Slashdot Mirror


Changes in Earth's Orbit Linked to Extinctions

Josh Fink writes "A group of Dutch Scientists have recently released a study stating that they have found that changes in Earth's orbit around the sun are linked to mammal extinctions. From the article: '"Extinctions in rodent species occur in pulses which are spaced by intervals controlled by astronomical variations and their effects on climate change..." The cycles are associated with lower temperatures, changes in precipitation, habitats, vegetation and food availability which are the main factors influencing the extinction peaks, the study published in the journal Nature said.' So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."

6 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. Re:BTW by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't account for the massive extinctions such as the Permian. The arrangement of the continents also very likely either exacerbates or minimizes the effects of orbital variations. They also only studied a specific region in Spain (not to mention rodents in particular) which may have been especially prone to subtle climate changes. They need to study a wider geographic and species range.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  2. Re:Move Along by guycouch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, this study isn't all that new. The globes tilt has been known to be linked to CO2 levels (and temperature) for a while now. The question is how do the effects of greenhouse gases put out by industry compare to this effect, and the answer is not so clear. Yes, obviously many scientists and virtually all non-scientists attribute all of our climate changes to to industry, but we need to remember to be rigorous on both sides of the debate. In short, this is not junk science. And to claim so only shows that you yourself are not a scientist.

  3. Cyclical what? by Loopy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if we could affect a change in the earth's orbit around the sun, who's to say if that is a good thing? Might that not be akin to preventing all forest fires? Controlled burns are our way of preventing some large/catastrophic forest fires and lightning strikes are nature's way of doing it. What makes us think the "wobble" in our orbit isn't causing cyclical "refresh" events? No, I'm not suggesting some diety is controlling things or that ZOMG WE R AL GOING 2 DIE or anything like that. Just saying we might not yet comprehend the consequences of making this "fix" change. Hell, we are still unable to predict the weather with any certainty more than a day or two out. /shrug

  4. Why is it? by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That its perfectly fine for one side to have exceptions to issues the other side but the reverse is not true.

    My problem with the whole GW crowd is how they will quickly object or attempt to marginalize anything which doesn't support their view. At the same time any little piece of information which supports their view is held forth as indisputable fact.

    Look, we don't know half of what we think we do. The one great thing about science in this day and age is that we are continously changing what we know as fact as our ability to observe becomes better and better. Old theories that were hard to prove can be supported and previous "unalterable" facts are dismissed.

    We can barely predict the weather from day to day let alone week to week. We can't accurately predict the number of hurricanes, typhoons, or the like. Yet at the same time you want me to believe that enough is known to tell me that we are all going to die in 10 years?

    Just admit you know about as much about the climate as the other side. Fact is, we are still discovering the variables. In no shape or form can you have the definitive anwser without all the variables.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  5. Re:BTW by slartibart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Firstly, there is an upper limit (temperature-wise) in which humans can survive. There are areas near the equator which are beyond this limit now, and a slight increase in temperature would enlarge them considerably - possibly as far as Spain, or equivilant southwards.

    That's absurd. There's no "areas near the equator" that are too hot for humans to survive. There's no such "area" anywhere on earth. Daily temps of 120+ are easily survivable - Las Vegas sees that regularly. See, humans have these things called "sweat glands". All they need is water and they can survive the heat.

    But what if there's no water, you say? Well then, the problem isn't the heat.

  6. Re:BTW by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ah, it's amazing how so many conspiracy theories have been brought to my attention through slashdot postings. Apparently, ithis particular linked in with Christian eschatology or some such nonsense.

    Might I point out that the Romans used an especially inaccurate calendar, and it was not until 46 BCE that the somewhat more familiar Julian system was adopted?

    360 happens to be an easy number to use. It's not especially accurate, but correcting the error requires some knowledge of astronomy, as well a certain amount of political power. Now, it may be that a number of civilizations adopted a 365 day year at approximately the same time. Perhaps some of them were trading partners.