'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says (theguardian.com) 210
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.
Protip (Score:2)
Mass extinctions often occur at such changeovers. Be extra careful around these times, and check your insurance is valid.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Mass extinctions often occur at such changeovers. Be extra careful around these times, and check your insurance is valid.
Fear not citizen, for we no longer need fear these things. A vote was taken, and we have mandated that temperatures remain stable.
Maybe it was an advanced civilisation (Score:2)
Burning fossil fuel. And eventually killing the ecosystem and itself. Not entirely unlikely. Scientist have been toying with this thought. Ours really isn't that old and we're screwing up the planet already, big time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe it was an advanced civilisation (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We can ask ourselves what a civilisation would see of our remains in 250 million years time
There was a very very tiny chance of having an intelligent form of life on Earth in the beginning, there won't be another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True, probably the strongest argument in favor of us being the first civilization is the productivity of the early mines. Gold was just lying about!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it was an advanced civilisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it was an advanced civilisation (Score:4, Informative)
Consider that we find dinosaur fossils. If there was a civilization that created ever somewhat durable artifacts, we would know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Subduction. Get an adult to look it up for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no rocks in the crust that are as old as the Earth itself, so everything gets subducted (or destroyed by some other means) eventually.
So does this mean (Score:2)
that it really doesn't matter what humans do, or don't do, , because when it's time for mass extinction, it's time for mass extinction? Because 252m years ago, there were no people around to cause this.
I guess there should be some hue and cry about escaping Earth, and creating other places as biological refuges, but I don't know if we actually deserve it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it means we should act smarter than rocks. Are we men, or are we menhirs?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means we should act smarter than rocks. Are we men, or are we menhirs?
Finally, someone's thinking about the orthostats!
Wasn't it methane-producing bacteria? (Score:2)
Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.
Wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So rapid warming has happened before?
Oh yes. Rapid warming, rapid cooling. Or slow versions of each. There have been some very interesting times in earth's past.
Want some interesting reading? DDG "snowball earth" hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Note that is at the hypothesis stage - as we go further back, it takes a lot more work to figure out what exactly happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, humans can both predict and control the climate if we want. We just need to decide to act.
I remember years of having to ration petrol because we were told we had to. Everyone just got on with it.
Re: (Score:2)
And just think, in another hundred million years there will likely be little trace humanity was ever here, beyond perhaps a teeny tiny couple meters thick layer far deep down in the earths crust with an oddly off-average ratio of carbon and a less than average redistribution of potassium, sodium, and a small handful of other radioactive decay by products.
Hopefully we can get ourselves that RAID upgrade on the galactic scale before then!
Exactly. Almost every species on earth has gone extinct, and humans are not likely to be the exception. The question is whether it happens via disaster, ot whether we do it to ourselves. My money is that at some point, our hyper agressivness and our tendency toward irrational behavior will have us gleefully pushing the buttons that ends it all for us.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had regional warming since the agricultural revolution. It's brought down entire civilizations.
Stupid dinosaurs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but nature will stop us before we get anywhere close. And we won't like the way that'll go down.
Sequels (Score:2)
Re:See (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you cared so much about CO2 you would stop living your excessive first world lifestyle which produces so god damned much of it.
I'm offended. Second world lifestyle, bitch.
Re: See (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the major drivers given for this warming has been hypothesized as mass ignition of coal beds, caused by either volcanism or an asteroid strike. That would convert a relatively local catastrophe into world climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly, there HAS been a rapid change in the environment, and no evidence of a pause.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you'll find that I mentioned.... Oh, look! THIRTEEN MILLION SQUARE MILES of lava. And the asteroid? Triggered the lava flows, not the dying in itself.
Amazing.
Christ on a pancake. Does ANYONE bother to read these days? Am I the last person on Earth who can read???
Re: (Score:2)
Except that doesn't explain what "Overrated" and "Underrated" are for. These require an explicit judgement of the content even when it is on-topic.
It's not as though this problem is new, either. It was broken when it was first implemented, as are all similar reader voting schemes for the same reasons. No one should expect popularity contests to produce good results.
Society is hyper-partisan. You expect moderation to be corrupted by that, not be a solution for it.
Re: horrible moderation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity there isn't a "-1: No they wouldn't, that's ridiculous!" mod.
Re:Models (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Models (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision. We're still looking for exceptions.
The problem with something like the greenhouse effect is that it's so large that no feasible quantum theory based model exists. We can't even accurately model the atoms in a liter of air, because the equations get too hairy.
So it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Greenhouse Effect is purely qu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision.
There's no way to accurately model planetary atmospheres without involving gravity, so the poster who said "The Greenhouse Effect is no more "purely" quantum mechanical than a cow is "purely" spherical." is correct, even if he didn't know why.
Also, the poster who said "Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one." is also mistaken because a correct model of the so-called Green House effect depends upon interactions between the layers of the atmosphere. And those layers are due to g
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. I wasn't defending that the greenhouse effect could be modeled with a quantum model. But my caveat was because the various gravitational extensions proposed for quantum theory haven't been validated. They do exist, and, as far as we can measure, they are correct. (We just can't measure very much. And they're clearly wrong in extreme cases where we can compare them with relativity in areas where relativity has been validated. I'm not sure what decimal the inconsistency would show up in, thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Again, wrong. Try catching up. Everything said in that post is well presented and uncontroversial.
Again, a poster child of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know that out side of tiny "proof of principle" models it can't be done. But I was objecting to a particular statement. The assertion that models weren't useful. Without a model your decisions would be worse than throwing darts at a dartboard after being blindfolded, and spun around a few times...and the dart board moved randomly. (Did you notice that I'm building a model?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly correct. CO2 does not stay around forever, there's natural feedbacks, plants are obvious, there's also the cycle where more CO2 causes warming which causes more evaporation and more rain, which leads to more weathering of silicates which bind CO2 into rock. In just a few thousand years, if we stopped adding CO2, it would drop back down to about 300ppm.
