http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3080854.stm

Apparently, they also discovered remains of Pauline Fowler's first teapot
;-)

On a more serious note, it really shows that we are part of a much larger
cycle which nobody (not even HRH Will) can contemplate.

A

Besides if you go back as far as 56m years Britain (or the rocks that
would
one day form Britain) were not at this latitude at all but much further
south,
so of *course* it was a lot warmer. Britain has in fact been drifting
gradually
northwards from the Equator for a couple of hundred million years.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk



I was going to say exactly the same thing, uk has moved since then
its going to turn colder than warmer

Col,

Sure, My mind did cast back to Pangea and I did wonder whether it could have
still been part of Laurasia or whatever the US/Euro plate was called at
first before it all split up.

Wonder if Pauline orginated from Gonderland or whatever the other continent
was called ;-)

A

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Bond" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3080854.stm

Apparently, they also discovered remains of Pauline Fowler's first
teapot
;-)

On a more serious note, it really shows that we are part of a much
larger
cycle which nobody (not even HRH Will) can contemplate.

Just because it was tropical in the past doesn't necessarily mean that
we are part of a cycle that means it will be tropical in the future.
All we can say is at the moment (and for the past 3m years or so) we
have been in a cold spell with alternate ice ages/interglacials.

Besides if you go back as far as 56m years Britain (or the rocks that
would
one day form Britain) were not at this latitude at all but much further
south,
so of *course* it was a lot warmer. Britain has in fact been drifting
gradually
northwards from the Equator for a couple of hundred million years.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:26:56 +0100, Col in
wrote:
snip
Just because it was tropical in the past doesn't necessarily mean that
we are part of a cycle that means it will be tropical in the future.
All we can say is at the moment (and for the past 3m years or so) we
have been in a cold spell with alternate ice ages/interglacials.

Besides if you go back as far as 56m years Britain (or the rocks that would
one day form Britain) were not at this latitude at all but much further south,
so of *course* it was a lot warmer. Britain has in fact been drifting gradually
northwards from the Equator for a couple of hundred million years.

Couldn't agree more, Col. A few miles to my east is a large area of
basalt, pushed out from below some 60m years BP. It did this in four
stages and between each a tropical soil formed. This soil was red in
colour (iron rich laterite) and produced under tropical conditions, much
closer to the equator than now. These soils are now fossilised and are
seen as red bands, a few feet thick, within the dark basalt rocks. One of
the best places to see these bands is the Giant's Causeway, some 10 miles
from here.

--
Mike posted to uk.sci.weather 04/09/2003 18:47:00 UTC
Coleraine
Seeking information about the Internet and the way it works? - Subscribe to
news:uk.net.beginners

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:35:46 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Bond"
wrote:

Col,

Sure, My mind did cast back to Pangea and I did wonder whether it could have
still been part of Laurasia or whatever the US/Euro plate was called at
first before it all split up.

Wonder if Pauline orginated from Gonderland or whatever the other continent
was called ;-)


A still isolated fragment of Gondwanaland is Australia. Now the fauna
of Australia is reknowned for being pretty venomous. Seems that
chemical attack/defence evolved to a greater degree on that continent.

I would say that Pauline originated on Gondwanaland

Richard Webb

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:26:56 +0100, Col in
wrote:
snip
Just because it was tropical in the past doesn't necessarily mean that
we are part of a cycle that means it will be tropical in the future.
All we can say is at the moment (and for the past 3m years or so) we
have been in a cold spell with alternate ice ages/interglacials.

Besides if you go back as far as 56m years Britain (or the rocks that
would
one day form Britain) were not at this latitude at all but much further
south,
so of *course* it was a lot warmer. Britain has in fact been drifting
gradually
northwards from the Equator for a couple of hundred million years.

Couldn't agree more, Col. A few miles to my east is a large area of
basalt, pushed out from below some 60m years BP. It did this in four
stages and between each a tropical soil formed. This soil was red in
colour (iron rich laterite) and produced under tropical conditions, much
closer to the equator than now. These soils are now fossilised and are
seen as red bands, a few feet thick, within the dark basalt rocks. One of
the best places to see these bands is the Giant's Causeway, some 10 miles
from here.

Hi Mike,

I don't think it is true that the British Isles were much nearer the Equator
55 Ma ago. Here is a paleomap from around that time and Britain seems
to be at roughly the same latitude now as it was then.
http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm

The reason for the greenhouse conditions then, at the paleocene/eocene
boundary 55Ma ago, is now believed to have been due to a massive release
of methane from the oceans. See the following for confirmation.
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0315022.htm
This caused a minor mass extinction and the mammals seem to have
developed at that time to fill the ecological niche left empty by it.

