Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Did Greenhouse Gases Cause the Earth's Greatest Mass Extinction?

By Moises Velasquez-Manoff , Christian Science Monitor. Posted November 20, 2008.


Scientists now suspect that the earth's greatest mass extinction wasn't caused by an asteroid strike or any other single cataclysmic event.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In 1980, scientists Luis Alvarez and his son, Walter, proposed a new explanation for the dinosaurs’ disappearance 65 million years ago: a meteor strike. Initially, the idea was met with resistance. But the evidence was convincing: a sediment layer high in iridium, an element common in asteroids, was found the world over, along with a 110-mile-wide impact crater in the Yucatán of the same age. What started as a fringe idea has gone mainstream.

Now scientists are rethinking another of earth’s great die-offs. The end-Permian extinction 251 million years ago was the worst of earth’s five mass extinctions. Ninety percent of all marine life and 70 percent of terrestrial life disappeared. It took five million years, perhaps more, for the biosphere to recover.

But while the die-off was uniquely devastating, evidence of a single cataclysmic event, like an asteroid strike, hasn’t been found in the geological record. Scientists now suspect that "the mother of all mass extinctions" was of Earth’s own making. And the more they learn about it, the more parallels they see to today’s world: A bout of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming, much like today’s, set off a chain of events that culminated in oxygen-depleted oceans exhaling poison gas.

And as in today’s human-dominated earthscape, life was already stressed.

"Something came along and kicked it over the edge," says Linda Elkins-Tanton, an assistant professor of geology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. She heads a recently launched multidisci­plin­ary effort to study the extinction. "Should there be a great kick [now], we are in a position for a great die-off,"
she says.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, Earth was emerging from a period of glaciation. The transition from icehouse to greenhouse was already stressing life, scientists think. Then magma began bursting through the crust of what is now Siberia. The eruption was tremendous, says Professor Elkins-Tanton. Over the course of maybe 1 million years, enough lava flowed to cover the continental United States half a mile deep.

The crust through which it bubbled contained vast coal and limestone deposits from an earlier time. As it burned through this fossilized organic material, it released huge amounts of carbon.

Today, by burning fossil fuels, humans are again releasing carbon sequestered long ago, and at a similarly rapid rate.

"There may be some pretty direct parallels between the end-Permian extinction and today," says Jonathan Payne, professor of geological and environmental sciences at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

The eruption and release of greenhouse gas was just the beginning. The warmer atmosphere heated the ocean surface, effectively capping the seas with a warmer layer. The result: The overturning of the ocean’s water, which keeps deep waters oxygenated, likely stopped. Deeper waters became oxygen-depleted.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, extinction

Moises Velasquez-Manoff is a staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A conscious species??
Posted by: Zeugitai on Nov 20, 2008 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a conscious species....really?

Of nearly seven billion humans struggling with one another to survive in a world gone insane, how many are "conscious" in their lives and living? And of the conscious, how much of the time are they conscious, and how much of the time are they semi- or non- or un-conscious?

Actually, I don't believe that the vast majority of people know what it means to be conscious, or to think and decide and act consciously. This consciousness of which humans are so overweeningly proud is a vastly overrated thing, judging by the scarcity of the evidence to back its reputation. It is, in fact, mythological, along with the collective "we," and the idealized collectivity: "people."

I would be inclined to think that no more than +/- 20% of the world's population thinks and acts consciously, and then only 20% of the time at most; in fact, advertisers and politicians depend upon this fact for their lucrative livelihoods.

Do not count on people to act consciously or in unison on this or any other critical issue. The human world is a ruthless and mad rush of beings who each think themselves one unique individual who owes nothing to anyone but him/herself. People will take what they can get and then some and externalize or defer all costs to others, to the planet, and to the future.

