If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   It took 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction ever. So see? With enough patience, it can be done   (upi.com) divider line 42
    More: Interesting, Earth, acid rain, ocean acidification, geosciences, extinction events, Wuhan, extinctions, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez  
•       •       •

2525 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jun 2012 at 5:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-01 06:23:54 AM
With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise
 
2012-06-01 06:24:51 AM
Here's hoping for another.
 
2012-06-01 06:25:07 AM
So, 0.22222% of its (Earth's) existence?

Blip.
 
2012-06-01 06:25:17 AM

Bevets: With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise


Good morning Bevets.
 
2012-06-01 06:35:53 AM

Bevets: With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise


What the hell does this mean? It's like the scholarly equivalent of a sentence fragment. Its existence must indicate something, but what? It seems to have a beginning, or at least starts with the word "Beginning". It's jammed with odd clauses and prepositional phrasing. And its language grows more forceful as it builds.
 
2012-06-01 06:41:55 AM

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Bevets: With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise

What the hell does this mean? It's like the scholarly equivalent of a sentence fragment. Its existence must indicate something, but what? It seems to have a beginning, or at least starts with the word "Beginning". It's jammed with odd clauses and prepositional phrasing. And its language grows more forceful as it builds.


j.imagehost.org
;=)
 
2012-06-01 07:10:31 AM

Bevets: With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise


So....magic killed the dinosaurs?
 
2012-06-01 07:26:33 AM
'Bevets' gets paid every time his ALT gets mentioned on Fark.

s3.hubimg.com
/teach the controversy . com
`
// :(|)
 
2012-06-01 08:15:51 AM

Bevets: One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise


Throughout the column? Expert fail.
Evidence would exist across the column in specific strata, namely abundance and then scarcity of various life forms. Also perhaps a deposit that could be found in the same stratigraphic layer everywhere, like the K-T boundary deposits, could exist.
 
2012-06-01 08:16:15 AM

Bevets: -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism --


Utterly false premise is utterly false and should feel bad.
 
2012-06-01 08:18:35 AM

Boatmech: 'Bevets' gets paid every time his ALT gets mentioned on Fark.

[s3.hubimg.com image 520x520]
/teach the controversy . com
`
// :(|)


So basically, if we just started coming into threads and typing his name as fast as the submission filter would let us, they'd have to delete the thread, or Steve could quickly amass enough to build a new creationism museum?

/Right next to the goddamn Natural History museum in DC
//Teach the controversy
///The last evolution thread was awesome, thank you all for the discussion
 
Skr
2012-06-01 08:25:51 AM
It makes sense that after a mass extinction, the basic lifeforms took different evolutionary paths the second time around. There are some best ways to do things, but often many feasible alternatives pop up in the trial and error.

ex. Both bird and bat have the ability of flight. For all we know, some ancient precursor to the Jellyfish could have had hydrogen gas stores that let it float into the air.
 
2012-06-01 08:26:21 AM

born_yesterday: Boatmech: 'Bevets' gets paid every time his ALT gets mentioned on Fark.

[s3.hubimg.com image 520x520]
/teach the controversy . com
`
// :(|)

So basically, if we just started coming into threads and typing his name as fast as the submission filter would let us, they'd have to delete the thread, or Steve could quickly amass enough to build a new creationism museum?

/Right next to the goddamn Natural History museum in DC
//Teach the controversy
///The last evolution thread was awesome, thank you all for the discussion


10 PRINT "Bevets"
20 GOTO 10


/scary
 
2012-06-01 08:31:35 AM

Skr: It makes sense that after a mass extinction, the basic lifeforms took different evolutionary paths the second time around. There are some best ways to do things, but often many feasible alternatives pop up in the trial and error.

ex. Both bird and bat have the ability of flight. For all we know, some ancient precursor to the Jellyfish could have had hydrogen gas stores that let it float into the air.


It's not so much 'best way', more like 'this' worked (survived to reproduce),
Rinse,
Repeat.
 
2012-06-01 08:42:29 AM
Just finished reading a book about this event, fascinating stuff.
 
2012-06-01 09:31:13 AM
Why do creationists hate geology?
 
2012-06-01 10:22:36 AM
Oh FFS I read "global warming" and instantly knew the rest was bullshiat. The Earth heats, and it cools that's not any big surprise. What scares me is the oxygen issue since a warmer Earth would be more benifitial for plants so what caused the oxygen problem because THAT is what killed off the life not "global warming".
 
