Global Warming May Have Killed the Dinosaurs 269
The Fun Guy sent in a link to the American Society for Microbiology site, your leading news source for everything between nano and macro. The site is featuring a story about new research into the KT barrier extinction: the period in history where the dinosaurs went extinct, along with a number of other families of species. For a number of years scientists have theorized that an impact on the Yucatan peninsula was responsible for the species crash, but microbiological examination of marine organisms of the time indicate life persisted for another 300,000 years after the 'Chicxulub impact'. The researchers at Princeton who made this discovery theorize that global warming caused by a volcanic eruption in India is a more likely culprit for the world-wide devastation. The article generalizes that there is no 'smoking gun' for this event, and further research is required.
life persisted for another 300,000 years after (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, I wonder if there's still life on the planet in question...
Re:Global warming ... just not that way. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article claims based on microbiological analysis from drill cores in Texas that the impact event, the tsunami event often associated with the impact, and the KT boundary, are all quite distinct in time, and all are distinct from the changes in microfosils that they think are indicitave of the dinosaurs dying. The article ends with a ridiculous statement that implies birds evolved after the KT event rather than before. Birds are not dinosaurs. Birds survived the KT event. Dinosours did not.
Curiously, they do not discuss how an impact of the type they claim to identify was not associated with a tsunami. Nor is there mention of how the irridium got into the KT boundary layer without an impact.
Whenever you see anyone filling in an area of uncertainty with a trendy, crisis-du-jour explanation, you should be very sceptical. The odds that a major socio-economic/political concern today just happens to be related to a mass extinction in the distant past are extremely low. The odds of scientists (and reporters) letting current concerns bleed into their hypotheses is on the other hand extremely high.
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look up, "The Year Without a Summer."
It was caused by . .
It's sad there's a massive following of the global warming is going to kill us all promoters online and off, to the extent that they've had to warp everything bad that happens, everytime, everywhere, to the effects of global warming.
Even ice ages fercrisakes.
No, I am not a global warming denier. 12,000 years ago Ireland was just emerging from under a sheet of glacial ice. Now there are palm trees in Kerry. Sea levels have risen about 400 feet. Things have clearly warmed up a bit. You'd have to be a kook to deny that. I'm a global climactic instability insistor. It's always, going up, or down; and sometimes even sideways (large, but local, changes. See the Sahara).
The climate will stop changing when the Sun expands and strips away the atmosphere; and not one minute before.
If this really bothers you go build yourself a biodome out beyond the Heliopause, but good luck controling its climate.
KFG
simple-minded scientists (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really not that difficult: the Earth's climate has demonstrated multiple stable (more than a few million years) and metastable states, ranging from snowball to hothouse, with side trips through conditions like our current glacial/interglacial metastate. The rate at which climate state can change, once change begins, is generally faster than species, particularly those embedded in "eco-web", can follow. When the Chicxulub event happened, the global climate state was moved toward a different one which was not conducive to the major fauna of the time, the dinosaurs. It didn't kill everything overnight (except near ground zero), but may have thrown off the timing of mating, reduced the efficiency of some primary plant's life-cycle, or in some other way moved the birth rate of the dinosaurs to below replacement (less efficient animals have fewer reserves and are more vulnerable to disease, for example). Some species and ecosystems may have required a few hundred thousand years to dwindle away, but the impact triggered that particular extinction event. Other events, such as the Permian-Triassic extinction, are more likely to have been caused by vulcanism.
Volcanos and warming (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to want the climate to be entirely free from constraints of cause and effect, it can go wherever it wants for no reason at all. This is, I think, what you mean by instability. Climate feedbacks do occur but this is not the same thing as the butterfly effect which makes weather difficult to predict. Climate follows forcing and both the short term aerosols that you cite and the long term GHG balance have definite effects on climate.
