Big Brains and Climate Change

[Harold Squared]

Yesterday watching "Hacking the Universe:Why We Left Earth", I noticed the guy comparing different skulls and relating periods of rapid climate change were coinciding to increases in cranial capacity. I confess it seems superficially plausible and would like to get your responses.

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited June 12, 2015 by Harold Squared

[iNow]

Cranial capacity <> intelligence or ability to adapt, survive, or pass on genes, though the smarter and more adaptable among us tend to be better equipped amid rapidly changes climatic conditions and thus tend to have more offspring than those less capable of adapting / adjusting behavior in the face of ecological insult (unless, of course, the ignorant and self-interested masses around them prevent the implementation of large scale required mitigations).

[Harold Squared]

So those who profit from climate change have large families? According to public record, Al Gore has four children while Richard Lindzen has only two. Now we need to figure out who has more brains. Of course this would be anecdotal evidence, but judging from the membership here there are quite a few who care about such.

 

 

 

And please identify your source when making such assertions.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Harold Squared

[iNow]

Do you struggle with basic reading comprehension, are you intentionally putting forth a strawman, or are you a moron? Perhaps more than one of these apply?

[Harold Squared]

Do you struggle with basic reading comprehension, are you intentionally putting forth a strawman, or are you a moron? Perhaps more than one of these apply?

Posts are supposed to be civil, according to the moderators. Both Gore and Lindzen have derived considerable notoriety from the recent issue of climate change but one has twice as many children as the other. Is this significant and if so, why? And which has the bigger brain and/or cognitive capacity?

 

In any case, the original post concerned rapid climate change of purely natural origin, early in the prehistory of our species, specifically in the Rift Valley of Africa. It is a terrific show, you should see it.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Harold Squared

[iNow]

I'll take that as a yes.

[Harold Squared]

What, no cartoons? You must be slipping.

 

Anyway, let us look at the evidence, just for fun, shall we? Regarding the Lindzen/Gore comparison, just for kicks, let's see if any indicative awards have been garnered by either one and what people in a position to know have to say about them.

 

LINDZEN: received Regents' and National Merit Scholarships before attending Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Harvard University. From Harvard ultimately obtained Ph.D. in applied mathematics, 1964, and held faculty position there from 1972-1983, as well as positions at University of Oslo, University of Chicago, University of Washington, UCLA and a little place called MIT. Member, National Academy of Sciences, Norwegian Academy of Arts and Letters, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. ISI highly cited researcher and author of numerous publications, awarded by both foreign and domestic scientific organizations on at least four occasions.

Described by personal acquaintances as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." (Wikipedia)

 

GORE:Prep school jock, not good enough for any scholarship, attended Harvard where is known to have smoked pot but graduated A.B. cum laude 1969. Army boot camp, april 1970 Soldier of the Month, honorable service in Vietnam as journalist. Civilian journalist and dropout of both Vanderbilt Law and Divinity Schools. U.S. Congressman from Tennessee, serving on Energy and Commerce and Science and Technology committees among others. Vegan. Maybe. Whatever. Received Nobel Peace Prize, Primetime Emmy Award, Webby Award, Prince of Asturias Award and Grammy Award.(Wikipedia)

Recurring character on "Futurama" animated series.(Futurama)

Described by "Grist" publication as "...transforming into fiery climate evangelist" (June 10, 2005)

 

I guess that time at Vanderbilt Divinity wasn't wasted after all.

 

Returning to the topic, how long and how severe would such periods have to be? What other effects were present?

Edited June 14, 2015 by Harold Squared

[John Cuthber]

Yesterday watching "Hacking the Universe:Why We Left Earth", I noticed the guy comparing different skulls and relating periods of rapid climate change were coinciding to increases in cranial capacity. I confess it seems superficially plausible and would like to get your responses.

 

Thanks in advance!

Ask an elephant or a sperm whale.

Since they have large cranial capacities they must be very clever so they will understand it better than you can.

[Harold Squared]

Do you intend to imply said species are similarly affected by climate change, Richard?

 

Are there any members of this online community fitting your description or are you simply making some random unrelated and unilluminating insult?

Edited June 16, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Do you intend to imply said species are similarly affected by climate change, Richard?

 

 

To whom is this addressed?

[Harold Squared]

Oops, John not Richard. My mistake.

 

Anyway, I am having no damned luck at all finding out more about this hypothesis. Used to be a big fan of that bit of anthropology, Australopithecus africanus, A. robustus, Leaky and all. A bit rusty now I confess. Harry Turtledove wrote "A Different Flesh", brilliant fiction on what might have happened if modern Europeans had met a more primitive species in the New World instead of other H. sapiens. Anyway it would be nice to know more.

[Roamer]

It makes sense that more evolutionary changes happen during times of changing environmental factors. That this is visible through skull-measurements is hardly surprising.

[Harold Squared]

Yah, watching the episode again I noticed this climate variation was attributed to the "highly elliptical" orbit of the planet at such times. I admitted at the outset it sounded plausible, but that alone is not proof, agreed? What other effects did these periods exhibit, I wonder? How did other species respond?

