Abstract Recognition and subsequent study of the syn-convergent low-angle normal faults and shear zones – the South Tibetan Detachment System (STDS) – that form the upper boundary of the Himalayan mid-crust fundamentally changed views of how the Himalayan orogenic system developed. This paper reviews the past four decades of discovery and major advances in our understanding of the detachment system. Significantly conflicting maps of the fault trace, as well as proposed extensions of the detachment system up to hundreds of kilometres both up and down dip of the main fault trace, call for a unifying definition of the detachment system based on structural criteria. The different proposed models for the formation of the STDS during tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen are compared. Finally, critical outstanding questions about the origin, extent and character of the detachment system are identified and point to future directions for research.

Abstract: In 1841, Murchison coined the term Permian for strata in the Russian Urals. Recognition of the Permian outside of Russia and central Europe soon followed, but it took about a century for the Permian to be accepted globally as a distinct geological system. The work of the Subcommission on Permian Stratigraphy began in the 1970s and resulted in current recognition of nine Permian stages in three series: the Cisuralian (lower Permian) – Asselian, Sakmarian, Artinskian and Kungurian; the Guadalupian (middle Permian) – Roadian, Wordian and Capitanian; and the Lopingian (upper Permian) – Wuchiapingian and Changhsingian. The 1990s saw the rise of Permian conodont biostratigraphy, so that all Permian Global Stratigraphic Sections and Points (GSSPs) use conodont evolutionary events as the primary signal for correlation. Issues in the development of a Permian chronostratigraphic scale include those of stability and priority of nomenclature and concepts, disagreements over changing taxonomy, ammonoid v. fusulinid v. conodont biostratigraphy, differences in the perceived significance of biotic events for chronostratigraphic classification, and correlation problems between provinces. Further development of the Permian chronostratigraphic scale should focus on GSSP selection for the remaining, undefined stage bases, definition and characterization of substages, and further integration of the Permian chronostratigraphic scale with radioisotopic, magnetostratigraphic and chemostratigraphic tools for calibration and correlation.

Abstract RED SEED stands for Risk Evaluation, Detection and Simulation during Effusive Eruption Disasters, and combines stakeholders from the remote sensing, modelling and response communities with experience in tracking volcanic effusive events. The group first met during a three day-long workshop held in Clermont Ferrand (France) between 28 and 30 May 2013. During each day, presentations were given reviewing the state of the art in terms of (a) volcano hot spot detection and parameterization, (b) operational satellite-based hot spot detection systems, (c) lava flow modelling and (d) response protocols during effusive crises. At the end of each presentation set, the four groups retreated to discuss and report on requirements for a truly integrated and operational response that satisfactorily combines remote sensors, modellers and responders during an effusive crisis. The results of collating the final reports, and follow-up discussions that have been on-going since the workshop, are given here. We can reduce our discussions to four main findings. (1) Hot spot detection tools are operational and capable of providing effusive eruption onset notice within 15 min. (2) Spectral radiance metrics can also be provided with high degrees of confidence. However, if we are to achieve a truly global system, more local receiving stations need to be installed with hot spot detection and data processing modules running on-site and in real time. (3) Models are operational, but need real-time input of reliable time-averaged discharge rate data and regular updates of digital elevation models if they are to be effective; the latter can be provided by the radar/photogrammetry community. (4) Information needs to be provided in an agreed and standard format following an ensemble approach and using models that have been validated and recognized as trustworthy by the responding authorities. All of this requires a sophisticated and centralized data collection, distribution and reporting hub that is based on a philosophy of joint ownership and mutual trust. While the next chapter carries out an exercise to explore the viability of the last point, the detailed recommendations behind these findings are detailed here.

Abstract Although modern geotourism, as a form of sustainable geoheritage tourism, was only recognized as such in the 1990s, its roots lie in the seventeenth century and the Grand Tour with its domestic equivalents. At that time, a few elite travellers recorded their experiences of landscapes, natural wonders, quarries and mines. Such travellers’ observations were supplemented by those of the antiquarians for much of the eighteenth century; at that century’s close, the first modern geologists were recording their observations. The nineteenth century witnessed an explosion in public interest and engagement with geology, and field excursions were provided by the burgeoning natural history and geology societies. By the close of the nineteenth century, the Romantic movement had successfully promoted wild landscapes to a newly expanding urban population. The development of the Grand Tour and the landscape aesthetic movements, the various influential institutions, key personalities and locations are considered insofar as they provide an overview of the background to historical geotourism. All are underpinned by a theoretical consideration of the geotourism paradigm and how geotourism historical studies can contextualize modern geotourism.

Geoscience is the study of Earth history and processes, a study so broad that individual geoscientists may have little knowledge or skill in common. This essay asserts that there is, nonetheless, a common set of perspectives, approaches, and values that characterizes the discipline. Geoscientists are united by a common commitment to testing hypotheses against observations of the natural system using multiple converging lines of evidence. Geoscientists test hypotheses by comparing modern processes to those found in the rock record; comparing related examples to understand commonalities and differences attributable to process, history, and context; finding multiple converging lines of evidence; and comparing observations to theory-based prediction. They share the perspective that observation and a spatial and temporal organizational scheme are fundamental to understanding Earth systems and processes. Their interpretations are grounded in a common understanding that Earth represents a long-lived, dynamic, complex system for which a 4.6-billion-year history has been shaped by processes operating at different rates. These methods and approaches have evolved over time because they are particularly well adapted to studying Earth. A geoscientist brings this approach to any collaboration, as well as deep knowledge and skill for studying a particular aspect of Earth, and a set of cultural values that support collaborative problem solving. Developing such individuals is the central goal of geoscience majors and graduate programs.