----
Because this false equating of weather behavior and climate behavior has been a major part of a well funded attempt to decieve the public http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-
Skeptical about global warming? Who cares, you can still save money by switching to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Global warming killed them eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Irony Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, not. I think the dead, liquid dinosaurs are the scapegoats. I think people are afraid to admit that its that pesky Sun, on a warming cycle, and volcanic action, there's been a lot, and just plain cycles.
People are afraid to admit it because then it is out of our control, and one thing people really like is to be in control.
well, you're going to stay cross (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's the polite way of phrasing it. Basically they're just arrogant. They don't understand global warming (or evolution) and they really think that their own seat-of-the-pants assessment is more insightful than that of scientists who make their living analyzing the data. The virulent strain of populism that defines American culture encourages this. Evangelical Christianity encourages this. The media plays into it. The media exists to sell toothpaste and beer, and you don't sell as much toothpaste and beer if your message to viewers is "you don't understand things as well as you think you do, because you lack the education." It's a sad, self-perpetuating situation, but you (and all likeminded people) are stuck in a never-ending cycle of refuting the same claims, again and again and again and...
*Tossing the BS Flag* (Score:2, Insightful)
1) It took several super volcanos going off at the same time and spewing millions upon millions of tons of contaminants into the air to cause the planet to cool. One volcanic eruption occured in Minnesota and dumped nearly 20 feet of ash in locations several hundred miles away. Keep in mind that this our planet, doing what it does and sending us all into a series of ice ages.
2) Given the recovery capacity of the planet, what makes you think your puny a$$ vespa or even my brontosaur vehicle can spew enough crap to cause climatic change?
3) My behemoth puts off emissions that have to be measured in ppm and ppb - thats parts per million and parts per billon. That means you have to have millions and billions of cars to get any kind of a quantity.
4) If all the volcanic eruptions made the planet cool off, isn't it finally getting back to normal now?
5) If you don't agree with any of the above, kindly submit temprature data from the pertinent geological epoch and explain where your themometer was located.
I'm not saying global warming is complete crock, but I don't think that they've proven their case. Seriously, there's no money in everything being fine. When there's money involved, I'd like to see proof.
Re:Irony Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:2, Insightful)
Well said. There is a habit of mind that is common in America right now to deny facts that make one uncomfortable. A primary example of this is the denial of evolution by fundamentalist Christians. The fact of evolution, supported by increasingly massive amounts of evidence is denied, because the alternative would be to significantly revise one's view of the world, something that can often be very uncomfortable. This timid and cowardly habit of hiding from the truth can be very dangerous. People that hide too often from the truth have a flexible sense of reality that can easily be manipulated. For instance, it is interesting to note how many fundamentalist Christians have views that substantially reflect the best interests of large business interests: pure free market ideology, climate change denial, and other neoconservative positions for example. I don't think you'll find much in the bible about these topics, and yet somehow these are common Christian views. American Christianity is turning into a politicized state religion whose purpose is control the populace to further the interests of the powerful and corrupt. Dark age, here we come!
Just because you like a theory doesn't make it so (Score:5, Insightful)
Put those 4 things together and the "science" of climate change has a problem. The problem is simple: scientifically, we cannot use the scientific method to predict change because our best models are not yet scientifically predictive. That's an absolute problem, and it can't be fudged by wishful thinking.
We know many facts --- most of the measurements are not in doubt. The trouble is, we can't add those facts together because the underlying model isn't working even to first order. You HAVE to be able to model major effects like the glaciation cycle before you can be confident that your model is valid for smaller effects like a 1 or 2 degrees C of additional contributory greenhouse heating.
The fact that the vast majority of climatologists believe that we are witnessing unprecedented global warming and that man's outpouring of CO2 is the key factor in it really has no bearing on the above. Science is not about beliefs. And it's not about witnessing diverse effects in the world around us and mentally putting 2 and 2 together. That's not science.
The only thing that's really certain is that we're witnessing an unprecedented rise in CO2 levels, and that the extra CO2 is undoubtedly a contributing factor for any climate change. And that's it. That's all we know. The rest is supposition, and the results from our GCM simulations cannot be accepted as gospel because they are quite severely limited, and do not match history, and we know it.
