Slashdot Mirror
When Microbes Ate the Ocean
museumpeace writes "When /. discussed a story about microbes that could break down water as a hydrogen source, many commentors went off on a tangent joking about runaway germs eating the oceans. Now, prof Joe Kirschvink and students at CalTech propose that indeed, the worst iceage ever, which nearly ended life on earth 2.3 billion years ago, was the result of algae evolving the ability to break down water and flooding the atmosphere with oxygen. The absence of oxygen consuming organisms at that time is said to have lead to destruction of atmospheric methane which had hitherto warmed the earth. The professor concludes: 'We haven't had a Snowball in the past 630 million years, and because the sun is warmer now it may be harder to get into the right condition. But if it ever happens, all life on Earth would likely be destroyed.'"
It didn't end all life on Earth, and it probably wouldn't if it happened again.
While this sounds pretty bad, it seems that this was nature's way of "terraforming" our planet. It seems these bacteria might be handy for naturally creating other worlds we can inhabit. After all, we already have organisms that breathe oxygen.
...is to just rename the planet. If we start calling Earth by a new name, say "Hoth" for example, the Earth will become an ice planet. Just get a significant number of the inhabitants of the planet to believe anything and it will come to pass. The boiling point of water for instance could easily be lowered or raised if we all, as a collective, just believed it to be possible for water to boil at, say... 90 degrees F. It's simple really. Just basic quantum fizziks with a little new ageyness thrown in for good measure. We now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I gotta get out more... I read the headline as when Microsoft Ate the Ocean.
UGH. *scratches another mark on the wall to keep track of how many times people have confused Orson Welles with H. G. Wells*
Kids, Orson Welles did not write War of the Worlds. H. G. Wells did, in 1898. Orson Welles just made a dumb little radio adaption of it.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
But if it ever happens, all life on Earth would likely be destroyed.
There's one unwavering faith I have in the human race: The ability to destroy things. That evil algae doesn't stand a chance!
Bill Paxton as the divorced Oceanographer who's trying to balance being a father to his 18 year-old son with his job.
Susan Sarandon as the head of the Governments Task Force on the Environment. She's tough and passionate but is there anything she can do?
Alec Baldwin as the President whos up for re-election. Can he fend off the powerful lobbyists yet still keep his office?
Jennifer Lopez is the scientist with a solution, but no one will listen due to her reputation as being an alarmist.
Wil Wheaton with a cameo as The Beaver.
Steven Spielberg is rumored to be interested.
Definitely must be Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle!
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Did you study arts at college? Whether something burns depends on the heat you expose it to, the type of material itself, and also (yes) the availability of oxidiser (O2 in the air). Methane gas, coal, and all your other favourite fossil fuels will burn in 19%-O2 air just fine. They might produce marginally more carbon monoxide, but they wouldn't just stop.
If combustion was that sensitive, I think most candles wouldn't burn because they'd use up the oxygen around them to quickly. And blowing gently on a flame would always put it out rather than increase it, because there's less O2 (about 16%?) and more CO2 in your exhaled breath.
This is not a sig
The article points out that if Earth was a bit farther away from the Sun, then the Carbon Dioxide would have frozen out of the atmosphere, thus preventing that particular greenhouse gas from bringing on a subsequent warming period. Mars has almost exactly that situation. One or the other of the poles is always cold enough to freeze Carbon Dioxide out of its atmosphere. Too little greenhouse gas ==>>planet stays too cold==>> water permenantly locked up as ice.
With the discoveries of the last couple of years we know Mars has lots of water and Carbon Dioxide, and Methane to boot! AND we know that temperatures permitted liquid surface water in the distant past.
Is this reasonable? Could cyanobacteria have doomed Mars? anyone?
The absence of oxygen consuming organisms at that time is said to have lead to destruction of atmospheric methane which had hitherto warmed the earth.
So if I am generating methane I'm really saving the planet? Will someone explain this to my wife?
FLR
I don't have a subscription to PNAS, so I could only read the abstract, but for what it's worth I think it goes like this:
All the evidence seems to be geochemical, e.g. they look at the chemical composition of rocks of a certain age and, knowing the chemical reactions that produce that composition, infer the chemical composition and temperature of the atmosphere at the time. This is not unlike the way the Mars Rovers are using the chemical composition of rocks on Mars to acquire evidence for or against the prior existence of liquid water.
They take for granted that everyone agrees there was a massive glaciation (the "snowball") at a certain time long in the past, and that the early atmosphere was reducing (high in methane, ammonia and water, low in oxygen and CO2), but underwent at another certain time, long in the past, and because of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms (the cyanobacteria), a fairly rapid change to an oxidizing system (high in free oxygen and CO2, low in methane and ammonia).
What they suggest is that the two events are not unconnected. By discarding certain evidence and adducing other, they argue the two events may be close in time. Hence there might be some connection.
The connection they suggest revolves around the facts that methane is a known powerful greenhouse gas, and the Sun was cooler in those days than it is now. I speculate they suggest the early Earth was unglaciated because large amounts of methane gave a strong greenhouse effect that compensated for the lower solar illumination.
But then the evil cyanobacteria (cue Imperial March music) evolved and started producing free oxygen like crazy, which reacted with the methane to produce water and CO2. Away goes the methane, away goes the greenhouse effect (since CO2 is less effective as a greenhouse gas than methane), and the Earth plunges into the deepfreeze.
Later, the Sun heats up a bit, so less greenhouse effect will keep the temps up, and also aerobic organisms start exhaling CO2 and farting a bit of methane, and all is once again serene.
The "close call" is because if the Earth were further from the Sun, like near the orbit of Mars, then there wouldn't be any replacement CO2 greenhouse effect, because the CO2 would just freeze out as dry ice.
Arthur: What does it say?
Brother Maynard : It says: "I believe! I believe! Aw crap! my blood's boiling!"
Arthur: What?
Brother Maynard : my blood's boiling!
Sir Bedemere: What, he's dead?
Brother Maynard: He must've died while posting it.
Arthur: Oh, come on!
Brother Maynard: Well that's what it says.
Arthur: Look, if he was dying he wouldn't bother to type "my blood's boiling!" He'd just say it.
Brother Maynard: Well that's what's posted on Slashdot.
Sir Lancelot: Perhaps he was dictating.
Arthur: Oh, shut up.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Why are you so quick to denounce researchers investigating global warming? Why would they not have paleoclimatologists among their numbers?
Wikipedia. Volcanoes. Easy to read about it.
Quote: "Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year."
Sometimes much higher if there is a extremely large eruption.