Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

[Rum]

The guy who invented the Gaia theory says its too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 594561.stm

[Pappa]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

[JimC]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

As far as his views of the Earth as being an organism, yes, but he did give a useful model of feedback on a global scale, just interpreted it in a manner that went one step too far...

[Pappa]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

As far as his views of the Earth as being an organism, yes, but he did give a useful model of feedback on a global scale, just interpreted it in a manner that went one step too far...

I agree with his opinion that we're basically fucked, but not anything he ever has to say about science. The details of his Gaia theory (and not just the Earth Organism bit) show such a lack of critical thinking and understanding of other realms of science, he's just talking out of his arse.

[RuleBritannia]

Not being funny... but the guy who invented the Gaia theory is mostly full of shit.

Hypothesis, not theory.

[JimC]

To me, Lovelock's only major craziness is his somewhat mystical identification of the whole Earth as a living organism. His opinions on global warming and nuclear power are shared with many others, and although aspects of them may be debatable, they are firmly within the normal range of mainstream science.

Fusion, please, although I know it is a forlorn hope that always seems 5 years away...

[Tigger]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

[Rum]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

If one leaves out the 'organism' idea, at the heart of what he says it that the planet is a self regulating system, which is 'managed' by feedback. This makes sense to me, though the feedback may not of course result in a set of parameters which suit human beings!

[RuleBritannia]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and theologian, but we don't dismiss physics because of it.

[Tigger]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

If one leaves out the 'organism' idea, at the heart of what he says it that the planet is a self regulating system, which is 'managed' by feedback. This makes sense to me, though the feedback may not of course result in a set of parameters which suit human beings!

I can see that, yes, but the fact that he had the "organism" idea in the first instance makes me question his sources and any bias towards his "preferred" findings and outcomes. I know there's a global warming debate elsewhere, but what about the CO2 from all the geological activity that's already (and always has) supposed to have a huge impact on the creation of greenhouse gasses. Are humans making that much difference? I am uninformed, I suppose, and I really should look into the global warming issue. But I agree with you, Rum. Do we have any sceptics here? I could look ...

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and theologian, but we don't dismiss physics because of it.

When Lovelock creates equations and data that back up his "findings" the same way that Newton did, then I will believe him. Until then, it's talk.

[RuleBritannia]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and theologian, but we don't dismiss physics because of it.

When Lovelock creates equations and data that back up his "findings" the same way that Newton did, then I will believe him. Until then, it's talk.

Calling it "a load of fucking bollocks" is not taking a neutral position where you can reserve judgement for a later date, you clearly object to what he's saying, in which case you should provide reasons for that objection, not red herrings.

[Tigger]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and theologian, but we don't dismiss physics because of it.

When Lovelock creates equations and data that back up his "findings" the same way that Newton did, then I will believe him. Until then, it's talk.

Calling it "a load of fucking bollocks" is not taking a neutral position where you can reserve judgement for a later date, you clearly object to what he's saying, in which case you should provide reasons for that objection, not red herrings.

I provide as much science as he does, but as he's the one seeking attention and he has provided no new data, I'll await that before I feel the need to refute his words. In the meantime, until he does, I'll repudiate his utterings, thank you anyway.

[kraut]

To me, Lovelock's only major craziness is his somewhat mystical identification of the whole Earth as a living organism

There is nothing mystical about Ll - what he says is that organic live has developed feedback mechanisms that help to sustain live on earth.
The environment is mainly controlled by actions of single cell organisms.
It was those after all who started to enrich the atmosphere with oxygen.

As to the rest - who really says that fission is a sustainable option?
What about the resources of fissile material? I have read that those resources are even more limited than oil resources. And breeder technology...that was a joke that was abandoned in Germany over ten years ago after billions of deutschmarks.
And what about nuclear waste disposal - any safe storage out there?

[Fact-Man]

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

If one leaves out the 'organism' idea, at the heart of what he says it that the planet is a self regulating system, which is 'managed' by feedback. This makes sense to me, though the feedback may not of course result in a set of parameters which suit human beings!