2012-06-01 10:32:12 AM

Baelz: Oh FFS I read "global warming" and instantly knew the rest was bullshiat. The Earth heats, and it cools that's not any big surprise. What scares me is the oxygen issue since a warmer Earth would be more benifitial for plants so what caused the oxygen problem because THAT is what killed off the life not "global warming".


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/are-we-in-the-middle-of - a-sixth-.html

We are currently chopping down most of the forests that would be doing the photosynthesis needed for that. We are in the midst of a mass extinction anyways. It's more because of habitat loss, over-fishing, pollution, and invasive species but lots of animals are finely-suited to their environment and would be in big trouble if climate change is severe.
 
2012-06-01 10:51:56 AM

ordinarysteve: We are currently chopping down most of the forests that would be doing the photosynthesis needed for that. We are in the midst of a mass extinction anyways. It's more because of habitat loss, over-fishing, pollution, and invasive species but lots of animals are finely-suited to their environment and would be in big trouble if climate change is severe.


This. The acidification of the oceans, ocean anoxia and methane reserves are what is most terrifying. If the ocean life goes, we are farked. Severely.
 
2012-06-01 11:00:13 AM
ordinarysteve

... We are currently chopping down most of the forests that would be doing the photosynthesis needed for that...
ROTFL.

All you forgot to add was "buuuuush's fault" for moon-bat perfection.
 
2012-06-01 11:04:04 AM

OnlyM3: ordinarysteve

... We are currently chopping down most of the forests that would be doing the photosynthesis needed for that... ROTFL.

All you forgot to add was "buuuuush's fault" for moon-bat perfection.


"What scares me is the oxygen issue since a warmer Earth would be more benifitial for plants so what caused the oxygen problem because THAT is what killed off the life not "global warming""
Did you read what I was responding to, or were you too busy smoking meth and jerking off to Reagan pictures to notice? Reading comprehension...hows that work?
 
2012-06-01 11:36:19 AM

ordinarysteve: OnlyM3: ordinarysteve

... We are currently chopping down most of the forests that would be doing the photosynthesis needed for that... ROTFL.

All you forgot to add was "buuuuush's fault" for moon-bat perfection.

"What scares me is the oxygen issue since a warmer Earth would be more benifitial for plants so what caused the oxygen problem because THAT is what killed off the life not "global warming""
Did you read what I was responding to, or were you too busy smoking meth and jerking off to Reagan pictures to notice? Reading comprehension...hows that work?


To provide fair consideration: OnlyM3 is an established liar.
 
2012-06-01 12:00:12 PM
"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
-- Woody Allen
 
2012-06-01 12:09:59 PM

born_yesterday: Bevets: -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism --

Utterly false premise is utterly false and should feel bad.


Well, that's not really true. Historically catastrophism was used as a tool of creationists, while most scientific geology was relying almost exclusively on uniformitarianism. This is why explanations for geologic phenomena like the scablands of the northwest, which invoked catastrophic flooding events, were typically scoffed at and ignored. It took a while for the geology community to come around to the fact that while uniformitarianism explains the majority of observations, catastrophic events did and do occur and leave their mark on the world.

That said, his point is backwards. Early geologists were averse to catastrophism and went out of their way to avoid it due to the ridiculous claims that creationists made (and continue to make, a la Velikovsky). Creationists used catastrophism like a hammer, invoking it for every question they saw. It took a while for them to see through the taint of creationist nonsense and actually accept it for its real explanatory value, when applied in the right circumstances.

tl;dr: Bevets was correct, even if unintentionally, and it's actually just a further indictment of creationism.
 
2012-06-01 12:19:54 PM
 
2012-06-01 12:44:00 PM
What would a 21st Century Rosetta Stone look like?
How can we protect Wikipedia for our post-apocolyptic descendents?
 
2012-06-01 01:56:41 PM
Interesting how politics can rewrite science and history.

AGW dogma FTW!

I give it as much credence as the Young Earther crap.
 
2012-06-01 03:04:18 PM

Baelz: Oh FFS I read "global warming" and instantly knew the rest was bullshiat.


RedVentrue: Interesting how politics can rewrite science and history.

AGW dogma FTW!


I'm curious as to what the two of you have to offer in terms of alternative explanations for the dating of the extinction to the Siberian Traps volcanism, evidence for coal thermogenic baking/combustion, the preferential loss of certain marine fauna (calcifers and poorly buffered organisms), the geochemical record indicating 1) a large injection of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and oceans and 2) significant warming, etc.