I believe that this is axiomatic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A conscious species?? Posted by: iver7777
» RE: A conscious species?? Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: A conscious species?? Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: A conscious species?? Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: A conscious species?? Posted by: HoboHomo
Ignorance = Extinction
Posted by: kag123 on Nov 20, 2008 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WoW! How can we be so ignorant about our situation?Why is it that we live in a time when our species has advanced so much in math,science and space exploration,but can't or won't take an honest look at all of the damage that we are causing,it's like standing on the deck of the titanic and not seeing the iceberg.Why? Is it greed that blinds us,or just plain old stupidity.We should be concerned about saving our species and let Wall st. wither away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» why? because... Posted by: mwildfire
What about the Super Volcano theory?
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 20, 2008 2:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I gather it's reckoned that if the Yellowstone Caldera blows (as it will eventually) When it does, most of N. America will be wiped off the map and the resultant world wide fallout will probably cause mass starvation and extinctions. It's happened before and ... guess what? The Yellowstone Caldera is due to go any time now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am excited about and welcome global warming
Posted by: laszlortreiber on Nov 20, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The amount of carbon trapped in fossils is evidence, that living organisms were thriving while carbon in the atmosphere was abundant. During the recorded history cooling periods always caused more human suffering than warming periods. “Global warming” would open up vast territories on Earth currently too cold for agriculture and industrial development. I can hardly wait to plant some palm trees all the way up to Boston.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't encourage this idiot Posted by: bornxeyed
ocean anoxia, another word for quick death of our planet within 100 years
Posted by: Lauren on Nov 20, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet, according the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if trends continue we’re still approaching 1,000 ppm of CO2 by 2100. That’s not Permian-extinction levels, but it would be the highest CO2 concentration in 80 million years, and a level at which both ocean anoxia and lesser extinctions have occurred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is How it Was
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 20, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
65 million years ago things were pretty big in the world. Mostly it was deemed by the dino-council that it was the plant eaters that were causing the trouble with their insessant gas-letting. Many a terrasaur was felled by a blast of Dino-farts. Such was the gas levels that planteaters were banished to the far reaches of dinoland. It was further ordered that no T-Rex or other major meateaters could no longer bring down large prey from behind for danger of a toxic release and local devastation.

As the great planteaters gathered around the most abundant food down in the Yuccatan,which was known as 'Wammart' in them days. Because of their large concentration the gas buildup was beyond measure,but it is said not a thing could grow for nearly 10,000 sq.miles.

It was about this time when the Great Flying Lizards were attemping to garner the attention of all around that a small object,never before seen, was coming down from the sky.

Sensing their efforts weren't going anywhere,the Lizards flew off. Oblivious to the scene there continued a great munching and chewing and talking about their dreadful plight with the meateaters,all the while expelling huge quantities of toxic ass gases.

Now by NASA standards this meteior wasn't all that big,about a football field or so,but a luck would have it,the damn thing was headed straight for the fart convention happening in Wammart. The falshpoint of all that gas coupled with it's great concentration caused a fireball to rage and expand so hot and so fast that everything for a thousand square miles was turned to dust. The rocks and land debris caused by the ingition of the 'gas dome' hurled firery boulders far out into space and as far away as modern day Dayton Ohio. The nuclear winter lasted for a thousand years and was known to the survivors as 'The Winter of Stinky Snows'.

Hapless scientists discovered a dino-grave yard in Utah. Not totally understanding the importance of their find they declared it 'the find of the century!'. There was a curious scrawling upon the rock along with the many bones and types of ancient critters. It was written in dionspeak. It's translation would shake the very foundations of science,as we know it. For it's translation read;

'VEGETARIAN FARTS ARE A BITCH!!!!!!!'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Love it! Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Love it! Posted by: bornxeyed
Dumb
Posted by: uncleeddie on Nov 20, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Talk about a load of crap. Stating doomsday cartoon like lies leaves me in shock to say the least. This author is a moron and a complete liar. If this is the type of nonsense that the Christian Science Monitor allows then they are neither Christian nor Scientific. Ten times the preindustrial level of CO2? Explain why it's getting colder then Genius. Maybe a life essential gas like Oxygen or CO2 has nothing to do with weather and your one of those freaks who believe the Sun has something to do with temperatures. Learn more by watching the truth at TheBigagenda.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Getting colder where? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Dumb Posted by: HoboHomo
Are you trying to say something?
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 20, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do we not understand?
Posted by: CaliJim on Nov 20, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why people don't understand or acknowledge what is certainly a major, contributor to the problem. We have huge, disastrous, potentially civilization ending problems we simply have to solve if we are to survive as a species. Meanwhile, large groups of the population are busy wasting resources in a profligate manner, causing death and destruction on a massive scale in a violent, homicidal struggle over differences of opinion (which, ironically, appears to be centered around which group's god is more loving, peaceful and forgiving), while another sizeable portion of the population are enthusiastically cheering on the end of the world because of their belief that it represents some kind of victory for their god and salvation for them. Religion is literally going to be the death of us if we can't get more people to abandon it and live in the real world of science and find the answers we so desperately need.

