A catastrophy is an anthropic interpretation of an event which categorises it as essentially destructive. Naturally occurring 'catastrophes' however are clearly responsible for, in fact are an essential element of evolution in both biological and social contexts.
Major bio-evolutionary changes have been facilitated by natural 'catastrophes' such as trap volcanos or comet/meteorite impacts. Similarly societal evolution has been precipated by similar events such as a comet strike around 12,800 years ago.
Does catastrophism provide a mechanism for understanding and as such is it a science in its own right?
Catastrophy is one of the examples of (environmental/ physical/ chemical/ biological) change. The study of the causes and consequences of (environmental/ physical/ chemical/ biological) change is explored in different scientific fields.
Because catastrophe is not more than an interpretation, science would take the risk to consider it as a science per se?
Catastrophy is one of the examples of (environmental/ physical/ chemical/ biological) and can be used in terms of intensive studies and therefore one of the useful natural science
Barry:
Catastrophism has been an integral part of scientific discussions since ages, but Cuvier's suggestion of such events as driver of Evolution has been contested and rejected in favour of Uniformitarianism as essential element of Darwinian Evolution. Noteworthy is the fact that Natural Catastrophism causes biotic turnover only locally, whereas Uniformitarianism is of global nature caused by climatic perturbations of Natural Selection. It makes sense to accept natural catastrophism as essential part of scientific discourse.
Best
Syed
Is Catastrophism a science? Thanks for sharing dear @Barry. I would rather say that it is a theory...
What Is "Catastrophism" in Biology?
According to French paleontology-founder Georges Cuvier's doctrine of catastrophism, natural catastrophes cause local or species-wide extinctions that pave the way for new species. In this theory, species are immutable and don't change to give rise to other species, as is the case with the slow-moving process of evolution. Instead, the catastrophic removal of one species abruptly creates opportunities for the advancement of existing species...
http://sciencing.com/catastrophism-biology-21515.html
Catastrophism refers to the concept that major catastrophes, usually of worldwide consequence, were the primary agents in shaping the crust of the earth. Uniformitarianism refers to the concept that the changes took place as a result of normal processes operating over long periods of time. The terms have recently undergone some confusing changes in meaning from their classical use, but the contrast between the two modes of thought still remains.
Catastrophism loses out
1. Catastrophism was sometimes associated with supernatural intervention, and during the time of the debate science was emancipating itself from extraneous concepts, trying to explain everything within its own naturalistic framework. The theory of evolution, which was developing at that time, is a prime example.
2. Catastrophic events are unusual, and we do not readily take them into our thinking.
3. In order to establish scientific principles, it is highly desirable to test the hypotheses, to gain assurance that the conclusions are correct. It is much easier to test for normal processes than for unusual, catastrophic events, and the results of research are thus biased toward the more easily accessible, normal event. All these factors, and doubtless others as well, contributed to the rigorous application of uniformitarian interpretations in geology. The concept of the slow, constant rate of change is being challenged at many levels of geological interpretation, and catastrophes are again being considered as important geologic agents.
For more details , you can visit the following link:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1986/07/catastrophismis-it-scientific
I agree with Marcel and Syed. Geologic history is seen as a slow process of uplift and subsequent erosion, spreading landmasses and filling basins, etc. This, of course, includes the rise and decline of animal and plant life. However, I find the basic description of Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism per Wikipedia somewhat lacking and misleading.
Gabler, Sager, and Wise (Essentials of Physical Geology, 1991, pp.545) define Catastrophism as a "once-popular theory that all the earth's landforms developed in a relatively short time in catastrophic fashion." This is the primary rationale that Biblical scholars use to fit (or squeeze) the observed geology of the earth into a Biblical time-frame of only 6000 years or so.
Gabler, Sager, and Wise (1991, pp.558) define Uniformitarianism as a "widely accepted theory that the earth's landforms have developed over exceedingly long periods of time as a result of processes that may be observed in the present landscape." Monroe and Reed (Physical Geology: Exploring the Earth,1992, pp.21-22) say that "though the rates and intensities of geological processes have varied during the past, the physical and chemical laws of nature have remained the same". In this they say that "Uniformitarianism does not exclude such catastrophic events as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, or flooding". In fact, they also note that a series of short, punctuated events does not conflict with Uniformitarianism because the physical laws and chemical processes are still the same.
According to Monroe and Reed's view, the Yellowstone super volcano eruptions, the Kamchatka eruption, the Colombia basalt flow, the Chicxulub asteroid event, the Cambrian mass extinction, etc. are events that, while some lasted or affected a region for several million years, constitute only a small fraction of the planet's history. As such, these events helped periodically to shape the earth, but were not the primary forces behind the geology and geologic processes that we see today.
Insomuch as that is apparently the case, Catastrophism can be viewed as geological events that can be explained by science, but is not a science because those catastrophic events do not chain together to form a continuous history of the earth. Rather, these catastrophes are a series of individual events that are, more often than not, unrelated and that are separated by large amounts of time in which normal geologic processes are a matter of slow and steady build and erode.
JAG
If we are careful to weed-out pseudo-science (e.g., the religionist / creationist attempts to "prove" the Biblical myth of Noah's flood ... which story may have been based upon an actual catastrophic flood, such fact certainly CANNOT in-any-way prove the Noah myth) from the study of catastrophism, then, surely, it may be pursued as a legitimate scientific discipline.
Certainly, tectonism must be considered as the first great "proof" that a significant part of Earth's geologic history has been shaped by "catastrophic" events. One has only to consider the "threat" of the very active San Andreas Fault, and the subliminal fear of it that pervades the otherwise "sunny" disposition of modern-day care-free Californians, to see how "catastrophism" strongly affects social as well as geological history in some areas.
~~~
PS - some of my forebearers, I am told, refused to join family members already living in California, dissuaded by the Great San Francisco Fire of 1906 (caused by an earthquake) ... not that any of them understood anything about tectonism, but rather, considered earthquakes (and other disasters that took mass human life) as signs of the the disfavor of God, if not His punishment. I have (with my own ears) heard a great-uncle (one of those opposed to removing from Texas to California) refer to California as "that Sodom-and-Gomorrah of iniquity."
"Catastrophism is the theory that the Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. This was in contrast to uniformitarianism (sometimes described as gradualism), in which slow incremental changes, such as erosion, created all the Earth's geological features. Uniformitarianism held that the present is the key to the past, and that all things continued as they were from the indefinite past. Since the early disputes, a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed, in which the scientific consensus accepts that there were some catastrophic events in the geologic past, but these were explicable as extreme examples of natural processes which can occur.