Are you going to claim, like GeneralJim, that in the middle of a massive carbon pulse, CO2 levels magically decreased?

Don't keep us in suspense, fellas.
 
2012-06-01 03:05:59 PM

Bevets: With only 10 percent of plants and animals surviving the extinction event triggered by global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia, there has been a longstanding debate about how long it took life on Earth to recover from the cataclysm, scientists said.

Beginning in 1980 with the dinosaur/asteroid controversy, it has more recently become popular for geologists to consider not just local, but global catastrophes to account for the geologic evidence they see. One can be assured that for a community to have made such an incredible shift -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism -- there must be profound evidence for catastrophe throughout the geologic column. ~ Kurt Wise


Oh hell no!!! Don't you try to drag us geologists into your DERP! We have rocks to look at, beer to drink and women to FARK here dammit!
 
2012-06-01 06:43:15 PM

Jon Snow: Baelz: Oh FFS I read "global warming" and instantly knew the rest was bullshiat.

RedVentrue: Interesting how politics can rewrite science and history.

AGW dogma FTW!

I'm curious as to what the two of you have to offer in terms of alternative explanations for the dating of the extinction to the Siberian Traps volcanism, evidence for coal thermogenic baking/combustion, the preferential loss of certain marine fauna (calcifers and poorly buffered organisms), the geochemical record indicating 1) a large injection of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and oceans and 2) significant warming, etc.

Are you going to claim, like GeneralJim, that in the middle of a massive carbon pulse, CO2 levels magically decreased?

Don't keep us in suspense, fellas.


How do we know it was the CO2, and only CO2 that caused a mass extinction due to GW?
The Siberian traps were burning for hundreds of thousands of years spewing more gasses than just CO2. I don't follow the connection with CO2 and warming, warming and extinction. If you can explain it in plain english, I'm listening.
 
2012-06-01 07:11:25 PM

RedVentrue: Jon Snow: Baelz: Oh FFS I read "global warming" and instantly knew the rest was bullshiat.

RedVentrue: Interesting how politics can rewrite science and history.

AGW dogma FTW!

I'm curious as to what the two of you have to offer in terms of alternative explanations for the dating of the extinction to the Siberian Traps volcanism, evidence for coal thermogenic baking/combustion, the preferential loss of certain marine fauna (calcifers and poorly buffered organisms), the geochemical record indicating 1) a large injection of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and oceans and 2) significant warming, etc.

Are you going to claim, like GeneralJim, that in the middle of a massive carbon pulse, CO2 levels magically decreased?

Don't keep us in suspense, fellas.

How do we know it was the CO2, and only CO2 that caused a mass extinction due to GW?
The Siberian traps were burning for hundreds of thousands of years spewing more gasses than just CO2. I don't follow the connection with CO2 and warming, warming and extinction. If you can explain it in plain english, I'm listening.


One way this has been approached is to look at how selective the extinction was. By seeing who lived and who died at the extinction event, it's possible to get some sort of idea of the mechanism. While we certainly can't know all that much about the organisms that died, we can figure out enough to look for patterns of preferential survival or extinction based on various traits, such as geographic distribution, abundance, physiology, biochemistry, life mode, etc. It turns out that there is a combination of traits that seemed to be particularly important in determining extinction survivorship, and in short they together indicate an environment with highly acidic oceans and high CO2, high temperatures, and low O2. There are some pretty good papers out there if you want to read more.

I'd suggest Clapham & Payne 2011 (Geology); Knoll, Bambach, Payne, Pruss, and Fischer 2007 (Earth and Planetary Science Letters), and Erwin, Bowring, and Yugan 2002 (GSA Special Papers) for a good (if somewhat outdated) summary of the state of the understanding of the end Permian extinction.
 
2012-06-01 07:17:11 PM

RedVentrue: How do we know it was the CO2, and only CO2 that caused a mass extinction due to GW?


Literally no one is claiming that. That is not what TFA says, and it's certainly not what the primary scientific literature says.

The Siberian traps were burning for hundreds of thousands of years spewing more gasses than just CO2.

Yes. And? (Although there is good evidence that the main exitnction took place over
i>I don't follow the connection with CO2 and warming

You don't understand how increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increases global temperature?

warming and extinction. If you can explain it in plain english, I'm listening.

It's not just "warming". It's warming, change in precip, ocean acidification, ocean anoxia, hypercapnia, wildfires, possible ozone depletion, massive tree mortality, fly ash from coal, and even some contribution from hydrogen sulfide gas in some areas. It's the synergistic effects of a number of significant stressors and the knock on ecological effects due to trophic interdependencies (both bottom up and top down- in other words, all it takes is disrupting a few of the species at the low end of the food chain to cause disruptions all the way to the top, and perhaps less intuitively the converse is also true).