We've all believed things that aren't proven to be true. The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, monsters under the bed, bad luck from walking under a ladder or black cats. Most of us recognize by the time we are in our early teens or sooner that these are just stories and have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, only a few of us include the stories about gods in that group and reject them along with the other stories. The reason for that is the fact that religious stories are taught regularly around the world as the truth. Imagine for a moment that there were places in every town across the country and around the world that held services dedicated to the truth of the Tooth Fairy - and they were tax exempt! It would be bad enough that they routinely and consistently taught unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions as truth…but tax exempt? That means I have to pay more in my tax dollars to support essential government services, because religious organizations DON’T…which means I’m effectively forced to support religions that I don’t agree with at all, on any level - and which in many cases actually threatens the survival of myself, family and friends because of their beliefs.

Now, remember that all of this is (from a factual perspective) is regarding OPINIONS. Not proof. Not facts. OPINION. You can call if faith or you can call it a belief system or God's Word...but it's unsubstantiated opinion. The "facts" offered to support it are nothing more than opinions and stories written by people...generations after the time in which they were supposed to have happened. You can believe them if you want...but that doesn't make them factually true. People also believed that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, slavery was okay, people with epilepsy were “possessed”, women were unfit for education or having a profession (don’t even talk about being fit to vote!) - and any number of other unsubstantiated or outright wrong ideas. Belief does NOT equal proof…even if you believe it does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do we not understand? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why do we not understand? Posted by: helenahanbasquet
Why do we not understand? Continued
Posted by: CaliJim on Nov 20, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Laws and policy simply can't be allowed to be controlled by religion...which the founding fathers clearly understood as a danger to the newly formed republic...as well as the threat it would continue to face in the future. That is why they clearly intended to separate church and state. Yes, I know, people keep SAYING we were founded as a "Christian Nation"...which is, simply put, historical revisionism by Christian supporters and incorrect. Thomas Jefferson is my favorite founding father...a brilliant man. Since he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, I think it's critical to read and understand his opinions on this issue…so here is a quote that sheds light on his thoughts and beliefs.

“…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State…."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

(Note...I underlined the part at the end of the quote, because it's increasingly common for people to claim that the founding fathers had no intention of creating a separation between church and state. They claim modern anti-Christian's and Atheists retroactively interpreted it that way in a campaign against Christianity. Obviously, the reverse is true. Jefferson specifically spoke about a wall between church and state...the notion that it doesn't exist is a recent case of historical revisionism created by Christian fundamentalists.)
Here’s a quote from John Adams on the same subject:

"Checks and Ballances, Jefferson, however you and your Party may have derided them, are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of these Christians would persecute Deists, as soon as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unballanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, human Nature!" -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 25 June 1813
JOHN ADAMS

More quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Notwithstanding the occasional beneficial act, religion is a burden on society. Simply put, religion is superstition with more money, better P.R. - plus guns and explosives...and, they're offended…oh, my…how they are offended!

We need to take steps to encourage science, reason and a reality based approach to our lives and our problems. As Stevie Wonder said “When you believe in things you don’t understand, you suffer! Superstition ain’t the way!”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add to the geoengineering invention list
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 20, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only do we need cirrus clouds over the Arctic oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, and not only do we need to restore the Arctic ice pack, but we also need to re-oxygenate the oceans.

Start with the dead zone below the Mississippi River (or the dead zone that IS the Mississippi River). Oxygenate it. Buy a few $3,000 blowers that are already made for this purpose and blow air into the river, and into the coastal waters. The area will then eat carbon dioxide and deliver more crawfish.

Now blow pure oxygen (or just air) 200 feet deep into the Black Sea, with soapstone tiny air bubble creators on the bottom. Let the depths live again.

Or, overturn the waters with a pump.

These are weapons against global warming. Too bad none of these billionaires are smart enough to realize that we all need help now and their grandchildren are the potential victims.

Reminds me of the fabulously wealthy cheapskate woman in the 1920s who was too cheap to have her son see a doctor. The kid died. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is 'best available science' keeping up?
Posted by: Greenhouse Neutral Foundation on Nov 20, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Similar to the event 251 million years ago, 55 million years ago in the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) massive die-offs and disruption to the climate occured taking 100,000 years or so to recover. The more likely cause of this and very likely to have been or have least contributed to the event 251 million years ago, is methane clathrates release from warming seas. We are tampering with this time bomb as well.

www.strategicbookpublishing.com/ZEROGreenhouseEmissions.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did greenhoue gases............
Posted by: EJLima on Nov 20, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me wonder if...........the tundra and artic perma frost begin to thaw and rot.....
make methane.........more gas.....more heat ...more thawing and rotting.....trapped co2 in deep ocean water released......more greenhouse gas and more heat.......and then ??????
Who knows ??? Who cares ??? Do YOU !!