[Essay]

Yesterday watching "Hacking the Universe:Why We Left Earth", I noticed the guy comparing different skulls and relating periods of rapid climate change were coinciding to increases in cranial capacity. I confess it seems superficially plausible and would like to get your responses.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

.... How did other species respond?

 

Certainly other species responded also: “Then a relatively large and fast shift occurred between three million and two million years ago …accompanied by a rise in the proportion of grazing mammals, …[which] seem to have undergone extensive speciation, extinction and adaptation, rather like our hominin forebears.” --page 52

 

The September 2014 issue of Scientific American, v.311, no.3, features various articles about the saga of human evolution, which range in focus from competition to cooperation, and one that focuses on how “climate shifts made us adapt,” entitled Climate Shocks. “Swings between wet and dry landscapes pushed some of our ancestors toward modern traits—and killed off others.” Dietary changes, following a shift in the ratio of C3/C4 plant regimes, seem to have been a major factor.

===

 

The article talks about two obvious periods of “major shifts in African climate …roughly a million years apart, that mark significant changes in our family tree. The first evolutionary shake-up happened between 2.9 million and 2.4 million years ago.”

 

That is a half million years of evolutionary selection pushed by “major shifts in African climate.” And the “second shakeup occurred between 1.9 million and 1.6 million years ago,” so that is another 300,000 years of “major shifts in African climate.”

 

The article continues to explain how “These two ecological jolts, coming after long periods of extremely gradual change, moved the cradle of humanity….”

===

 

Note firstly, civilization developed during a geologically brief interval that has been much more stable than even those “long periods of extremely gradual change” which often typify climate. And secondly….

 

Today’s “major shifts” in climate, including the consequent ecological jolts, which are occurring over some decades or a few centuries, are happening many tens (or many hundreds, or a few thousands) of times faster, and are becoming larger, than those “major shifts” that “moved the cradle of humanity” in the past. To those who study this, it seems the current anthropogenic shift is developing, compared with any “major shifts” in the past, strongly enough now to soon move the bedrock of humanity; hence the alarm.

 

If you are equating today’s phrase “rapid climate change” (as it is used in connection with this era’s anthropogenic greenhouse heating and ocean acidification) with any examples from past eras of natural “climate shocks,” then that would explain why you can be confused or have been easily misled about conclusions.

 

It is because anthropogenic climate change is currently happening so much more rapidly, compared with any “natural” examples from the geological record, that many scientists consider this era to be the dawn of a “Sixth Mass Extinction,” if not simply the dawn of a new geologic epoch, the Eremocene.

 

~

[Harold Squared]

It would appear that I am not the only one so misled.

[Harold Squared]

 

 

Certainly other species responded also: Then a relatively large and fast shift occurred between three million and two million years ago accompanied by a rise in the proportion of grazing mammals, [which] seem to have undergone extensive speciation, extinction and adaptation, rather like our hominin forebears. --page 52

 

The September 2014 issue of Scientific American, v.311, no.3, features various articles about the saga of human evolution, which range in focus from competition to cooperation, and one that focuses on how climate shifts made us adapt, entitled Climate Shocks. Swings between wet and dry landscapes pushed some of our ancestors toward modern traitsand killed off others. Dietary changes, following a shift in the ratio of C3/C4 plant regimes, seem to have been a major factor.

===

 

The article talks about two obvious periods of major shifts in African climate roughly a million years apart, that mark significant changes in our family tree. The first evolutionary shake-up happened between 2.9 million and 2.4 million years ago.

 

That is a half million years of evolutionary selection pushed by major shifts in African climate. And the second shakeup occurred between 1.9 million and 1.6 million years ago, so that is another 300,000 years of major shifts in African climate.

 

The article continues to explain how These two ecological jolts, coming after long periods of extremely gradual change, moved the cradle of humanity.

===

 

Note firstly, civilization developed during a geologically brief interval that has been much more stable than even those long periods of extremely gradual change which often typify climate. And secondly.

 

Todays major shifts in climate, including the consequent ecological jolts, which are occurring over some decades or a few centuries, are happening many tens (or many hundreds, or a few thousands) of times faster, and are becoming larger, than those major shifts that moved the cradle of humanity in the past. To those who study this, it seems the current anthropogenic shift is developing, compared with any major shifts in the past, strongly enough now to soon move the bedrock of humanity; hence the alarm.

 

If you are equating todays phrase rapid climate change (as it is used in connection with this eras anthropogenic greenhouse heating and ocean acidification) with any examples from past eras of natural climate shocks, then that would explain why you can be confused or have been easily misled about conclusions.

 

It is because anthropogenic climate change is currently happening so much more rapidly, compared with any natural examples from the geological record, that many scientists consider this era to be the dawn of a Sixth Mass Extinction, if not simply the dawn of a new geologic epoch, the Eremocene.

 

~

I am much indebted to you for this most informative post. Thanks.