Are you asking how changing the temperature can lead to extinction in general? Here's one example that is by no means intended to be exhaustive or universal, but merely illustrative.

Species are typically adapted to a certain habitat. That habitat is typically tied to relatively narrow temperature and precipitation regimes. When those shift, the plant and animal communities have to shift with them. When the climatic change happens at a rate more rapid than the species' population can relocate, you're effectively shrinking their habitat. Say that the habitat is subtropical. During warming, the temperature not only increases (effectively pushing their ideal temp areas poleward), precipitation also shifts with the expansion of the Hadley cell. While some animals may be able to shift relatively quickly, plants may not- and even those that could may not find the underlying soil suitable. Do I need to explain how habitat destruction leads to extinction? I can gladly do so.

Not being snarky here- if you don't understand fundamental ecological concepts or the basic premises behind mainstream scientific topics, why are you so quick to write them off as being incorrect?
 
2012-06-01 07:22:08 PM
RedVentrue

Also:

Erix: One way this has been approached is to look at how selective the extinction was. By seeing who lived and who died at the extinction event, it's possible to get some sort of idea of the mechanism. While we certainly can't know all that much about the organisms that died, we can figure out enough to look for patterns of preferential survival or extinction based on various traits, such as geographic distribution, abundance, physiology, biochemistry, life mode, etc. It turns out that there is a combination of traits that seemed to be particularly important in determining extinction survivorship, and in short they together indicate an environment with highly acidic oceans and high CO2, high temperatures, and low O2. There are some pretty good papers out there if you want to read more.


Listen to this guy. Although you (RedVentrue) were asking about warming only, what he's saying is true and tells us a lot about the End Permian.

I'd suggest Clapham & Payne 2011 (Geology); Knoll, Bambach, Payne, Pruss, and Fischer 2007 (Earth and Planetary Science Letters), and Erwin, Bowring, and Yugan 2002 (GSA Special Papers) for a good (if somewhat outdated) summary of the state of the understanding of the end Permian extinction.

I cited several of these and quite a few more in response to GeneralJim's absurd claims in a previous thread, if you or anyone needs the full titles or DOI numbers.
 
2012-06-01 07:40:27 PM
Hey Bevits, what if 250 million years ago the people living then witnessed a gigantic catastrophe and because they didn't know about science and stuff they wrote about it as if it were an act of God. Never thought of that, did you? Did I blow your mind?
 
2012-06-01 10:38:02 PM

Jon Snow: RedVentrue

Also:

Erix: One way this has been approached is to look at how selective the extinction was. By seeing who lived and who died at the extinction event, it's possible to get some sort of idea of the mechanism. While we certainly can't know all that much about the organisms that died, we can figure out enough to look for patterns of preferential survival or extinction based on various traits, such as geographic distribution, abundance, physiology, biochemistry, life mode, etc. It turns out that there is a combination of traits that seemed to be particularly important in determining extinction survivorship, and in short they together indicate an environment with highly acidic oceans and high CO2, high temperatures, and low O2. There are some pretty good papers out there if you want to read more.

Listen to this guy. Although you (RedVentrue) were asking about warming only, what he's saying is true and tells us a lot about the End Permian.

I'd suggest Clapham & Payne 2011 (Geology); Knoll, Bambach, Payne, Pruss, and Fischer 2007 (Earth and Planetary Science Letters), and Erwin, Bowring, and Yugan 2002 (GSA Special Papers) for a good (if somewhat outdated) summary of the state of the understanding of the end Permian extinction.

I cited several of these and quite a few more in response to GeneralJim's absurd claims in a previous thread, if you or anyone needs the full titles or DOI numbers.


The problem I'm having here is how CO2 leads to massive plant die offs, when plants breathe CO2. I can see that ocean acidification can cause severe ecologic stress, but how does CO2 cause acidification?

Last question. How can anyone stop climate change in any case?
 
2012-06-01 11:37:56 PM

RedVentrue: Jon Snow: RedVentrue

Also:

Erix: One way this has been approached is to look at how selective the extinction was. By seeing who lived and who died at the extinction event, it's possible to get some sort of idea of the mechanism. While we certainly can't know all that much about the organisms that died, we can figure out enough to look for patterns of preferential survival or extinction based on various traits, such as geographic distribution, abundance, physiology, biochemistry, life mode, etc. It turns out that there is a combination of traits that seemed to be particularly important in determining extinction survivorship, and in short they together indicate an environment with highly acidic oceans and high CO2, high temperatures, and low O2. There are some pretty good papers out there if you want to read more.