In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. In the last days man may destroy his little dirt ball home he has plundered and raped so eagerly and stupidly.

Pray for mercy and stop the destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dominoes
Posted by: like on Nov 20, 2008 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are there any theories pointing out how the extinction unfolded? Did it start at the bottom of the food chain and travel upwards? How fast? Did it gain momentum once it began its climb? Already some species of birds are being effected because of their food-stocks blooming and hatching earlier. By the time they make their migration food is sparse.
Well... we can look on the bright side, surfing in downtown Phoenix.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2008 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

RealClimate.org

8 May 2008
Filed under: Climate Science — stefan @ 1:55 PM

By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William
Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann

Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a
rather misguided media discussion erupted on whether global
warming had stopped, based on the observed temperatures of the
past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion
is capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from
Germany predicting a pause in global warming last week in the
journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
Specifically, they make two forecasts for global temperature, as
discussed in the last paragraphs of their paper and shown in their
Figure 4 (see below). The first forecast concerns the time interval
2000-2010, while the second concerns the interval 2005-2015 (*).
For these two 10-year averages, the authors make the following
prediction:

“… the initialised prediction indicates a slight cooling relative to
1994-2004 conditions”

Their graph shows this: temperatures in the two forecast intervals
(green points shown at 2005 and 2010) are almost the same and
are both lower than observed in 1994-2004 (the end of the red line
in their graph).

Figure 4 from Keenlyside et al '08

The authors also make regional predictions, but naturally it was
this global prediction that captivated most newspaper stories
around the world (e.g. BBC News, Reuters, Bloomberg and so
on), because of its seeming contradiction with global warming.
The authors emphasise this aspect in their own media release,
which was titled: Will Global Warming Take a Short Break?

That this cooling would just be a temporary blip and would
change nothing about global warming goes without saying and has
been amply discussed elsewhere (e.g. here). But another question
has been rarely discussed: will this forecast turn out to be correct?

We think not – and we are prepared to bet serious money on this.
We have double-checked with the authors: they say they really
mean this as a serious forecast, not just as a methodological
experiment. If the authors of the paper really believe that their
forecast has a greater than 50% chance of being correct, then they
should accept our offer of a bet; it should be easy money for them.
If they do not accept our bet, then we must question how much
faith they really have in their own forecast.

The bet we propose is very simple and concerns the specific
global prediction in their Nature article. If the average temperature
2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or
equal to the average temperature 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them
€ 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet
will be decided by the end of 2010. We offer the same for their
second forecast: If 2005-2015 (*) turns out to be colder or equal
compared to 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500 – if it turns
out to be warmer, they pay us the same. The basis for the
temperature comparison will be the HadCRUT3 global mean
surface temperature data set used by the authors in their paper.

...................article continues..............

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It took 40 Million years to recover, not 5 Million.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Species Diversity was lower than normal for most of the Triassic.
So many species went extinct at the Permian-Triassic boundary
that many niches did not exist.

What gives the author 2,800 ppm as the threshold? Other
sources say 1000 or 900 ppm CO2. In any case, Business As
Usual [BAU] gives us such a steeply accelerating curve that 1000
ppm happens in 2100 and 2800 happens shortly thereafter. The
bad assumption in that scenario is that civilization will not collapse
when agriculture collapses in the US any time between now and
2050. I expect food production to stop sooner rather than later in
the next 42 years unless really draconian action is taken.

I told you so many times, Alternet. Quit reading the Christian
Science Monitor and start reading Scientific American. Note that
Dr. Kiehl did NOT call Homo Sap intelligent. He used a weaker
substitute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 production must be reduced 90% by 2050
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2008 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of
the oceans. Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo
Sap will go EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken NOW.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:

Scientific American

....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
PennState

"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

Astrobiology 1

Astrobiology 2

Astrobiology 3

Astrobiology 4

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
Six Degrees

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN
THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US
HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made
by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power
produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb.
The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal
fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China,
India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050
requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia.
Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.