This cycle is also a climate driver on geological time scales. Lots of new mountains capture more rain and have lots of silicates to get weathered, CO2
Re: Models (Score:2)
However, you should thank them; that irrelevant little gaff is the only flaw you can exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Models (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it [rationalwiki.org].
Re: Models (Score:2)
Re: Models (Score:2)
> the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Re: (Score:3)
Know what 99.999999% of every human on the planet prioritizes above all else? Day to day survival, and making their lives work, taking care of their families, and so on. They don't have TIME or ENERGY to think about things this big. So blaming them for propping up oil companies is bullshit so far as I'm concerned. There's supposed to be bigger brains with a more farsighted vision of things taking care of the long-term plans, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Genoa, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
If I hadn't already used all my mod points, I *would* commence downvoting you. If you don't have a model to justify your conclusions, then you're guessing essentially at random. If you don't know or understand your model, you don't have much reason to trust it.
That said, a model is no guarantee of the correct answer. It's just that not having a model *is* almost a guarantee of the wrong answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I see this, I know the conclusions are bollocks.
The only way to know something which is demonstrably false is to be an idiot.
The original IPCC report had climate models in it. The climate agreed with the future predictions to within the error bars, demonstrating the models were not in fact bollocks.
Now, please start my inevitable downvoting.
Yes if you post something that stupid it will get downmodded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that? You wouldn't be Mike Pence would you? Kill'em all, let G-d sort'em out.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about people complaining about Trump at the funeral, they generally wouldn't know the Apostles Creed from Apollo Creed.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be great if we could cause rapid warming in these two states.
Yep they are an oaffront to reality what with being all liberal and regulation heavy yet also being commercial powerhouses. The solution to reality defing people is to destroy them.
FFS if you don't like California or New York don't go and live there. There are plenty of states to choose from which they susidise.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think you can take a moment to put things in perspective? Here, let me help you:
Politics: very short-lived. Less than a human lifetime.
The future of life on Earth: Measured in millions of years
Please get your priorities straight, okay? Once you do then go help two others do the same. And they'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to have a policy to go to a good restaurant for agood steak and bottle of red every time a spike in alarmist reports hit.
It is strange the things that some folks consider alarmist. This is merely a conjunction of physics, geology, chemistry and a few other sciences. Odd that people such as yourself find it alarmist, while people like myself find it enjoyable, like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle as the different disciplines intertwine.
Not to mention, we wouldn't be here if it hadn't happened
Relax and enjoy that bottle of red, You don't need any reason other than being here.
Re: (Score:3)
Your response is far too kind to a fairly transparent bit of trolling...
I'd rather you had that nice bottle of red, peacemaking and calm should have its rewards...
Rgds
Damon
Re: The sky is falling religion marching on (Score:2)
Right? We used to think the sun was a god, until we learned better. Now we know there is no sun.
Re: (Score:2)
no return Venus-like
No one ever claimed "Venus like" except idiots like you.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not global climate change that's driving this, it's local habitat disruption. Global climate change creates local habitat disruption, but so do other things, like people introducing non-native species to a locality, or hunting a local keystone species to extinction.
You are thinking as if the only kind of "cause" is one that is both necessary and sufficient. Climate change, exotic species introduction, human predation, human transformation of landscape for agriculture or development... none of these
Re: (Score:2)
Hondurans are the same species we are, dimwit.
Re:The Lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I don't think it's people's guts telling them (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
My idea of a solution is not buying off "working class Americans" with tax cuts to support climate change issues and that appears to be your proposal here. The thought of any politician considering that is hysterical. If the government won't take action, it won't enact tax policies that cause voters to insist on it.
Ultimately the problem is greed, it is money corrupting the political system. The answer is not more money corrupting more people differently. You make good points, but what you advocate woul
You're not buying them off (Score:3)
What I'm advocating has already happened in large parts of Europe and the UK (though the UK is regressing and Europe is trying to).
Finally, Money corrupting the system is just a symptom. If folks felt more secure then all the money in the world would prevent them from addressing climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Rent is indeed due next month - but come again on climate change? It's costing hundreds of billions each year and killing people just here in the United States - see the recent forest fires in California for just one example.
The other thing is that doing something on climate change would vastly improve the paycheck of the shmoe trying to pay rent next month. Replacing coal plants with wind and solar, and building out electric mass trans
It's easy to say the forest fires (Score:3)
Doing something on climate change would only benefit their checks if it lead to new jobs for the folks who'll be put out of work. A lot of climate change proponents are just asking people to cut back. They want to fix the climate problems for their own reasons, but they don't want to pay for all that infrastructure spending. That kind of infrastructure needs government backing to make happen. And that means taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
wut. What on earth is regular about these fires? I avoid mainstream media as much as possible but I've seen plenty of pictures and video the absolute hellscape of Californian communities that are now simply gone. It's by far the worst fire California has ever had.
Putting up wind farms and solar panels would empl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and defund the military, and see how much quicker Putin or Xi are at rolling over your nation than climate change is.
Re:The Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [memecdn.com] 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.
Re: The Lesson (Score:3)
I had one of these friends too. It's not the best example to use though, because he is stupid but not as wrong as you think.
That can actually work, but the energy comes from a velocity differential between the wind and surface rather than magically excessive drag mitigation. For going downwind, you have to switch to letting the wheels power the fans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Lesson (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The Lesson (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: The Lesson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure doesn't seem like you agree with him entirely. At most charitable, it would seem you are helping make his point by being exactly the kind of person he is describing.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought Trump only posted on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)