Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming

Taika-Kim said:
And about the waves of extinction (I had to check this from a book...)
There have been five previous times of great extinction, 440, 365, 245, 210 and 66 million years ago progressively. The biggest was 245 million years ago, when it's believed that almost all life on earth was destroyed due to some reasons not yet completely understood.
Despite all the past extinctions (during of which, maybe 10-20% of all species of life was destroyed) the level of biodiversity is now the highest it has ever been in the history of the world.

And some misc numbers:
It takes anything from 10 to 100 million years for the earth to recover from a big wave of extinction and new species evolve and take the place of the disappeared ones. So it's a long time to wait...

Cheers for that :Smile3:

However there is a bit of a lack of what I was after ie extinction rates at these previous times & presently. This I would imagine is important as addaptation to a changing environment presumably takes some time? Which would I assume be why some organisms, less suited to the changes, go extinct as they cannot make the greater adaptations required in the prevailing time scales.

Also I'm abit confused by your term 'recover from a big wave of extinction' if we only now have the higest level of biodiversity ever. Maybe due to limitations in the fossil record we only have a sketchy idea of levels biodiversity in the past?

I did abit of Googling as I was unsure about the number of extinction events;-

Link
It is often difficult to determine exactly when mass extinction events have occurred in the Earth's history - the fossil record is not perfect, and the poorer the record for a particular time frame, the more it is open to different interpretations. Some scientists have suggested that there is a cycle of mass extinctions, with a major die off every 26 million years or so. This would imply that there have been some 23 extinction events since the Cambrian, a figure which is at the upper limit of most estimates. While we remain unsure of the total number, there is general agreement over the existence of 6 major extinction events.

Good stuff here too

Some stuff on mass extinction rates here

From only a brief look about the whole subject seems to be abit of a factual & theoretical minefield.

What I do note is that extinction events do produce varying % levels of extinction. Thus I would hesitate to say that 100% could not be achived at sometime by some cause in the future.

Also it is my understanding that chaotic system are well buffered against sudden one off changes but behave differently when gradual and increasing changes occur?

Goz I'm not entirely sure that bacteria living on Lava constitute a biosphere sounds more like a biopool but then I could be described as Mr Picky :Wink3:

PHLUR :sun:
 
Just a thought but with all this stuff on extinction rates isn't that maybe getting the timescale wrong?

I was lead to believe (from fly population studies) that there was a pattern (damped simple harmonic motion) in populations such that they increase and then decrease by decreasing amounts to a steady state before eventually they die out.

i.e. we have many cycles of population growth and reduction left before we will die out.

n.b. this is just a model like any other model its definitely wrong.
also I'm no geographer I just remember the analogy froma-level physics (chaos theory?!).

Anybody wanna explain this one to me? Sorry if I missed it in the above.

Ron
 
Technognome said:
Link
It is often difficult to determine exactly when mass extinction events have occurred in the Earth's history - the fossil record is not perfect, and the poorer the record for a particular time frame, the more it is open to different interpretations. Some scientists have suggested that there is a cycle of mass extinctions, with a major die off every 26 million years or so. This would imply that there have been some 23 extinction events since the Cambrian, a figure which is at the upper limit of most estimates. While we remain unsure of the total number, there is general agreement over the existence of 6 major extinction events.

So general agreement on 6 extinction events AND geological evidence for 6 magnetic pole changes - is there not some sort of link going on here?
Get a washing up bowl half full of water and while holding it in both hands give it a good steady lateral shove and watch what the water does - then use your imagination and think oceans.
It would certainly help expand the K-T event because IF an impact occurred at a critical time for poleshift then it becomes possible for the poleshift to be triggered by the impact - this would also help to explain why many Mammoths were found frozen solid in Siberia still with undigested FRUIT in their stomachs - these remains counter the global firestorm view as by rights they shoul have been burnt to a crisp!
These are just a few thoughts on the subject and certainly do not represent my beliefs but they are thoughts that are worth thinking over!
In life the first and simplest answer is in most cases the right one and I feel in my mind Poleshift is a very simple answer compared to some of the more complex scenario's that exist to explain what we are currently discussing.
 
dave arc-i said:
So general agreement on 6 extinction events AND geological evidence for 6 magnetic pole changes - is there not some sort of link going on here?

Not a bad one that! You'd need to corelate the two sets of events in time tho!

I am very interested in the every 26 million year cyclic theory tho.