Tropical seas are fine for sharks but not people. Most of the UK, and
all of Holland, were under the sea. When the global climate later cooled,
the seas retreated because the oceans thermally contracted. It is not known
whether the global warming now being produced by increased CO2 will
trigger another methane release in a similar way to that which caused the
Permian/Triassic mass extinction, the largest in the history of the world.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:00:43 +0100, Alastair McDonald in
wrote:

Couldn't agree more, Col. A few miles to my east is a large area of
basalt, pushed out from below some 60m years BP. It did this in four
stages and between each a tropical soil formed. This soil was red in
colour (iron rich laterite) and produced under tropical conditions, much
closer to the equator than now. These soils are now fossilised and are
seen as red bands, a few feet thick, within the dark basalt rocks. One of
the best places to see these bands is the Giant's Causeway, some 10 miles
from here.

Hi Mike,

I don't think it is true that the British Isles were much nearer the Equator
55 Ma ago. Here is a paleomap from around that time and Britain seems
to be at roughly the same latitude now as it was then.
http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm

Hi Alastair - I stand very much corrected on the continental positions:-) -
too long away from my geology colleagues. We agree it was a good deal
warmer and that would account for the red coloured inter-basaltic layers -
signs of a tropical climate in our latitudes.

--
Mike posted to uk.sci.weather 04/09/2003 22:15:57 UTC
Coleraine
Seeking information about the Internet and the way it works? - Subscribe to
news:uk.net.beginners

I don't think it is true that the British Isles were much nearer the
Equator
55 Ma ago.

Oh,

Looks like HRH Will might need to enter the debate to provide the definative
answer as to what actually happened 55m years ago.

A

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
A few miles to my east is a large area of
basalt, pushed out from below some 60m years BP. It did this in four
stages and between each a tropical soil formed. This soil was red in
colour (iron rich laterite) and produced under tropical conditions, much
closer to the equator than now. These soils are now fossilised and are
seen as red bands, a few feet thick, within the dark basalt rocks. One
of
the best places to see these bands is the Giant's Causeway, some 10
miles
from here.

Hi Mike,

I don't think it is true that the British Isles were much nearer the
Equator
55 Ma ago. Here is a paleomap from around that time and Britain seems
to be at roughly the same latitude now as it was then.
http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm

The reason for the greenhouse conditions then, at the paleocene/eocene
boundary 55Ma ago, is now believed to have been due to a massive release
of methane from the oceans. See the following for confirmation.
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0315022.htm
This caused a minor mass extinction and the mammals seem to have
developed at that time to fill the ecological niche left empty by it.

Tropical seas are fine for sharks but not people. Most of the UK, and
all of Holland, were under the sea. When the global climate later cooled,
the seas retreated because the oceans thermally contracted. It is not
known
whether the global warming now being produced by increased CO2 will
trigger another methane release in a similar way to that which caused the
Permian/Triassic mass extinction, the largest in the history of the world.

According to the "Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines", by
AGSmith, DGSmith and BMFunnell, CUP, 1994, the "British Isles"
lay between approx 44ºN and 54ºN at 55Ma BP.

The picture which illustrates the BBC Online piece and captioned
by permission of the Natural History Museum actually appeared in
"The Complete Atlas of the British Isles", Reader's Digest, 1967,
with no acknowledgement of the NHM ... that may just be an
omission, or they may have acquired them subsequently, I suppose.
In that atlas it is captioned "Central Southern England", not
"Stratford" or "London" ... a small point, perhaps, but it illustrates
what journalists do.

Global sea-level was well past its high point in 55Ma, and was
approximately 190m above present sea-level. The high point of
+260m was achieved about 90Ma BP (Smith, Smith and
Funnell, 1994). The evidence actually points to a fair chunk
of the UK being above sea-level at 55Ma BP.

Philip Eden

"Andrew Bond" wrote in message
...
I don't think it is true that the British Isles were much nearer the
Equator
55 Ma ago.

Oh,

Looks like HRH Will might need to enter the debate to provide the definative
answer as to what actually happened 55m years ago.

What exactly did Prince William say? I am afraid I do not read the newspapers
and besides I have republican tendencies! I thought at first you were
referring
to our own sage Will.

Cheers, Alastair.