I'm not actually a skeptic on global warming at all (personally), but I absolutely refuse to attribute to science a prediction that the scientific method cannot currently deliver. It's a matter of scientific integrity.
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Christian who is able to think for myself, I'd like to make a response to your comments.
First, I agree somewhat with you. I too am uncomfortable with some of the politicization of the Church in America. The Church is at it's best when it is under pressure and persecution, not when it is wielding political power. I really don't care much for state religions myself.
However, I don't believe that Christians (even fundamentalists) has a monopoly on denying the truth. It is basic human nature to deny what we don't won't to see. The Bible actually describes and depicts this willful tendency of ours toward self-blinding.
I don't discount what scientists say, but then again I also treat it with some skepticism because I know that scientists are subject to the same problems that the rest of us are. Their judgment can be affected by self-interest just as much as you and me.
Also, I beg to differ on another point. Positive opinions on the topics you have mentioned are, with a doubt, held by many Christians. But, wouldn't you agree they are also held by many non-Christians also? Are "fundamentalist Christians" the only people who deny evolution? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who are skeptical regarding global warming? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who believe in free market capitalism?
I would ask you, why do non-Christians hold some of these same views you seem to be opposing? Are they somehow under the control of the same "force" as the "fundamentalist Christians"? How do you explain this?
Also, if you believe that "fundamentalist Christians" are somehow being controlled for the benefit of commercial interests, I think there is something else to take into account. You will probably find these same "fundamentalists" also hold some opinions antithetical to those of business. For example, many large businesses provide benefits for "same-sex partners." I don't think the fundamentalists like that. In this case, it seems they are thinking for themselves.
You also seem to be assuming that no one who honestly examines the facts on global warming, evolution, capitalism, etc., can come to an conclusion opposite to your own. Might I suggest that people of integrity can find themselves on opposites sides of an issue for reasons other than a desire not to face the truth?
Please remember that you are also bringing your own set of presuppositions to the discussion, and that there are factors influencing your thinking of which you not aware.
Speak for yourself, pal. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a skeptic of anything so obviously incorrect, and much of the crud being presented as "research" by both the devotees and naysayers is definitely incorrect. The very little solid work is lost amidst the garbage.
That's why I'm skeptical about most of the claims being made by all the axe-grinders, be they doomsdayers or not.
Re:Irony Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
We certainly contributed but it was going to happen anyway.
Re:*Tossing the BS Flag* (Score:4, Insightful)
People who make money from oil, the Chinese, the Indians, and everyone else who wouldn't have to do any cleaning up would probably disagree with that statement.
There is bugger all money in anthropomorphic climate change. There is instead a big cost in changing things if it turns out to be true and therefore a big financial incentive to deny it at all costs.
That means you have to have millions and billions of cars to get any kind of a quantity.
Not to mention all the other vehicles including planes, trains, trucks etc and all factories pumping out waste. In any case there might well be a billion cars on the roads of the world now; if not it probably isn't that far off.
Given the recovery capacity of the planet, what makes you think your puny a$$ vespa or even my brontosaur vehicle can spew enough crap to cause climatic change?
What does the recovery capacity of the planet have to do with whether the human race gets wiped out or not?
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not saying we shouldn't take some actions, but I am saying that you are ignorant to just rule out everything the skeptics say. Any American plan for energy independence and global warming has to be two fold. Short term plans as a consumer buy more energy effecient appliances and cars; as a company (and government) do that and developer more local resources (like drill for more oil in Alaska, California, the mid-western U.S., and in the Gulf) and update the methods to produce fuels like gas. Refineries are decades old using older technology.
Now the second part is long term. Start to research feasible, cost efficient, and easy to use alternate energy means for heating, transportation, production, etc. If the technology is not feasible, efficient and easy to use people will not use it. It's that simple. You can should all you want, but people want things that are cheap (& cost effective) and easy to use. The more you need to spend or do to accomplish the task, the less people will use it.