Catastrophism held that geological epochs had ended with violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Plants and animals living in the parts of the world where such events occurred were killed off, being replaced abruptly by the new forms whose fossils defined the geological strata. Some catastrophists attempted to relate at least one such change to the Biblical account of Noah's flood.
The concept was first popularised by the early 19th-century French scientist Georges Cuvier, who proposed that new life forms had moved in from other areas after local floods, and avoided religious or metaphysical speculation in his scientific writings."
Bob,
I would certainly counter that tectonic activity is a natural process that fits easily into the Uniformitarianism point of view without evoking Catastropism. Tectonic activity occurs almost constantly in almost every part of the world, even relatively stable places like Kansas experience infinitesimal tremors daily. Earthquakes such as those that occur on or in association with the San Andres fault are only different in magnitude, not frequency.
I see Catastropism, especially pan-world events, as isolated incidences no different than one breaking and arm or a leg. It affects the short-term and can leave long-term traces, but normal geology is not predicated upon these events.
JAG
I don't think there is any merit in placing catastrophism in conflict with uniformitarianism/gradualism, it is clear that both have evolutionary effects in terms of both biological and societal nature.
We have a tendency to 'prefer' one theory over another as has been demonstrated by some epic debates on RG. What I am asking here is is the study of catastrophes precise enough to determine it as a science.
If we examine past catastrophes such as Chicxulub, Deccan Traps, Snowball Earth and those suggested to be responsible for the great extinction events can we use them as models for future such events?
Some modern Catastrophists suggest that man made climate change could result in something akin to a major extinction event on a scale of those above. I for one have always found the argument (and the 'science') highly suspect. I do however expect this 'catastrophe' to have profound effects on both biosystems and social systems.
Is it possible we can measure these in any empirical sense?
@Barry: "Is it possible we can measure these in any empirical sense?"
Sure, we can always measure (empirically) any catastrophe AFTER it has occurred ... but I think what you may be really interested in asking is if catastrophism may have any predictive value?
If that is the question, then the answer is "it depends" ... on what caused the catastrophe, and how well we understand the (dynamics of ... the science of) the system in which it occurred.
Barry,
I do believe the study of these catastrophic events can shed light on future events, or at least help us mitigate or prevent those future events. One problem, however, is that the cause(s) of many past catastrophic events are still undetermined or have conflicting theories of their cause. Thus these cannot be used in a scientific way to predict future occurrences until we can understand the past ones.
Barry,
Darwin theory of evolution was a gradualistic theory. But any examination of the fossil record, as Cuvier had done, show that evolution is not an uniform process.
Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is characterized by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is infrequently punctuated by swift periods of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record.
It is interesting that in 1962, Kuhn proposed a similar theory of scientific evolution where long period of small change within paradigm are followed by short period of revolutionary changes or paradigm shift.
It may be traced to the ancient Ionian philosophers, particularly Anaximenes from whom Aristotle, Hegel, and Engels inherited the Sorities Paradox.(when small changes give rise to big consequences ). For all these authors, one of the main illustrations is the phase transitions of water. In differential geometry, points of catastrophe are called singular points.
Mainz, Germany
Dear all,
In an important sense, catastrophe is quite common and a scientifically sound concept. See Brassard's reference to the discussions concerning evolution. Evolution has almost certainly been effected by purely accidental, catastrophe --as with the crash of a large meteor in the Yucatan, which is widely believed to have effectively caused a great extinction event --ending the reign of the dinosaurs.
More generally, one imagines dropping grains of sand onto a pile. This will slowly accumulate into a mound. The mound continually grows in a symmetrical manner to some point, when one further grain of sand will cause a collapse of the mound with comparatively large amounts of the material suddenly sliding down toward the base--a little landslide.
A good deal of social and political thought is devoted to the means and ways of preventing catastrophe --often by allowing smaller, regular and orderly change. Some, of course, don't like the constraint.
H.G. Callaway
There seems to be two kinds of Catastrophism, one a study of 'catastrophes' past and one of 'catastrophes future. The extinction events should perhaps not be categorized as catastrophes which is in essence an interpretation of events in human, rather than evolutionary terms.
The often wildly exagerated predictions of our impending doom from climate change, while using scientific language seem far removed from any real scientific discipline or method and very often look more like the musings of a medieval soothsayer. That is one form of 'catastrophism'.
The examination of phenomena such as extinction events is a more level headed form of catastrophism from which valuable data can be obtained regarding alterations to evolutionary pathways. It is only where this is highjacked and co-opted into what we might call popularist catastrophism that there can be a problem.
You might want to take a look at these books:
http://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Thom-Structural-Stability-and-Morphogenesis.compressed.pdf
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-93287-8_69
and others. Of course "catastrophe theory"" is a mathematical theory, with applications in natural science, whilst "catastrophism" sounds more like a metaphysical attitude.
Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and Neo-catastrophism are not sciences. They are paradigms used in the science of geology (earth science.) The catastrophists tended to believe that the bible was true, and the sudden breaks in the fossil record were the results of Noah's flood or such other events. The Uniformitarians, on the other hand, tended to believe that God had made a perfect world where such disasters could not happen, much like the climate sceptics today! Sir Archibald Geike, who stated that "the present is the key to the past", could not accept the idea of his brother, James Geike, that the Great Ice ace was not continuous and was formed of four major glaciations. Even Darwin accepted the paradigm presented by his friend Charles Lyell, and believed that the great gaps in the fossil record, which had been caused by mass extinctions, would one day be filled with more research.
Uniformitarianism became the ruling paradigm, resulting in doubt being cast on Barringer over his idea that his crater had been caused by a meteorite, on the the idea of J Harlen Bretz that the Scablands has been produced by a catastrophic flood,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands#History and that the dinosaurs had been wiped out by a collision with an extraterrestrial body.
Having been the ruling paradigm for over 100 years, Uniformitatrianism, has even penetrated into the minds of the general public who still believe that geological events only happen over vast periods of time, despite the evidence of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunami.
The new paradigm of Neo-catasrophism, slowly being adopted by geologists, includes the acceptance of abrupt climate change events, three of which have occurred in the last 15,000 years.
One scientist who is fully aware of these dangers is Prof Stephen Hawking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-40473841/stephen-hawking-at-75-trump-and-climate-change
@Barry ... after consideration, I wish to change my earlier answers to a simple "no" ... catastrophism is not a science.