I can see that, yes, but the fact that he had the "organism" idea in the first instance makes me question his sources and any bias towards his "preferred" findings and outcomes. I know there's a global warming debate elsewhere, but what about the CO2 from all the geological activity that's already (and always has) supposed to have a huge impact on the creation of greenhouse gasses. Are humans making that much difference? I am uninformed, I suppose, and I really should look into the global warming issue. But I agree with you, Rum. Do we have any sceptics here? I could look ...

There are a few, see in the global warming thread.

C02 is, as you seem to be aware, a naturally existing gas in our atmsophere. We can identify and differentiate man-made C02 from naturally produced CO2 because they have different and unique isotopes in their molecular structures. The natural presense of C02 is about 250-280 ppm, learned by examining air samples trapped in ice cores drilled from ancient ice in Greenland and in Anatarctica; that's the concentration the air exhibits and it is considered to be the normal background level of CO2 in our atmosphere, no contribution by man.

Today the concentration of C02 is running right at 380 ppm, 100 ppm denser than the "normal" density measured over millennia in those ice cores. That increase is from man-made C02, you and me driving our cars and all the zillions of internal combustion engines in use to run industry and operate civilization, economies and such. This density is measured at 14,000 feet on the peak of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where the big Keck telescope is located, same peak. It is constantly monitored. It is rising of course because we keep burning fossil fuels. The more it rises the warmer it's gonna get. I think the current estimates are that you can expect an additional 2C of temp for every doubling of CO2. And we are on a trajectory to double the concentration to 760 ppm by mid to late this century. One of the biggest debates in climate science right now is over that number, which is known as the forcing, while the climate's sensitivity to it is measured by how much it heats up.

It's possible the forcing could be more than 2C per doubling, it might actully turn out to be something more. It's also possible though much less probable, that the number is lower. The question we're trying to answer is how much temp increase can we expect to experience from the C02 we're adding? Better resolution of this question would enhance the accuracy of predictions, and better resolutions are coming in on the beat and as we speak as the science moves forward.

A for Lovelock and Gaia, if you consisder for a moment that all living things are in some manner interconnected/interdependent, then the idea of the earth being a single living organism makes complete sense, albeit it isn't the earth it's the biosphere, which happens to dwell upon the earth and make its living from it. thanks in large part to the process of photosynthesis and the hydrologic cycle of the planet. It's certainly not a "crank" notion or idea, but it does take lots of imagination and a good knowledge of systems and biology to get it, to see it, to apprehend it.

The biosphere is one vast organism because all living things that comprise it are related and constantly interact in some fashion or other, even if sometimes it takes five millennia for an interaction to unfold. This is easy to see in a given ecosystem; harder to see on a planetary scale. But the biosphere is just a collection of interacting ecosystems and to my mind it isn't difficult to see it as "one organism," not at all. It probably helps to have some knowledge and experience in the science and engineering of systems with a very heave dose of biology and a good deal of time in the field looking at the earth, watching it, observing it, seeing its changes (which are often subtle, sometimes quite so).

What a load of fucking bollocks. I have difficulty in taking anything seriously from someone who has such a crank idea as the "theory that the whole earth is a single organism". You've got to question the bias of his sources for other ramblings if he can earnestly spout such tosh.

Isaac Newton was an alchemist and theologian, but we don't dismiss physics because of it.

When Lovelock creates equations and data that back up his "findings" the same way that Newton did, then I will believe him. Until then, it's talk.

Lovelock's hypothesis involves a hugely complex system, which isn't easily reduced to "equations and data." But it isn't difficult to demonstrate the connectedness of all living things, which exist in food and dependency chains for example. Trees and plants are dependent upon pollinization, mammals and reptiles are dependent upon trees and plants; these chains are complex but they are easy enough to see and to document. Many biolgical theories and natural laws support Lovelock's contention. And logic supports it too.

If you can provide some theoretical basis for rejecting the Gaia hypotheses I might listen, but so far all you've done is offer some rudimentary opinions and talk, no facts or evidence or even conjectures or arguments about the hypothesis being fatally flawed. If you wish others to accept your Lovelock bashing, I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better than that.

[RuleBritannia]

You got mine and Tigger's quotes the wrong way round. You'll be hearing from my lawyer shortly.