious assertions?
And who said one random event? We know…
show full comment
John Harland
bicycle technician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Gaia is a conceptual model useful in understanding certain aspects of the way the world and evolution work.
Fascinating that Dawkins rejected it, given his stubborn and contemptuous attitude to those who used models other than his "selfish gene" to explain evolution.
I might have missed it but in my scanning through the entire of the article and the comments I find no mention of Lyn Margulis. Where she is mentioned elsewhere, she is mentioned as a "contributor".
We know who was the great publicist of the idea but, given Margulis' previous work, and Lovelock's, I wonder who was the originator and who was the contributor to the idea of Gaia?
Ian Enting
(Professorial Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems at University of Melbourne)
It was a deliberate decision, given the word limit, not to explore Margulis's role, with a strong suggestion to the editor to commission an article on Margulis (by someone better qualified than me).
Sam Chafe
Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
I have a suspician that Paul Magnus might already be living on one of those plantets to which he's so keen to export our DNA ...
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
;] Hope he hasn't released any bodily fluid s to change its chemistry.