Slashdot Mirror
'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Rapid global warming caused the largest extinction event in the Earth's history, which wiped out the vast majority of marine and terrestrial animals on the planet, scientists have found. The mass extinction, known as the "great dying," occurred around 252m years ago and marked the end of the Permian geologic period. The study of sediments and fossilized creatures show the event was the single greatest calamity ever to befall life on Earth, eclipsing even the extinction of the dinosaurs 65m years ago. Up to 96% of all marine species perished while more than two-thirds of terrestrial species disappeared. The cataclysm was so severe it wiped out most of the planet's trees, insects, plants, lizards and even microbes.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
"Garden hose doesn't cause wet grass because rain does that."
Ezekiel 23:20
Carbon, amazingly, doesn't care where it comes from.
And yes there are other sources. In the case of the Great Dying, a giant asteroid slammed into Siberia turning it into a gigantic lava bed.
See any 13 million square kilometre lava beds recently? Or giant asteroid strikes?
No?
Then the lesson you learn is that rapid climate change is deadly because it is rapid. The fact that temperatures have been more extreme than during that time doesn't matter.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yep, all them models of quantum mechanics we use to build computer chips? Complete bollocks. Those models we use to build bridges and skyscrapers to figure out the loads and stress, utter garbage since they are always falling down...hmmmm...not yet, you say? Given enough time, they will and show your model theory is correct. You should tell the scientists about this, I'm sure they'd listen to you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one. We can calculate the absorption spectrum of small molecules down to 10 digits, including those of carbon dioxide, water and methane.
If the dinosaurs had all bought $60,000+ Tesla's this could have been avoided.
We can ask ourselves what a civilisation would see of our remains in 250 million years time. There would be nothing left of our constructions. There might be lots of fossilised remains of chickens though and they might start to question how a silly little fat bird got to be so successful during the chicken epoch. Maybe we should look and see if there are excessive remains of a species that probably wouldn't be so successful unless a dominant species was breeding it.
Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Consider that we find dinosaur fossils. If there was a civilization that created ever somewhat durable artifacts, we would know.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Back in the 90s my wife worked for a large public water authority serving over a million people. She attended a board meeting in which the IT department presented a proposal to acquire this new thing called "anti-virus".
When one of the board members heardhow much this would cost, he balked. When challenged by other board members as to what they should do about computer viruses, this was his response: "We don't have to do anything. We've spent millions of dollars on these systems, and the integrity of those systems will protect them."
In other words, he didn't have any specific justification for his position, he was just certain they didn't need to do anything about the problem. He was certain because that's what his gut was telling him. And his gut was telling him that because he didn't like what he'd have to do if it were a problem.
This is, in fact, the way most people think. Only people trained in specific disciplines like science think differently, and with social media it's very easy to construct an information bubble in which science sounds outlandish, because everyone knows Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
there's not problem. Folks know there's a problem, but the average person is living paycheck to paycheck (60-80% of them, depending on if you define "paycheck to paycheck" as "very little in the bank" or "not a dime in the bank").
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Climate change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month. If you want folks to care about climate change you have to solve their short term economic problems. That means taxes. If you're making good money (figure $300k/yr+) your taxes are going up to fund public works projects. Also we're gonna have to pull back on all those wars and, well, let's not mince words, your stock portfolio profits handsomely from the Military Industrial Complex...
Still, unless we do something about working class Americans then they're gonna keep voting climate change deniers in office because anything we can do about Climate change is likely to cost them money, and they're barely making it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the 1970s, greenhouse effect models correctly predicted that the aerosol cooling trend that dominated global climate between 1940 and 1980 would be reversed in the coming decades. And if you apply an impulse response filter (like moving average) to smooth out year-to-year weather effects, the predictions of those models as to global temperature anomalies hold up extremely well.
This is the strongest possible confirmation you can have for a scientific hypothesis, which is why the burden of proof is on people who make claims like the earth is not warming, or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't drive climate change. You can call the people who support AGW "chicken littles", but here's the thing: even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. The emotional basis of your beliefs has no relevance at all. It's what you claim and how you support it.
You can be a Young Earth creationist and a good scientist, as long as you don't make any unsupportable creationist claims in a scientific forum. In church you can say anything you damn well please.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let's face the sad, dirty little fact: the 'average person' is not very smart, and can't really think very far in the future, either. The science of most things is so far over their heads, that they'd sooner believe they're being swindled out of something.
Short story: I used to know a guy who told me once that he thought he could put a bunch of little electric generators with propellers mounted on them on the hood of his car, and get 'free energy', that he'd somehow route to a motor that would improve his gas mileage. No matter how I tried to explain it to him, he just plain would not believe that the losses would far exceed the gains, and that the added air resistance would actually make his fuel economy worse. He literally believed something like this troll image was real. Nothing would persuade him differently.
The above story is more-or-less the Average Person when it comes to science. What's worse: take the average person and add religion? It's even worse, they not only believe most science is bullshit intended to trick them, they believe science is EVIL and Satanic and they're trying to mislead them away from their God. That's the sort of icecream-headache-causing nonsense we're fighting against here.
Then you think incorrectly. Tectonics is not like shuffling a deck of cards, it doesn't jumble everything. Besides, you'll have to explain how the gold got *back* into veins in rocks, lode deposits, etc.
Again, it is just a bad example. I am a physicist, and the turbines on a car misconception is one of those exceptions that is actually viable for certain conditions, which may be why some people intuitively cling to it.
Consider a car at rest pointing into the wind. The fans generate power while no work is done by the wheels and nothing is lost to drag. Obviously some forward motion is possible before things come to equilibrium. Working it out, that equilibrium happens at a bit faster than the windspeed.
So it won't work on a highway commute (and would in fact be detrimental) but it isn't a totally wrong direction for casual intuition to take you. Sailboats sail into the wind, using the wind speed differential as power in an analogous way.