I have no connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here may be one of the reasons for the large number of people who don't take global warming seriously:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2008 11:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge"
by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007 The original is in French.

When you do a Google search, you get "sponsored" links
on the right side and "non-sponsored" links on the left.
The "NON-SPONSORED" links on Google ARE LISTED
IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest
bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites
other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company
to be at the top of the "non-sponsored" list. Google search
results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda.
Since the coal industry has a $100 Billion per year income
at stake, they can and must share a lot of money with
Google.

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no
distinction whatever between advertising and other
information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which
data were paid for by companies for their promotion and
which were not."
"92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the
results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five
years) consider that information from this source [Google]
is never biased in any way."

Suggestion: Use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar.
On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the
.edu domain. Otherwise, use only web sites that
www.RealClimate.org uses.

There should be a law requiring Google to disclose the above
and the donors and the dollars for each "non-sponsored" link.
Environmentalists should work on Google legislation first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More hogwash
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Nov 21, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dinosaurs died because the pangean earth used to be one solid land mass that was unbroken except for a few small shallow seas. When the earth cracked open 200 million years ago, large oceans began to block the dinosaurs' migratory patterns. (Dinosaurs migrated hemispherically, like birds do today.) It was a very gradual process, despite all the misinfo, dinosaurs took many tens of millions of years to die off. They did not die off suddenly, except for a large chunk of the dinosaur population that was lost when the big meteor hit 65 million years ago. The key point is that dinosaurs were going extinct well before 65 million BC.

CO2 cannot explain the dinosaurs' demise because there is no way that dinosaurs could have lived and moved under today's gravity. The earth's gravity has been steadily increasing for over 200 million years, as it expands. A T-Rex living in today's gravity would tear its head off running around. I know that is a difficult concept to understand for anyone drinking fluoride and educated in the public school system. But study some basic physics and you will understand why such large animals cannot move much faster than elephants under todays gravity. Dinosaurs were built for running, and they ran very very fast under the gravity of 200 million BC.

youtube: "conspiracy of science" for more info.

And note that "science" is mostly a bought and paid for system of corporate fraud. As the corporate world crashes down under the weight of its own lies, it is very important that real science erase the mistakes of the past. All it takes is an open mind and a non profit-driven approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More hogwash Posted by: CaliJim
Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth about religion can be found in these books and others:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsense. Origin of the Universe: Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Religion is a SCAM.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.". Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sky is not falling - there is good news.
Posted by: LostInAmerica on Nov 22, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The good news is our planet is going to be okay. In spite of all the Cassandras running around warning of the imminent demise of our planet its clear that everything will be just fine. Earth, after all survived the Permian extinction. Earth also survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary event (the extinction of the dinosaurs)and came up a-okay, even better some would argue - because finally the ultimate species came into existence. A species for the ages, one superior to all others, one that would therefore last forever.

Now some alarmists feel we are facing another mass extinction and this is an aberration. I disagree. In the geologic record its pretty obvious that extinctions are a regular event.

If there is a difference to the coming extinction (the extinction already going on, to say it more accurately) it is that a life form on Earth ( and golly that means you and me) is primarily responsible for the catastrophic change in environment that is precipitating this collapse.

But the Earth will be fine in the long run - I reassure you. Given 5 million years or so the affects of those parasites currently infesting it will be forgotten. Something new will follow. I wish I could be there. I could finally write that definitive dissertation lacking substantive challenges from the dinosaurs I call my colleagues.

All seriousness aside, it seems we're going to do ourselves in one way or another. I was reading of Einstein recently and he was asked how World War III would be fought. His reply was "I don't know, but I can tell you what they'll use in World War IV - rocks".

Rocks. Rocks are of the Earth. Rocks are the Earth. The Earth will survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Origin of the Universe is a post-doctoral course in Physics.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 27, 2008 10:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See the Creation Theorem in Quantum Mechanics. The
universe was REQUIRED to create itself out of nothing
with NO help from any "Consciousness." The laws of
quantum mechanics force the creation of universes. NO
law-giver required.

Consciousness [self-awareness] is an emergent property of
a large brain. Humans and chimpanzees are self-aware.
Whether dolphins are self-aware is not known. No other
creatures on earth are self-aware. The universe is NOT
self aware except for the humans, chimps and possible
other intelligent creatures light years away from here.

Many material things are self-organizing. This has nothing
to do with creation or self-awareness. Self-organization is
a new and interesting branch of science which may help
explain the rapid self-creation of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement