Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Thanks to Our Fossil Fuel Addiction, We May Be Setting Ourselves Up for a Catastrophic Natural Event

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2009.


Too much CO2 in the air and not enough oxygen in the oceans may release a toxic dose of hydrogen sulfide -- an unheralded executioner.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What is hydrogen sulfide? It smells like farts and rotten eggs. You can find it in swamps, sewers, landfills, volcanic and natural gases, and pretty much everywhere there is a petroleum refinery. Unfortunately, you can also usually find it whenever and wherever you've got mass extinctions.

In fact, it is hydrogen sulfide, rather than killer asteroids or some other interstellar death-bringer, that has possibly become the go-to kill-shot of most mass extinctions in Earth's history.

"It doesn't take much hydrogen sulfide to kill off anything," Gerry Dickens, professor of earth science and paleoceanography at Rice University, explained to AlterNet by phone.

He should know: It was Dickens' work with methane hydrates that completed the puzzle of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, more aptly known as the Great Dying, in the 2002 BBC Horizon documentary The Day the Earth Nearly Died.

During the Great Dying, over 250 million years ago, flood basalts in the Siberian and Emeishan traps unleashed hell on Earth, spewing titanic walls of lava, ash, debris and greenhouse gases into the sky, blotting out the sun and surrounding hundreds of thousands of miles in a biblical inferno for which there is no contemporary analogue, at least in reality.

But even that wasn't enough to wipe out the 96 percent of Earth's marine, terrestrial and plant species claimed by the Great Dying. A growing scientific consensus explains that the death stroke was probably delivered from Earth's anoxic oceans, whose resultant out-of-whack pH balance, once literally defined as the "power of hydrogen," released catastrophic stores of either methane hydrate or hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere.

Whichever one it was, hydrogen had the power to bring Earth to its knees. And it could happen again.

"It's unannounced stealth nastiness," Peter Ward, professor of biology and paleontology at the University of Washington, declared by phone to AlterNet. "My new book ends with a hydrogen sulfide extinction."

That book, The Medea Hypothesis, posits not one but five hydrogen sulfide extinction events, including the Great Dying, throughout Earth's history. Going further, it flips the Gaia hypothesis on its head by suggesting -- with increasing persuasion, given our current climate crisis of too much carbon dioxide in the air and too little oxygen in the oceans -- that Earth is not seeking an optimal physical and chemical environment for its life.

In fact, Ward argues, its multicellular life is actually suicidal in nature, whose doom will eventually return Earth to the microbes that have dominated most of its history.

Although the truth probably lies somewhere between Gaia and Medea, Ward seems to be right about one thing: Hydrogen sulfide is an unheralded executioner.

"If ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of hydrogen sulfide," Ward wrote in a Scientific American clarion call titled "Impact from the Deep."Virtually no form of life on the earth was safe."

Ward -- who has also written the books Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future; Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe; and the forthcoming Our Flooded World -- concludes his Scientific American piece with the obvious question: Could it happen again?


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

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, hydrogen sulfide

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

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:
This is such an important issue...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 3, 2009 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe that I'm the first to comment, it being afternoon already. There is a huge volume of scientific evidence for this and no one is paying heed.

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

» RE: No comment... Posted by: Spot
Upstartgreen
Posted by: upstartgreen on Jul 3, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its time for environmentalists to quit making rationalizations so they can bring themselves to vote for Democrats, You need to join the Green Party and break the Corporate stranglehold.Then join as many radical groups like Earth First. There is no time to play nice,

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

» RE: Upstartgreen Posted by: Spot
Saving the Earth is too expensive
Posted by: ozonehole on Jul 3, 2009 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least, that's what the Republicans will say. So, we should continue on our present disastrous course. Sure, the human race will become extinct, but think of all the money we'll save.

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

Stop Breeding and exit with dignity
Posted by: leemiller38 on Jul 3, 2009 1:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What else is there to do? We have obviously destroyed the planet so--- go out gracefully by not making any more destructive naked apes. Of course since we are our own worse enemy we will just keep on keeping on-- business as usual. The right wing is for banning abortions, blaming muslims for terrorism, the left wing blaming corporations and so on it goes. Get a vasectomy guys and turn up the Mozart, the Earth is foundering.

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

» The planet will survive Posted by: UnEasyOne
Why does H2S *really* stink? An evolutionary explanation.
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 3, 2009 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of all the naturally-occurring toxic gases that can kill us, H2S (hydrogen sulfide) is by far the worst-smelling, and can be smelled at much lower concentrations than the others. Carbon-monoxide is odorless, even at fatal concentrations. Ditto for carbon-dioxide. Cyanide gas is odorless to many people (to others, it smells like bitter almonds).

But H2S? Just a tiny whiff (even at a few parts for billion) and you nose says, "head for the hills"!


A likely reason for this is that we have a long evolutionary history of being fumigated by this stuff. Many events in the Earth's past subjected large populations of critters to fumigation by H2S. So there was heavy evolutionary pressure to develop olfactory "H2S alarms" to warn critters away from the stuff.

This is in contrast to our evolutionary history with carbon-monoxide, cyanide gas, etc., where naturally-occuring lethal doses of those gases were extremely rare.

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

» Interesting theory Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: Interesting theory Posted by: HoboHomo
Ironically, the one hope for mankind
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 3, 2009 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a plague that wipes out about 90% of us - or more.

Given that, equilibrium might be restored.

Another (much fainter) hope is that ice melt in the North Atlantic will again disrupt the gulf stream, triggering an ice age - if that is still a possibility.