~ best regards
If I understand the question correctly I think the answer should be No, Catastrophism should not be considered a science per se, but a Theory on which scientists base themselves on to follow their conducts and conclusions. In other words, and according to Karl Popper, If Catastrophism doesn't make conjectures and rejections, If It doesn't reach conclusions that can be verified or refuted, if it doesn't use inductive and deductive thinking methods, then the answer to your question should be No. Besides, Thomas Kuhn suggests that if "catastrophists" don't use shared specific vocabulary, common approaches and shared paradigms then they are only a community - not scientists. Concluding, catastrophists are usually scientists, not the other way around.
On the thread below is a discussion on the symbolism found at the Neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe with some speculation on one of the carvings, the Vulture Stone depicting a comet strike. It has been suggested that the culture/civilisation that built Göbekli Tepe was in some way a result of this cataclysm and that the ‘catastrophe’ could be the ‘event’ that changed human society.
This is a wild speculation but does fall in with a trend in some circles to see catastrophes as defining events in human history. It is that peculiar trend I am interested in here.
There is little to no evidence that Neolithic culture was in anyway shaped by this event (see Sweatman and Tsikritsis https://phys.org/news/2017-04-ancient-stone-pillars-clues-comet.html) or by earlier speculation about localised but widespread floods. Nevertheless to some researchers this seems to be a fascination.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_there_an_interval_of_more_than_only_30000_years_between_the_first_visible_traces_of_art_and_writing
Mainz, Germany
Dear all,
My prior argument was to the effect that "catastrophe" may count among scientific concepts. This is a bit different, of course, from claiming that there is an established, general science of catastrophes.
Consider again, my example of dropping grains of sand on to a pile and watching for a collapse at some point. I think this sort of thing might be predicted in principle, but one would have to know a good deal of the particulars, even to generalize from one material to another: E.g., what is the average weight and density and what is the typical character of the surfaces of the grains? Consider, in contrast, dropping grains of salt --a more regular crystal--on to a pile. Would the collapse come with just the same size and timing? I am sure I do not know. On the other hand, experts on these materials might have a better grasp of the generalities involved. Consider, again, dropping grains of common soil onto a pile. Would not the moisture content count into any reasonable expectations of a collapse?
Having said that, what may be of interest here is a recent pronouncement of Stephen Hawking on the dangers of climate change, according to the story available from NPR:
The Cambridge professor and renowned cosmologist made the remarks in an interview with the BBC that aired Sunday.
"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible," Hawking told the BBC. "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid."
---End quotation
See:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/03/535377270/stephen-hawking-trump-pushing-earths-climate-over-the-brink
Is this more politics than it is science? Many argue, of course, that there is good evidence of negative human effects on the environment. I am no expert on these questions. But I am not inclined to reject the scientific claims on the basis of generalized arguments against the possibility of a science of catastrophes.
H.G. Callaway
There is mathematical Catastrophe Theory which is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory and attached references.
It is related to Chaos Theory since both it and Catastrophe Theory are concerned with non-linear dynamical systems, which include the Earth System, and the climate system.
What I am arguing is that it is not only external events such as meteorite strikes and volcanic eruptions which can cause catastrophes. The climate system itself consists of negative and positive feedback loops which can lead to catastrophic events. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316656802_Abrupt_Climate_Change_explained_by_an_old_scheme_for_outgoing_long_wave_radiation
Poster Abrupt Climate Change explained by an old scheme for outgoin...
Mainz, Germany
Dear Turner & readers,
I am pretty sure that the existence of a mathematical theory of catastrophe and chaos, is less than what is sought in predicting the climate --or in our descriptions of biological evolution. We want to know, on an empirical basis, whether particular systems actually fit the relevant assumptions of catastrophic change as this may be expressed in purely mathematical terms. Mathematics, generally only allows you to calculate and predict an actual effect, given empirical evidence to start with.
You wrote:
There seems to be two kinds of Catastrophism, one a study of 'catastrophes' past and one of 'catastrophes future. The extinction events should perhaps not be categorized as catastrophes which is in essence an interpretation of events in human, rather than evolutionary terms.
---End quotation
Mass extinction should count as catastrophic, in contrast with the alternative notion of evolution as a smooth continuous process of change (Notice I didn't say, anything like "a smooth continuous development toward humanity.") What counts as continuous change and what may count as discontinuous or sudden, catastrophic change depends, I suppose on the salience provided by particular subject-matters; and purely formal definition will sometimes prove less interesting. But contrary to Turner, here, I'm inclined to say that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, represents a very significant discontinuity in the course of evolution, which allows insight into the fact that it may depend on many accidental events, large or small.
In the end, to evaluate a claim such as that we have seen from Hawking, one needs to look into the related scientific studies and results. Surely, he would agree. These studies themselves may be influenced by political considerations, but I think there is no way to sort out such questions except by looking to the scientific studies themselves. Surely, there must be a summary account of the matter in the scientific literature.What are the facts?
H.G. Callaway
Dr Towe "The Ides of March are come, Soothsayer."
Alastair "Aye, Caesar; but not gone."
Julius Caesar, Act III Scene 1. William Shakespeare.
The burning of carbon for fuel, especially in industry goes back well over 1000 years and even by the middle of the 12th century had devastated European forests to such an extent that it was becoming very difficult to find beams to use in large building projects.
One of the principle reasons was charcoal burning for iron smelting along with forest clearance for agriculture. In the rapidly dwindling forests of England and France alone thousands of furnaces were at work producing charcoal for the ironworks. According to Jean Gimpel in The Medieval Machine to produce 50Kg of iron took 25 cubic metres of wood. In forty days an iron smelter could clear an area with a radius of one kilometre before moving on. Using the classic formula πr2 it is not difficult to see why by 1300 CE that the forests of France alone had been reduced to a size 2 million hectares less than they are today. As early as 1230 timber was being imported into England because the home grown variety was getting scarce.
The authorities as early as 1282 were taking steps to reduce charcoal burning but it continued right up to the 18th century.
From as early as the 11th century coal was being mined as fuel and by the 13th coal fields were being exploited in France, England and what is today Belgium. The pollution from burning coal was already noted as a hazard in Nottingham in 1257. The burning of fossil fuels on an industrial scale to make iron and lime was established in Europe centuries before the period we call the industrial revolution. Its consequences were even then talked of as catastrophes.
What of course needs to be considered against this background of pollution and exploitation of natural resources is this. That had our ancestors not industrialized and exploited the land for industrial scale farming we would not have the luxury of being able to debate climate change or any other kind of catastrophe, that would of course be catastrophic!
As we know, the 19th Century was framed with the discussions among gradualism, catastrophism, and fixes. As mentioned above catastrophes was brought out by G. Cuvier. Since, we have learnt, indeed, that there are changes that happen suddenly, abruptly, and irreversibly.
Shall I mention that Darwin's theory is a catastrophic theory that Darwin himself interpreted and exposed as a a theory of gradualism due to extra-scientific reasons? Yes: The Victorian age.
Dear Joao,
I strongly support your recommendation for the reading of this insightful paper by Ambraseys (2005). It clearly reveals how archaeological data has been misused (misinterpreted) both by archaeologists and neo-catastrophists (not to mention the sensationalist press) to promulgate wild theories that have wrongly laid-the-blame on earthquakes for demise of past cultures/states.
Best regards,
Bob
Well, back to Barry's question. No one could ever say that catastrophism is a science. Not in the same tenure as gradualism cannot be said to be a science.
Those are/were interpretations of natural or social or biological phenomena.
As we all know, the crux of science are interpretations. Nt the data.
Dear Bob,
You are exactly right. Ambraseys was (is) one of my influences not only in seismology but also in hermeneutics and semiotics approaches. I was lucky enough to get an answer from him about exactly that article.
Best wishes
Joao
a science is open, facing the nature, therefore it is not catastrophic.
I have read the article linked by Joao Araujo Gomes, ARCHAEOSEISMOLOGY AND NEO-CATASTROPHISM by N. Ambraseys, but I am not impressed. It seems to me to be an attack on Neo-Catastrophism based on the straw man argument that earthquakes do not cause the end of societies. I do not know of anyone who has claimed that, but it has been well documented that the explosive eruption of the Santorini super volcano did. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption. It may even have caused the overthrow of the Chinese Xia dynasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption#Chinese_records
It was preceded by an earthquake which produced a tsunami, but it was the eruption, not the earthquake which caused the catastrophe.
The Toba supereruption 70,000 years before present produced a genetic bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory,
and the 1815 Tambora eruption produced The Year Without a Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
In other words. while it could be argued that earthquakes, e.g. the 1908 Sanfransisco Earthquake, do not cause catastrophes, volcanic eruptions certainly do.
The eruption of the super volcano Thera brought an end to the Protopalatial period of the Minoan civilisation but not the civilisation itself. Within decades a new series of buildings had been constructed marking the period known as the Neopalatial (1700-1400 BCE) Minoan civilisation survived also in its influence on emergent civilisations such as Mycenae and in the Peleponnese.
The main cause of the collapse of the Minoan civilisation was in fact due to the influence of Myceneans who began to settle Crete after 1450 BCE. While the tsunami caused by the Thera explosion would have caused severe damage to coastline settlements on Northern Crete other areas of the Island would have been largely unaffected. The Minoan civilsation, no doubt traumatised by the second biggest bang in human history, like most civilsations evolved out of existence rather than got blown away.
In the most general sense the concept of a catastrophe is an integral part of dynamical systems theory. For this reason "Catastrophism" could be considered a science. The formal proof of this statement was provided by R. Thom by construction of the catastrophe theory. Personally I consider this theory to be indispensable when analyzing the structural stability of any dynamical system.
The list of examples include chemical reactions, population dynamics, Earth climate and economy.
The main problem with the applications of the catastrophe theory outside of the idealized world of well defined mathematical models is the lack of precise definition of the structure for some systems.
For example, it is tempting to apply some of the concepts of structural stability to the Earth climate, unfortunately we still do not know enough to justify the use of formal mathematical methods, except of the most extreme cases such as major volcanic eruptions.
Dear Barry,
I, like Janusz, also understood catastrophy as the fast events compared to continous reactions in also more minor scale systems. So it is meant the same every scale. For example in steel, there is a change in behaviour from ductile to brittle ( brittle corresponds to catastrophic), and for loading rates lasting less than 1 ms, this is ruling. There is also a change at decreased temperature. Subjected to radiation, in the long run, its atomic structure cease to exist.
In view of this, there is need for a discussion about catastrophisms for objects of human size, especially humans, concerning levels of radiation from the new techniques, e.g. fibre networks. We know it seeks channels in the body, and makes channels, and has impact the eye also after exposure. Are there such discussions? I think they ceased and there is more trial and error now, and cleaning up is not considered as develpment to some.
The natural events often referred to as catastrophes or disasters are as essential to life on this planet as sunlight and oxygen. Life that is "as we know it". Without tectonic activity evolution would have been very different and 'we' probably would not be here.
We are therefore the product of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes. The 'disasters' are indeed part of the dynamic of life on Earth. It is interesting that we describe events from a supernova to an Earth tremor in terms of destructiveness. Both are events of creation rather than destruction. The bigger the supernova the hotter it is, the hotter it is the more essential elements it creates. We should measure a supernova in terms of its creativeness rather than its destructive force.
That said we might be in for a shock when Betelgeuse goes Bang!. It is a supernova in the making and in cosmic terms it's a near neighbour. This wonderful red giant is in the final stages of its life and could go off any time in the next million years, including tomorrow (it could even have gone of last year for all we know)
It will be an event worth watching.
@Alastair said: "I have read the article linked by Joao Araujo Gomes, ARCHAEOSEISMOLOGY AND NEO-CATASTROPHISM by N. Ambraseys, but I am not impressed."
Dear Alastair,
Perhaps that is because you read it as an engineer, and not as an archaeologist? We archaeologists are often able to read the important data "between the lines," because we are [multi-] inter-disciplinarians. And, [the best of our ilk, I refer here to the likes of N. Ambraseys and J. Gomes, not myself] try not to base our interpretations upon the dogma [biases] of a single discipline of science, nor sensational suppositions [even biblical ones]?
Mainz, Germany
Dear all,
If you will allow the brief observation, I'd say that this thread seems to wander around a great deal. I understand something of the particular perspectives and interests involved. I suppose some of these might be pursued separately--as in the sub-thread concerning archeology. But in general terms, there seems to be a good deal of jumping around from one topic to another.
I strikes me that is partly because a key term of the discussion "catastrophe" has both ordinary (very broad) usage, and some technical uses.If we ask, on a common-sense basis, say "was the financial melt-down of 2008 a catastrophe?" --we'd like get a lot of agreement. But if we ask, say, was the financial melt-down of 2008 a catastrophe is a scientific sense? --in that case, we'd have to ask detailed questions about economics. These are very different questions easily conflated.