Listen to this guy. Although you (RedVentrue) were asking about warming only, what he's saying is true and tells us a lot about the End Permian.

I'd suggest Clapham & Payne 2011 (Geology); Knoll, Bambach, Payne, Pruss, and Fischer 2007 (Earth and Planetary Science Letters), and Erwin, Bowring, and Yugan 2002 (GSA Special Papers) for a good (if somewhat outdated) summary of the state of the understanding of the end Permian extinction.

I cited several of these and quite a few more in response to GeneralJim's absurd claims in a previous thread, if you or anyone needs the full titles or DOI numbers.

The problem I'm having here is how CO2 leads to massive plant die offs, when plants breathe CO2. I can see that ocean acidification can cause severe ecologic stress, but how does CO2 cause acidification?

Last question. How can anyone stop climate change in any case?


Actually, the record for plants is pretty sparse around that time. In fact, the whole terrestrial record isn't all that great right at the end Permian boundary, but it's particularly bad for plants. We actually don't even really know if plants suffered a major extinction there, but the record is good enough to tell us that there was some pretty serious ecological restructuring going on then. So while the individual plants likely fared just fine, the reshuffling of ecosystems would have resulted in different plants doing well in different areas, with the net result of some species going extinct. Not really the same thing, but you can imagine what the extinction of the honey bee, or the earthworm, or grazing animals would do to plants, even if they aren't directly impacted by the cause of the extinction.

CO2 leads to acidification of the oceans simply because CO2 dissolves in water in the form of carbonic acid (CO2 + H20 -> H2C03). This isn't as much my specialty, but the Wikipedia page on ocean acidification is pretty decent.

As far as stopping climate change? Honestly, it's not going to happen. Not yet, at least. The best we can hope to do is slow it down so we understand what is happening. Even if we were to inject sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to block sunlight and cool the earth, it wouldn't just put things back where they used to be. Just thinking of temperature and sea level change alone, we would actually have to cool the earth below pre-industrial temperatures just to prevent significant sea level rise (Irvine, Sriver, and Keller, 2012). And that's even assuming it's a good idea, which at this point it doesn't seem to be (Goes, Tuana and Keller 2011). The system is already extremely perturbed, and unfortunately I think we're just going to have to minimize the impacts. But at least slowing the whole train down would be a good start.
 
2012-06-02 12:58:58 AM

RedVentrue: The problem I'm having here is how CO2 leads to massive plant die offs, when plants breathe CO2.


First, CO2 is a plant nutrient, but rarely the limiting nutrient. Heat and water stress are huge impacts on plant growth. A plant dealing with climatic stress is more susceptible to opportunistic pathogens (which we have some evidence for), and are vulnerable to other stressors like increased UV radiation due to ozone depletion from the volatiles you mentioned being a co-product of Siberian Traps volcanism. Wildfire is an undeniable stressor on trees and there is good evidence in the record for wildfires after the climatic change.

I can see that ocean acidification can cause severe ecologic stress, but how does CO2 cause acidification?

This is more complicated than the straight chemistry entails. There is a two-step synergy between increasing H+ions/lowering pH in oceans and warming waters that is greater than its individual parts.

It sounds like you're asking more how atmospheric CO2 affects ocean life than how CO2 lowers pH, but let me know which you're intetrested in.

Last question. How can anyone stop climate change in any case?

We could stop emitting GHGs, stop deforestation, stop albedo change, etc. We won't stop that all entirely, but how much we reduce these things has a tremendous impact on our future climate trajectory.
 
2012-06-02 04:31:14 AM

born_yesterday: Bevets: -- in spite of the strong association which exists between catastrophism and creationism --

Utterly false premise is utterly false and should feel bad.




I know that in my Intro to Human Origins and Archaeology class it was discussed heavily in class that until the last several decades evolution was seen as being purely a long term process of constant change. Now they talk about punctuated equilibrium, which is essentially a shift from gradualism to catastrophism. Since much of evolution is rooted in fossil work which is mostly the province of geology, I'd be surprised if this wasn't matched by a shift in mindset from geology. In fact I know I have read references to historic tensions within geology concerning catastrophism and a clinging to gradualism because catastrophism appeared to give religious fundies a metaphorical bone. It wasn't until there was too much evidence to discount mass extinction (which is an inherently catastrophic event) that the discipline as a whole gave credence to the notion.