To dismiss all the doubts of people as the whining and/or ignorant rants of lunatics is not very scientific. All options should be considered. Scientist have had a closed and narrow mind for a long time now. They need to leave the labs a little more and come back to reality. Scientists and people like you are the people who are really arrogant.
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is not, never has been, and never will be "someone". I think that you actually mean "I trust scientists.". Not that that is an entirely bad thing, but you ought to say what you mean.
Finally, it is worth noting that you seem to have confused the GP with fundamentalist Christians. AFAICT, GP was defending the fundies from your attacks by pointing out that they "do not have a monopoly" on denying the truth. This is completely orthogonal to saying "I also deny the truth. Attack me!". It is also completely orthogonal to defending the actual views of the fundies. Your vitriol is misplaced, sir.
FWIW, I am a scientist. Specifically a physicist. I remained skeptical of global warming for a long time after most of
You seem to be telling us that we should not engage in non-scientific thinking, but also that we should not disbelieve scientists. However, this is quite contradictory, because scientific thinking involves an awful lot of disbelieving other scientists! Often, a lot of scientific disbelief is methodological, but if the concerns raised by methodological doubt are not addressed, then that methodological doubt should become real doubt.
Re:Volcanos and warming (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely the issue that has raised rational concern about global climate change. We are giving a system that is known to be unstable a tap with a hammer. There is no doubt whatsoever that we are giving it a tap with a hammer: anthropogenic greenhouse gases have changed the planetary heat balance around one percent in the past century or two (that is, the added gases produce something like a 1% change in effective insolation).
It is admittedly unlikely but it would be as embarrassing as hell if by this behaviour we happen to excite a mode in the Earth's naturally unstable climate that causes massive economic disruption.
So prudence dicates that we moderate our behaviour and focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next century of so. Prudence also dictates that we don't listen to enviro-wingnuts who want to change human behaviour based on some crackpot moral or political agenda. This has nothing to do with saving the Earth. It has everything to do with being rational stewards of our home, so that we and our descendents can live long and well upon it.
Re:Well, THERE'S the problem! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even better than the wiki is this [wikipedia.org]
I thought there was a recent Slashdot article where profs weren't taking Wikipedia as a reference in term papers because of potential inaccuracies and bias?
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:1, Insightful)
That's very true, but I feel that I - again - have to explain that this self interest is the second pillar of science, the first being the refutable hypothesis.
Science works because scientists want to be the first to come up with the bright new idea, to disprove the existing one and to prove that somebody else is wrong (and get more funding
Therefore you should indeed be skeptical when a scientist is talking, but when science forms a consensus, you'd better listen. Because it means that loads of very smart people tried to knock the whole thing down for a long time and failed.
Re:well, you're going to stay cross (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure our climate models will improve. I've never thought we had rock-solid unquestionable data, only that what we have is the best information we have. Considering what's at stake, I'd like to act on the best information we have rather than wait until we have another model. New models will always be forthcoming, but if carbon dioxide and other pollutants have the effects we now think they do, the effects of waiting will be both worse and nonreversible.
I do defer to the consensus of scientists working in a given field. If atomic physicists have come to the consensus that a particular subatomic particle exists, I'll buy it. If a zoologist, dermatologist, a minister, and Rush Limbaugh are skeptical, I'm skeptical of their skepticism, and will probably attribute (rightly or wrongly) their skepticism to political motives. Looking at, say, evolution, a lot of people are pointing at opinions of "scientists" not working in that field and saying "See? There is a controversy over evolution--the jury is still out."
I'm well aware that my approach can be wrong. But I think the best authority on physics would be physicists, the best authority on evolution would be biologists and zooligists, and the best authority on climatology would be climatologists. If a field comes to a consensus to the extent that climatologists have come to a consensus, I'll admit that I'm likely to defer to them. The opinion of scientists in other fields is not without value, but it doesn't constitute a full-fledged refutation. If you can think of a better approach for laymen, let me know.