So, one might make some distinctions--are there various particular sciences making use of the term "catastrophe"? Surely, there are --including some mathematical theory. On the other hand, one might ask, "Is the term catastrophe easily and uncontroversially applicable in every particular science of interest?" Here the answer seems to be negative. Still, even if the discussion should succeed in settling some of these more controversial or doubtful cases, this would not amount to an answer to the initial question "Is Catastrophism a science?" The discussion is unlikely to settle every debatable case. I think we have already seen that generalities about the scientific usage of the term are not sufficient to settle particular debates of particular sciences.
I am inclined to a general point: Although, we may not fully understand the application of the term catastrophe in every particular science, still that should not encourage us to risk catastrophes! It is true that the world as we know it may be the result of various catastrophes of various sorts, but it is a matter somewhat like treating violations of the law as precedent. The government may err and do the wrong thing, violate constitutional rights, etc., but the courts should never allow this as a positive precedent --justifying anyone continuing to do the wrong thing. In a similar way, humanity may have any number of catastrophes under our collective belts, some of this came from nature and some from humankind. Consider the economic and financial activities leading up to 2008.
I know of people who simply accept no responsibility for risking the credit of nations and the economic system of the world in pursuit of quick profits. Good may, indeed come of past evils. But that is not argument for lack of culpability. Nor is it an argument for doing the same again--especially on grounds of lack of full statement of the scientific case for avoiding looming catastrophe. Has anyone looked around for a statement of the matter--not yet on this thread?
H.G. Callaway
Dear H.G. Calloway,
Scientific generally study all experiments of Nature.
Best,
MTT
Perhaps if you consider the word 'Catastrophism' under Geology it must and should be a branch/part of SCIENCE (I come across some interesting slide).
It is endlessly fascinating that catastrophism is always seen as an 'opposite' view to uniformitariansm. This is the ever present false dicotomy which seeks to prefer one theory over another, as if it could only be one or the other.
It is more likely (applying the wise philosophy of Brother William of Occam) that evolution is a product of both in varying measures.
Mainz, Germany
Dear Telepova-Texier,
You wrote:
Scientific generally study all experiments of Nature.
--End quotation
Well, o.k. let's be genrous about this comment. Perhaps you mean, not,
Scientific generally study all experiments of Nature.
but, maybe,
The sciences (or science) studies all experiments of nature.
But there is still something of a problem, since "experiments" seems perhaps the wrong word, here?
Maybe, we should understand you to say, perhaps,
The sciences (or science) studies all (our) experiences of nature.
For it would be ungenerous to suggest that you think that sciences studies only experiments.
In any case, I fail to see how what you say could count as a reply to my prior note. Perhaps you just presume something that you do not understand? I see little understand of my prior note in your comment on it.
H.G. Callaway
Mainz, Germany
Dear Turner,
You seem to slowly be coming around to a reasonable view of your original question. You wrote:
It is endlessly fascinating that catastrophism is always seen as an 'opposite' view to uniformitariansm. This is the ever present false dichotomy which seeks to prefer one theory over another, as if it could only be one or the other.
It is more likely (applying the wise philosophy of Brother William of Occam) that evolution is a product of both in varying measures.
---End quotation
No one, or few in any case, these days, takes a purely one-sided view of such questions. But on the other hand, uncritical application of Occam's razor might just encourage the pursuit of a single all-encompassing explanation. In consequence, your mention of Occam actually distracts from the more general point you are making.
Lack of sufficient scientific or disciplinary background to discuss your question?
H.G. Callaway
Mainz, Germany
Dear all,
If you will allow the brief observation, I'd say that this thread seems to wander around a great deal. I understand something of the particular perspectives and interests involved. I suppose some of these might be pursued separately--as in the sub-thread concerning archeology. But in general terms, there seems to be a good deal of jumping around from one topic to another.
I strikes me that is partly because a key term of the discussion "catastrophe" has both ordinary (very broad) usage, and some technical uses.If we ask, on a common-sense basis, say "was the financial melt-down of 2008 a catastrophe?" --we'd like get a lot of agreement. But if we ask, say, was the financial melt-down of 2008 a catastrophe is a scientific sense? --in that case, we'd have to ask detailed questions about economics. These are very different questions easily conflated.
So, one might make some distinctions--are there various particular sciences making use of the term "catastrophe"? Surely, there are --including some mathematical theory. On the other hand, one might ask, "Is the term catastrophe easily and uncontroversially applicable in every particular science of interest?" Here the answer seems to be negative. Still, even if the discussion should succeed in settling some of these more controversial or doubtful cases, this would not amount to an answer to the initial question "Is Catastrophism a science?" The discussion is unlikely to settle every debatable case. I think we have already seen that generalities about the scientific usage of the term are not sufficient to settle particular debates of particular sciences.
I am inclined to a general point: Although, we may not fully understand the application of the term catastrophe in every particular science, still that should not encourage us to risk catastrophes! It is true that the world as we know it may be the result of various catastrophes of various sorts, but it is a matter somewhat like treating violations of the law as precedent. The government may err and do the wrong thing, violate constitutional rights, etc., but the courts should never allow this as a positive precedent --justifying anyone continuing to do the wrong thing. In a similar way, humanity may have any number of catastrophes under our collective belts, some of this came from nature and some from humankind. Consider the economic and financial activities leading up to 2008.
I know of people who simply accept no responsibility for risking the credit of nations and the economic system of the world in pursuit of quick profits. Good may, indeed come of past evils. But that is not argument for lack of culpability. Nor is it an argument for doing the same again--especially on grounds of lack of full statement of the scientific case for avoiding looming catastrophe. Has anyone looked around for a statement of the matter--not yet on this thread?
H.G. Callaway
Well back to the core of the issue, it is good to remember that "catastrophe" does nor entail any negative meaning, for there are positive or good catastrophes. Thus, catastrophes means a sudden, unpredictable and irreversible change. Not necessarily a negative one.
Mainz, Germany
Dear Towe,
I think you give one way to understand Occam's razor, but I would not place too much stress on the notion of assuming that all relevant information is known. Sometimes we do not even know what to count as relevant, and beyond that, requiring that all relevant information is known would seem to limit the applicability of Occam's razor excessively.
Here is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:
Definition of Occam's razor
: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
---End quotation
The point would be, then, that invoking two causes or kinds of causes, other things being equal, should be avoided. If we want to invoke multiple causes or explanations, then this depends on some special feature of the data to be comprehended.
I agree, of course, that "Its tough to make predictions." But on the other hand, it seems reasonable to suppose that the more energy and complexity we put into any given system (say, driving growth hard over decades with large-scale cheap credit), then the more likely we are to produce chaotic outcomes of one sort or another.