This is such a big concern in anthropology that the instructors at my alma mater seem to do everything they can to run off fundies from the bioanthropology courses the first couple of days to avoid pointless "debates" in class later on. Members of the Intervarsity Christian Athletes would regularly protest this with the administration, but the administration would tell them to take their tears elsewhere and stop taking courses they knew would wind up offending them if they couldn't critically think on the subject matter.

The whole "punctuated equilibrium" thing seems to be seen as examples of God intervening in Creation, thus geology and genetics studies are evidence of God's existence and everything becomes hand-waving. An active God's existence necessitates catastrophism. Gradualism is the enemy of anything but the most detatched observer-creator and hence fundies.
 
2012-06-02 04:38:01 AM

Jon Snow: RedVentrue: The problem I'm having here is how CO2 leads to massive plant die offs, when plants breathe CO2.

First, CO2 is a plant nutrient, but rarely the limiting nutrient. Heat and water stress are huge impacts on plant growth. A plant dealing with climatic stress is more susceptible to opportunistic pathogens (which we have some evidence for), and are vulnerable to other stressors like increased UV radiation due to ozone depletion from the volatiles you mentioned being a co-product of Siberian Traps volcanism. Wildfire is an undeniable stressor on trees and there is good evidence in the record for wildfires after the climatic change.

I can see that ocean acidification can cause severe ecologic stress, but how does CO2 cause acidification?

This is more complicated than the straight chemistry entails. There is a two-step synergy between increasing H+ions/lowering pH in oceans and warming waters that is greater than its individual parts.

It sounds like you're asking more how atmospheric CO2 affects ocean life than how CO2 lowers pH, but let me know which you're intetrested in.

Last question. How can anyone stop climate change in any case?

We could stop emitting GHGs, stop deforestation, stop albedo change, etc. We won't stop that all entirely, but how much we reduce these things has a tremendous impact on our future climate trajectory.


Erix: RedVentrue: Jon Snow: RedVentrue

Also:

Erix: One way this has been approached is to look at how selective the extinction was. By seeing who lived and who died at the extinction event, it's possible to get some sort of idea of the mechanism. While we certainly can't know all that much about the organisms that died, we can figure out enough to look for patterns of preferential survival or extinction based on various traits, such as geographic distribution, abundance, physiology, biochemistry, life mode, etc. It turns out that there is a combination of traits that seemed to be particularly important in determining extinction survivorship, and in short they together indicate an environment with highly acidic oceans and high CO2, high temperatures, and low O2. There are some pretty good papers out there if you want to read more.

Listen to this guy. Although you (RedVentrue) were asking about warming only, what he's saying is true and tells us a lot about the End Permian.

I'd suggest Clapham & Payne 2011 (Geology); Knoll, Bambach, Payne, Pruss, and Fischer 2007 (Earth and Planetary Science Letters), and Erwin, Bowring, and Yugan 2002 (GSA Special Papers) for a good (if somewhat outdated) summary of the state of the understanding of the end Permian extinction.

I cited several of these and quite a few more in response to GeneralJim's absurd claims in a previous thread, if you or anyone needs the full titles or DOI numbers.

The problem I'm having here is how CO2 leads to massive plant die offs, when plants breathe CO2. I can see that ocean acidification can cause severe ecologic stress, but how does CO2 cause acidification?

Last question. How can anyone stop climate change in any case?

Actually, the record for plants is pretty sparse around that time. In fact, the whole terrestrial record isn't all that great right at the end Permian boundary, but it's particularly bad for plants. We actually don't even really know if plants suffered a major extinction there, but t ...


Thanks for explaining. I think I get it now. I've got a lot to think about.
 
2012-06-02 10:53:58 PM
robohobo:

Here's hoping for another.

Nah. The only species that needs to go extinct is ours, the only one whose "normal" lives negatively affect millions of other species.
 
2012-06-02 11:15:58 PM
Does global warming threaten the survival of H. sapiens or even genus Homo?

If our genus survives, could warming perhaps even trigger further evolution into a "higher" species?

Somehow I doubt that we are the endpoint of hominid evolution, or rather I doubt that we will be if we don't extinct ourselves before then.
 
2012-06-03 03:23:28 AM

The One True TheDavid: robohobo:

Here's hoping for another.

Nah. The only species that needs to go extinct is ours, the only one whose "normal" lives negatively affect millions of other species.


You go first, I'll be along a bit later.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report