If it's true, I feel the cause of the cyclic extinctions is more likely to be internal to the system than external. I mean a cloud of comets is a bit fancifull init! doesn't really satisfy occams mach3 does it? :Smile3:

So what's the only cause of mass extinctions we definately know about that is internal to the system! How much evidence of an worldwide industrialised life form would you expect to find after 26 million years...?

Just a thought :offtopic:

PHLUR :sun:
 
Technognome said:
Goz I'm not entirely sure that bacteria living on Lava constitute a biosphere sounds more like a biopool but then I could be described as Mr Picky :Wink3:

You Sir are talking to "Mr Pedant" :Wink3: hehehe

Seriously though i never said anything about a biosphere... If life exists there is nothing stopping it taking over the planet (just as it obviously did in the past)... We didn't start out with complex multi-cellular organisms did we?

Reconstructed said:
People need to get it in their head that global warming isn't a "The Earth is going to die" problem. It is a "Humanity is going to die" problem.

The Earth will be fine if CO2 rises. Life will be fine. We won't. Neither will many of the other species on Earth. However, lots of forms of life will thrive in an Earth with more UV radiation.

Exactly my point :Smile3: Thanks for that ...

Skizz said:
but it pisses me right off this kind of collective suicide idea - "if we cause it; then we deserve to die and life will carry on" fuk that! I'm all for survival of the species - even if it means us colonizing the universe like some all destructive cancer...

I never suggested that we deseve to die. But we have no means of colonizing the universe and, at our present rate, will never gain that ability because we will kill ourselves off through our own arrogance towards the planet's resources ...

And yes that link may not have been the best one ... but hunt around there is plenty of alternative evidence to support it ...
 
;] got to disagree again... I don't think the earth and life will be fine at all; even if the rise in radiation and Co2 and decrease in oxygen in the oceans and forests are not completely catastrophic the most the earth can hope for is some very ancient forms of plant life, some small insects and bacteria - if it reaches catastrophic levels we'll set back life on this planet a couple of billion years and this time with differing levels of building blocks to work with..
my collective suicide point was a generalisation not aimed at anyone - my point remains the same - I dont give a fuk about future bioforms I'm rooting for us mammals...
I think everyone on this forum would have to agree that mankind is squandering the earths resources in a dangerous fashion - I think people with a differing mindset simply wouldn't be here. And yeah jumping ship is unlikely and is not a choice that has any credible relationship to the health of the planet.
But I think it is dangerous to help propogate views that somehow this is all related to natural cycles of the earth or that Hey trees produce ozone - yeah ok so some fast growing types may produce VOC's but the fact is the vast majority of VOC's are man made [as are fast growing forests] - as I said before it's energy producers looking for subjective arguments - the fact is trees absorb tonnes of pollutants and Co2 - to try and paint them as partly guilty is just... well I can't answer that without adding insult. Come to think of it my grandma lived to 127 and smoked 80 fags a day - an analogy that I think rather suits.....
 
But I think it is dangerous to help propogate views that somehow this is all related to natural cycles of the earth

But thats exactly not what im suggesting ... Its not a natural cycle. It is a cycle created by our own doing. Its just that, in my quite possibly incorrect opinion, life will go on once we have killed ourselves.

As you say trees do produce VOCs. The reason are producing more is because the planet is heating up. Why is it heating up? Thats us.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. I'm not suggesting for a second that we don't have to sort out shit. I'm just suggesting that it is an arrogant attitude that with us the planet dies. Thats rubbish. The planet will go on with or without us ... i'm fully of the opinion that it should go on with us but at the current rate we are going this won't be the case ... like it or not ...

I'm rooting for us mammals...

As am i :Smile3: I just have that slight paranoia that we are doing way too little way too late...
 
Fuk! who am I gonna argue with now then? ;]
although I still think even partly blaming the trees is way off
Abysinnia....
 
The trees was originally my way of pointing out that we will exterminate ourselves through our action (and nature's re-action) rather than all life :Smile3:
 
That recovering I was talking about meant recovering to the level before the extinction wave.

And, yes, I believe we have quite sound evidence that the biodiversity is now greater than ever before. I'm now dead tired so sorry no links, references or anything :P

Hmm, what exactly does the poleshifts you are talking about mean? I know the magnetic field of earth does reverse every now and then, and I see how this might compromise life on earth when cosmic radiation isn't diverted like usual...
But from the quick glance I had one some website about these pole shifts I got the impression that the folks believed that actual moving of tectonic plates is involved? Now _this_ starts to sound more like hollow earth theories to me.