H.G. Callaway
---You wrote---
Occam's razor assumes, a priori, that all relevant information is known and available. We cannot say what we don't know to determine future catastrophes. As Yogi Berra once observed: 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future'.
---End quotation
To extend Yogi Berra's syllogism, since it is tough to make predications about the future we must assume that it is tough to know the relevance of data we have yet to encounter.
Occam's razor is not meant to be a scientific maxim rather it acts as a guide to the consideration of the data we have to hand. I am not sure that referring to the simplest solution or explanation fully encapsulates the 'razor'. The most likely explanation is more apposite.
If one finds a complex pattern of circles and lines in a wheat crop it is possible that an intelligent life form capable of defying the currently understood laws of physics went to the vast expense of developing an interstellar space programme, flew all the way to Earth across many light years of space while making an enormous effort to remain undetected simply to spend an evening doodling in a wheat field.
On the other hand it likely could have been some dumbass with a length of rope and a stick. I wonder what Frater William would have made of it
Yogi Berra could probably shed some light on it, he is smarter than the average Berra.
Ken,
The Merrian Webster dictionary defines catastrophe as "a sudden violent event that brings about great loss or destruction", and "godsend, manna, windfall" as near antonyms. Those three seem to emphasize that catastrophes always lead to bad outcomes.
However, the opposite of Catastrophism is Uniformitarianism or Gradualism. If you think of Gradualism as a linear system, then Catastrophism is a non linear system, especially those described by Catastrophe Theory ( Zeeman, Scientific American, April 1976; pp. 65–70, 75–83 at: http://www.gaianxaos.com/pdf/dynamics/zeeman-catastrophe_theory.pdf ).
The Chicxulub impact may have been a disaster for the dinosaurs, but without it, it is unlikely that we mammals and humans would be here today! One should not reject the possibilities of catastrophe just because most are unpleasant.
Mainz, Germany
Dear Towe,
It only makes much sense to apply Occam's razor in preference for some particular hypothesis in relation to a give state of knowledge. Change the state of knowledge--particularly by enlarging the range of evidence, and all bets are off. One might think of this as a preference for examining the simplest hypothesis first --which is adequate to the evidence so far assembled.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
H.G.... Other things are rarely equal. Occam's razor is a useful guide. What may seem the simplest today wasn't so "parsimonious" in the past.
---End quotation
Ken,
If you are going to quote Yogi Bear, can I quote Dr Stephen Hawkins?
"We are close to the tipping point, where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees [Celsius], and raining sulfuric acid" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726
Alistair
Professor Hawking is a brilliant man but when he makes statements like that Yogi Bear is definitely smarter. He knows full well that it is not possible to make Earth like Venus so I suspect he was being sarcastic when he said that.
Mainz, Germany
Dear Turner,
Occam's razor is usually identified with conception of simplicity, though in fact simplicity is no simple matter. But you are going in the wrong direction to suggest extending it to what is regarded as "likely."
You wrote:
Occam's razor is not meant to be a scientific maxim rather it acts as a guide to the consideration of the data we have to hand. I am not sure that referring to the simplest solution or explanation fully encapsulates the 'razor'. The most likely explanation is more apposite.
---End quotation
Often enough, "Don't multiply causes beyond necessity," is indeed treated as a scientific of methodological maxim. "Likelihood," is sometimes, or usually, interpreted as a matter of chance of statistical inferences. Elsewhere, its equivalent to plausibility. Many factors enter into judgements of likelihood or plausibility other than comparative simplicity. For example, a hypothesis will often be judge more plausible, however complex, if it preserves more of prior accepted theory than various competing alternatives. It will be preferred, because it requires us to change less of prior accepted theory.
Notice, too, that a very complex theory or hypothesis may be preferred on grounds of what is called elegance. Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time, for example is quite complex, but typically judged quite elegant.
Overall, many factors other than simplicity enter into preferences for hypotheses.
H.G. Callaway
Science is about the order in reality but not all of reality is ordered. Science is what human have so far conceived of this order but also conceived of the limit of this ordering. If the world would be totally ordered then the past would totally determined the future but it is not the case. High probability in prediction can be achieved in some domain but not in other. In some case it may be due to our lack of knowledge and in some case it may be due to the nature of the domain. Some systems are very stable and other are unstable (chaotic) and other may be stable most of the time but switch to different domain of stability from time to time.
Artur,
A plane does not have limits, it is infinite but it has the limit to be a plane. Anything has limit. Scientific knowledge is not limited in the sense that it will not be completed in the future but it is limited to be a certain type of knowledge, to be tested, etc and there are domain where it is peripheral and is not going to be central because not all aspect of reality are fixed and ordered. Every science is limited and knowing this limit is integral to it and integral to what it is.
Barry,
Dr Hawking is smarter than the average man, and is aware that if the planet becomes warm enough it will start giving off carbon dioxide on its own, first because the oceans are warming. The increase in CO2 from the oceans will make the atmosphere even warmer until limestone begins to break down into quicklime and more carbon dioxide.
In other words, we will be faced with a positive feedback loop between temperature and carbon dioxide leading to runaway warming, just as it is believed happened on Venus.
Hawking has experienced catastrophe, and knows they can occur, unlike your normal man. That is the basis of climate change denial, a firm belief that catastrophes do not occur in history, and cannot occur in the future.
BTW, we will not experience an abrupt warming on the scale of Venus, but the Earth did experience an abrupt warming from a runaway greenhouse 50M years ago during the PETM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Apart from being approximately the same size (actually slightly smaller) as Earth Venus has nothing else in common. It is not tectonically active, has no moon and has never had any form of life as far as we are aware or for that matter was likely.
Venus is much closer to the Sun than Earth and its axis is far less tilted than that of Earth meaning that the planet does not experience annual temperature variations. Its surface is almost uniformly flat and were it to have surface water more than 80% of it would be submerged. For those reasons it is very much hotter and that is the principle reason for the runaway greenhouse effect.
The lack of a substantial moon and no oceans makes the crust less motile and not subject to tectonic activity. That too makes it difficult for the planet to cool.
In short Venus has little in common with Earth and climate change of the variety we are witnessing would not turn Earth into a new Venus, ever. Professor Hawking knows that quite well.
During the Ordovician-Silurian and Jurassic Cretaceous CO2 levels were substantially higher than those of today but it did not result in runaway global warming. The Earth was a dynamic living planet in all four of those geological periods with substantially evolved life affecting CO2 and mountain orogeny caused by tectonic activity. Unlike Venus with virtually no mountains and certainly no life.
We are still of course living on a living planet and although we can’t see it one being affected by substantial tectonic activity. The Mediterranean for instance is closing up and at some point in the future there will be a mountain range in southern Europe far higher than the Alps.
The closest Earth is going to get to being like Venus is when our sun runs out of hydrogen and becomes a Red Giant. That is currently estimated to be around 4.5-5 billion years from now so the IPCC does not need to place that high on its list of priorities.
Climate change is a serious business and it needs addressing whether it is caused by man or not. It is highly unlikely that we can stop it or, even if we could that such an intervention would be positive. What we need to be doing is using our scientific knowledge to devise a method of adapting to it. That is a far better use of grey matter than dreaming up doomsday scenarios.
Mainz, Germany
Dear Towe & readers,
You may not like to consider the eventuality, but the scientific meaning of catastrophe is simply different from the common-sense meaning--which is indeed linked to particular human (or other living) interests.
You wrote:
"The Chicxulub impact may have been a disaster for the dinosaurs, but without it, it is unlikely that we mammals and humans would be here today!"
It was a catastrophe for the dinosaurs and some other organisms. That it was a "godsend or a windfall" for small mammals leading to humans is historical retrospective and hindsight.
---End quotation
What is subtle in this comment is the phrase ""disaster for," and "catastrophe for." For whom?" one naturally asks. In effect you are refusing to distinguish between the common-sense and scientific meanings.
Of course on that basis, it is pretty easy to talk about catastrophe while avoiding any scientific considerations. But, contrary to your claims, the meteor impact was a regular catastrophe in the course of evolution, since the comparatively smooth and more regular evolution of the dinosaurs was interrupted and replaced by other processes--that was a catastrophic change in the course of evolution, regardless of what animals may have been harmed or benefited.
Evasion of the point will get you nowhere, IMHO.
H.G. Callaway
Barry,
Venus is often referred to as Earth's twin. https://www.universetoday.com/36711/earths-twin/
This is because it is roughly the same size and distance from the Sun, and so it is assumed that it originally had the same composition as the Earth. The two planets have evolved along different paths, but that does not mean that the Earth could at some time follow the same path as Venus, especially as the Sun is continuously getting hotter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#The_Sun_and_planetary_environments
Although it will take another 3.5 billion years until the Earth receives the same radiation as Venus today, we do not know how long ago Venus had its runaway warming, so Earth could be heading for that state earlier than we expect.
I think what you are asking really is "Is Neo-Catastrophism scientific?" My reply is a resounding "Yes!"
Even before the fatal blow to Uniformitarianism by the discovery of the Chixculub impact, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium had already been proposed to replace gradualism in evolutionary biology. Over the last fifty years even more examples of catastrophes have been discovered to help establish Neo-Catastrophism. Prior of the Phanerozoic Eon, the Earth was covered in ice during two periods described as Snowball Earths. Since then there have been five major extinctions including the K-P which included the dinosaurs. One of these occurred during the Ordovician/Silurian, a period you seem to regard as idyllic despite the ice age which happened then.
As I already noted, there was a minor extinction at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary which seems to have been caused by a natural release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It has been estimated that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ten times the rate that happened then. of the same order as the CO2 that has been added by mankind. https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2681.html
No doubt you have heard about the Younger Dryas stadial, when after leaving the last glaciation the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to glacial conditions again. What is not so well known is that at the Younger Dryas ended in as little as three years and the Holocene began. Temperatures in Greenland jumped by 20 C. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/0691102961
Surely you agree that these events should be investigated, in case they are about to happen again?
Alistair
I totally agree that climate should be investigated along with all other aspects of the Earth's evolution. What I do not agree with is utterly crazed predictions of impending climate disaster based in the main on ideological rather than scientific bases.
The reason that it 'is not so well known' that the Younger Dryas ended in as little as three years is because it did not. Neither is there going to be a repeat of this event anytime soon except in the vivid imaginations of ideologues.
I am not a climate change denier and I fully accept that humans influence the climate (trees do too, look what happened during the carboniferous) I do of course object to silly actors, politicians and general consumers of nut-roasts making ridiculous claims that we are on the brink of Armageddon because the climate varies over the centuries.
The Chixculub impact did not deliver a 'fatal blow' to uniformitarianism. It was never authoritative in the first place. I do like the concept of punctuated equilibrium, it represents a sensible mix of both philosophies rather than a ridiculous ideological adherence to one or the other.
There is a book here by a respected geologist which describes what I call Neo-Catastrophism https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/New-Catastrophism-Importance-Rare-Event-Geological-History/0521483581
Note the Wikipedia entry describes something entirely different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocatastrophism
Barry,
"The end of the Younger Dryas cold event in Greenland snow accumulation occurred in one to three years, the change in windiness in Venezuela occurred in ten years or fewer." [Alley, R., 2014, Figure 12.1 p. 117.] It is not just evolution that has punctuated equilibrium, the climate system has it too.
As far as I know the cause of the end of the Younger Dryas is still unknown. Do you have an explanation? Until the cause is established I cannot see how we can be sure a similar event will not happen again.
My answer is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316656802_Abrupt_Climate_Change_explained_by_an_old_scheme_for_outgoing_long_wave_radiation
Poster Abrupt Climate Change explained by an old scheme for outgoin...
There is a mountain of speculation about the Younger Dryas but a cold event in Greenland snow is a localised event not global climate change. The climate of Greenland has fluctuated significantly in written history allowing for temporary colonisation of areas, now unsuitable for cultivation, until the 16th century.
These micro events are not indicative of global climate change, as you are well aware for every one of these selected localised events there is a counter argument based on opposite observations.
We cannot be sure that a major event will not happen in the planet's climate, that is the whole point and we most certainly cannot be sure of the effects of deliberately trying to manipulate it.
The issue here is whether naturally occuring events are 'catastrophes'. Climate change is a naturally occuring event that has influenced evolution throughout the planet's history. The biosphere has adapted everytime there has been a dramatic change in the global climate and will do this time. It is simply nonsensical to describe climate change in apocalyptic terms.
If over the next half a millennium there is significant change in the global climate then as sea levels rise vast areas of Tundra will be defrosted. Increased rainfall (an obvious consequence of rising sea levels) will make deserts habitable again for animals and humans. Putting it bluntly we may have to move.