If a kindly alien offers you and your descendants a ticket to another planet, however, I strongly recommend that you take em up on it.

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

» RE: You missed the math Posted by: Sister_Lauren
And now, for hemp to take the place of fossil fuels.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 3, 2009 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There, problem solved.

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

Stunned disbelief?
Posted by: cahorton on Jul 3, 2009 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When this was first presented in Scientific American in '05 it was already solid science. I expected an uproar of discussion and news reports, but instead got - silence. Friends who get and read SA answered that they hadn't seen it. It was as though it hadn't happened, and it never became a part of the national conversation or even the scientific conversation.

Perhaps this is just too awful for most people to take in, even scientists.

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

» RE: Stunned disbelief? Posted by: pelican beak
more trees, less cars
Posted by: u2r1 on Jul 3, 2009 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Participating in habitat restoration (reforestation) projects such as the ones conducted by the Nature Conservancy and local Sierra Clubs is one thing you may consider doing with your free time. Or just start planting trees on your own. And get involved on a neighborhood level to discourage driving. Like barriers, one-way and not-through streets, converting streets to non-motor use only, parking restrictions with draconian penalties ...

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

» Just keep in mind... Posted by: HoboHomo
Global Warming Misinformation Continues
Posted by: mtcloud on Jul 4, 2009 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's funny that the Global Warming Solution is more taxes? The triumph of the "science" of global warming is more taxes?
Will we benefit from these increased taxes the same way we are benefiting from the "bailout" now? Yes you are all ageeing that these huge new "global warming taxes" are fine.

Look at the double standard.
If you are late for your taxes in anyway at all, you are immediately penalized, fined and harassed endlessly by the local and federal tax "public servants". Yet they can give us "IOU'S" and postponements.


Yet you all trust your "public servants" and want to give them more?

I guess intellect doesn't always guarantee "common sense" and admitting the predatory actions of public servants" happening right in front of you.

Michael

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.globalwarminghype.com

http://freeenterpriseactionfund.com

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

Heartland Institute? What a f***ing joke!
Posted by: caerbannog on Jul 4, 2009 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your response only supports my claim.

By citing a joke propaganda outfit that has produced no legitimate scientific research and furthermore, has a history of promoting pseudoscience on behalf of the tobacco industry (namely, the Heartland Institute) instead of citing legitimate scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, etc. you have further demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously here.

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

Homosexuality is Key
Posted by: HoboHomo on Jul 4, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Socities' trivialization, mocking, degrading and terrorizing of homosexuals is a basic cause for bringing us to this harrowing point of possible human extinction. Eradicating homophobia will soon be correctly perceived as vital as thwarting global warming and sufuric release. For behind these major dangers lie the scourge of anti-gay hatred which poisons anything else we do, by coercing males to act macho, in order to justify their existence. This leads to warped ideologies such as runaway capitalsim, enslavement, needless poverty and starvation, worldwide pollution, and rampant violence.

Three cheers for girly-men! They'll save the planet and all its lovely inhabitants. Along with the ladies.

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

On a little planet a long time ago....
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Jul 5, 2009 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Earth used to have much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Life on Earth flourished. Temperatures were lower than at present. The oceans didn't spew forth noxious gases.

What specific scientific study do you rely on for this yet again hysterical report on the beneficial CO2?

When will this insane reliance on computer models that don't factor in many possible drivers for climate change other than CO2 end?

If temperatures dont significantly climb in 10, 20, 30, 100 years, will the IPCC go out of business? Of course not. The money is too darn good.

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

» Now, sir. Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: pfft Posted by: particle
» Artful Dodger Posted by: johnwinthrop
sex
Posted by: sex on Jul 6, 2009 2:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» spammer... remove this Posted by: Bearzerker
I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. Dr. Suess
Posted by: mom'z the word on Jul 8, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Definition of CO2 from the US EPA:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.

Given the above definition and your theory of what occurs as a result of the on going and certainly undeniable current activity here on earth I find your theory makes a lot of sense and therefore tend to agree with it.

I am wondering. It seems as part of the carbon cycle to keep things in check trees using CO2 to make oxygen through photosynthesis is an important factor also. And the fact that we are cutting down the Rain forest on average 3000 acres an hour deforestation puts more of a burden on the oceans to try and keep up with the oxygen production. And I think what you are saying is it just can't keep up.

Besides all the obvious answers like stop burning fossil fuels, or in general just stop using nonrenewables could we switch? By switch I mean instead would it help if we, just ordinary people and all politics aside, offset the production of nonrenewable CO2, by planting a renewable, like a tree or bush that produces oxygen from existing CO2?

I tend to lose patience with the politic process of change. It takes so darn long. And it doesn't sound like we have a lot of time. Instead planting a tree really does not require a G8 summit meeting to do. I suppose action to prevent the cutting down of trees would be even better. However if that is not always immediately possible planting one is.

My question is would it really make a difference? I would very much like to think it would but that is only a hope.

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

» making a difference Posted by: chrysalis124812
mother earth cant wait!
Posted by: avabird on Jul 10, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mother earth is excited to extinct us all! we deserve it , being parasites and invaders of her divinity! GO GIRL!

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

About that 17 000-signature petition...
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jul 13, 2009 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For any who might be swayed by mention of the Oregon Institute's petition with "17 000 signatures" by scientists who don't believe in climate change, please look to sourcewatch.com for info about this institute and petition:
"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists."

[« 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