"Nature is quite cool", very well put :Grin:

I'm having a huge problem with my conscience lately: I just promised to go for a holiday in Spain/Morocco with my friends, and since we're on a quite tight schedule we'll have to _fly_! Shiiiiiit. These are just the kind of decisions I would really much like to not have to think :P
There's no excuse really. It's dark and cold here in Finland, and we want to have a bit of adventure. Who cares if the planes spew their shit straight into troposphere, the ozone layer will be damaged and the atmosphere will just keep getting warmer and warmer. I almost feel like calling the whole thing off, but OTOH I really want to go :/ I think I promised myself I'll never fly a plane again to myself some years ago. So it's goodbye to my principles now, and welcome the same bullshit-I-don't-really-care-altough-I-talk-a-lot attitude that's been getting this planet down the drain for the last few hundred years or so...
 
Taika-Kim said:
But from the quick glance I had one some website about these pole shifts I got the impression that the folks believed that actual moving of tectonic plates is involved? Now _this_ starts to sound more like hollow earth theories to me

Is this a flat earth theorists view? Are you in denial that tectonic plate action is a fact? What are eathquakes? How did mountain ranges come into being?

Take more than a quick glance and you may just find that in amongst some possibly 'out there' theories some of what is being proposed does actually make quite a lot of sense without the need for complex models!
 
Ok oops will have to read alla this .

I will get those links for you all. Start searching for Gaston for e.g in UK he deals with global biodiversity patterns.
What I meant is that contrary to what T-K is saying is that we humans are destroying the balance of the Biosphere. Sure taxa come and go. Sure .
However watch the stratosphere dissapate and there will be nothing - that is the most extreme state to reach-MARS!
As for Polar shifts if you've not heard of them - what the f--- are they teaching you there-that's general biology in our world. Speak to geologists they should be able to tell you-ever heard of magnetism in rocks-they carry the charges from eons past. It's not a secret that the pole is continuosly shifting anyway, that's why one has to get "true" north when demanding accuracy.

The point is there have been many Iceages right. So many taxa go under either by ice or desert. Now here is the point - we get left with the biodiverse cores/refugia. Humans never tampered with them in the past, so life forms were able to expand from their in evolution. Right now we are hacking away those refugia-invisble to the eye/satellite. You got to know where they are to conserve them - but they're are been logged/housed/polluted/bombed and generally shat on.
Later :Smile3:
 
As I said, I'm well aware of _magnetic_ pole shifts, but I somehow find the possibility of whole continents suddenly starting to move in speeds fast enough to affect life on earth quite unbelievable.


One pole shift site says this about who's now the main proponents of the theory:
"The pole shift issue resurfaced from relative obscurity in 1995, when the ZetaTalk web site came onto the scene shortly after the debut of the world wide web. It warned of a major pole shift in May 2003 due to the close passage of an unknown planet with a highly elliptical orbit of every 3,657 years. It is maintained by a lady named Nancy Lieder in the USA, who claims to telepathically acquire the information from extraterrestrial entities known as the 'Zetas'."

Yeah, sure...
Other people who are in favor of the physical core-shift that would move the tectonic plates, include people who "have been dreaming about the issue for 20 years", and so on.

I think people are confusing the real magnetic pole shifts with the quite fantastic core-shifts....

The most active forum on the web, Zeta talk, even announced a day for the upcoming poleshift. Well, the day went and nothing happened, except for the appearance of conspiracy theories claiming that the day announced was actually disinformation spread deliberately.

It still sounds like just another millenniarian doomsday-cult to me.
 
Taika-Kim - I wouldn't disagree with your comments - but I was just wondering if you could provide an explanation for frozen mammoths found in Siberia with undigested FRUIT in their stomachs?
I can see no other reason for that apart from a very sudden freezing action for that result.
I look forward to any reasonable proposition as to why that could have happened.
Rapid continental drift due to Hapgoods proposed crust fold seems to be one solution. As much as I search I have yet to discover some other theory being put forward that fits the evidence.
As far as supporting geological evidence it may be worth considering the oddity that is Lake Titticacca in Peru where there is an obvious angled difference in the water level mark around the edge of lake showing that the earth has tilted at some point in the reasonably recent past (since apparent human occupation of the area).
I for one do not completely support crust fold as it is in principle a rather extreme example but I am not closed minded enough to dismiss it completely without proof positive.
 
Back
Top