We obviously need to employ science for the benefit of humanity rather than Chicken Little. Humans are the most adapatable creatures in the planet's history (not counting prokaryotes) so a fiddling little problem like a rise in global temperature will not see us off just yet. A large asteroid might or a comet like Swift-Tuttle might but the latest prediction is it will miss. Lets hope the science that decided that is more precise than that of climate change or August 21st 2126 is going to be a real bad day!
While doing my Ph.D. in image analysis and vision in the mid 90's, I conceived a general approach to image analysis and vision which as a kind of physics of images. I had previously researched the role of symmetry in mathematics, physics, arts, and perception. I was particularly interested to the relation between structure in nature and their formative history. IN different sciences, biology, geology, anthropology, linguistic, mathematics, cosmology, particle physics, Hiearchical Structure IS History. The past is frozen into structural hiearchy in all of these phenomenal domains. I set for my task to establish a physics of image based on this principle and to see how natural vision system have evolved to reflect the hiearchical structure of the image world and how mammalian imagination and human imagination evolved from there. In a sense I came out with a catastrophism science. Catastrophic events which are symmetry breaking events cannot be predicted by such science; this science is about the recovering the formative history from hiearcical structures which are the frozen results of these catastrophic events. In essence our imagination and vision system and all our senses proceed essentially as structure grow, and as all science grow.
Barry and everyone else,
I take catastrophism to mean the acceptance that abrupt change can happen. The change in snow happened once. After that heavy snow fell every year.Temperatures also rose by at least 10C at the same time. In other words, from a scientific POV a catastrofic change does not need to be apocalyptic only abrupt.
Your vision of the climate changing slowly over the next half millennium is just wishful thinking. The climate system is either dominated by negative feedbacks and it either changes very slowly if at all, or it is dominated by positive feedbacks and it changes quickly or a runaway change takes place.
So long as people believe we have 500 years to adjust, or even 50, there will be no action taken and disaster will ensue!
Ken,
perhaps you have not read my last missive, so I will summarize it again here.
In a perfectly catastrophic system, the temperature will remain steady antil a tipping point is reached whereupon there will be an abrupt jump (up or down) into a ne regime where the temperature again remains constant, e.g.
"So long as people believe we have 500 years to adjust, or even 50, there will be no action taken and disaster will ensue!"
Could I just ask what the risks are associated with the 'taking of action', in particular what action is proposed here and over what period of time? You evidently advocate less than 50 years, could that perhaps lead to an abrupt consequence with catastrophic results?
Significant steps are being taken to increase the world's supply of renewable energy already. If we are talking short term are we perhaps considering forcing the issue?
I fear that such action might be catastrophic!
The urgency for action is discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2020/
It is already too late to prevent the Greenland ice sheet melting and a sea level rise of 7 m. What is that going to do to London and every other major port. But we can see a major wild/forest fires in Portugal and Canada already this year. Moreover, when there is a catastrophe such as a drought then civil wars break out as people fight for food. This is what is happening in the Middle East. The authorities claim the famines are man made because of the wars, but it is the climate that has caused the wars.
Just as the Santorini eruption caused the wars that led to the end of the Minoan civilization.
"It is already too late to prevent the Greenland ice sheet melting"
Only because it isn't melting!
Oh! and if it really was 'too late' whats the point in worrying?
"Just as the Santorini eruption caused the wars that led to the end of the Minoan civilization."
The Thera eruption did not cause any such wars, unless the belligerents had very long memories.
Famines are in fact man made. You may wish to note that they rather predate any of the current political ideologies formulated around faux science and are more to do with money and hegemony. Something the IPCC and the Paris Accord have little in the way of solutions to, or for that matter any interest in.
Could I please ask what climate event caused World War One?
Barry,
I wrote:
"It is already too late to prevent the Greenland ice sheet melting"
and you responded
"Only because it isn't melting!"
You may claim not to be a climate sceptic, but that ill-informed denial shows you to be a climate change denier. Here are the facts from a leading peer reviewed journal, Science: "The great Greenland meltdown" By Eli Kintisch Feb. 23, 2017
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown
Catastrophes can happen and the melting of the Greenland ice sheet will be one. The melting of the ice sheet will accelerate until it passes a tipping point and the sheet collapses leading to a sudden rise in sea level, MWP-1D. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_10/
Alistair
The correct approach to science is doxasticism not belief. Doxasticism is the philosophy of doubt required in all scientists. Scepticism should not be confused with cynicism here. Belief is for religious adherents, politicians and environmental campaigners.
I said in an earlier post that I accept that the climate is changing. There appears to be sufficient scientific data to support that, although it is far from certain and its consequences are utterly unknown. In truth the climate is always changing, we can actually observe scientific data to demonstrate that because it is in the past. Making predictions and claiming them to be scientific fact is an outrageous fraud.
What there is no scientific data for is the rather strange notion that the current phase of climate change will result in some cataclysm. This is predicated by taking examples of multiple extreme events and adding them up to make one big one. If the Chicxulub impactor had been broken into a thousand bits before it hit the Earth the multiple small impacts would probably not have caused the Cretaceous mass extinction.
As for the melting of the Greenland ice cap which accounts for just short of 10% of the planets ice sheets even by the outlandish claims of Al Gore only 8000ths of 1% of Greenland’s ice was melting every year. I do not think we need to do the math here. If there is a tipping point (there is no scientific data that supports one) it is a long way off.
Precipitation in Greenland in 2015-2016 shows an above average snowfall (see diagram) maybe the catastrophists should start warning us of an impending Ice Age.
Greenland’s ice melted at a far faster rate during the medieval period only to recover and increase again post the 16th century. If there was going to a be a tipping point it would have been then. Can any of the soothsayers predicting collapse and sudden melting explain why it has not happened before?
At the other end of the globe precipitation studies have determined that the Antarctic ice sheet is actually thickening (An Inconvenient Truth) see Zwally, H. J. et al. J. Glaciology, Hanna, E. et al. Nature 498, 51–59
On a final note I return to your quote "It is already too late to prevent the Greenland ice sheet melting". This is predicated on some bizarre assumptions. Firstly by what mechanism was this ‘prevention of melting’ going to take? And how is it demonstrated that it is ‘too late’?
It is incumbent on all to question assertions made on climate change (not so much an inconvenient truth but an imprecise science) rather than accept sensational claims as fact.
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the IPCC Scientific working group 1994
“A global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilsed mankind, is a very real possibility and may be due very soon”
- Dr George Kukla and Dr Robert Matthews in a letter to President Nixon in 1972 warning of an impending massive cooling of the planet.
Barry,
Perhaps you should doubt your firm belief that catastrophes will not happen in the future, when all the evidence is there that they have happened in the past.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education