Around 250 years ago, the Permian Era was coming to a close. Guess what? The temperature was around 60% hotter then it was today. And life survived. So did the Earth. Imagine that.
Yet, like the huge meteor striking the Gulf of Mexico that many scientists believe wiped out the dinosaurs, the global warming at the end of the Permian period resulted in deadly amounts of carbon dioxide that killed most land animals, he said.
Scientists aren't certain what caused the episode some 247 million years ago. They estimate that temperatures ranged in the low 100s year-round for thousands of years, he said.
"Its kind of scary that we don't know for sure what caused the worst catastrophe of life on this planet," he said.
Well, it sure wasn't cars. Perhaps not the best illustration of runaway global warming, however, there has be no proof that the higher temperatures led to the mass extinction, despite claims that the higher CO2 content did. The Permian started with the Earth in the grips of an ice age. It ended with the Earth in the grips of a much hotter period. And, the temps went down, they went up, they went down. And all without Mankind causing it. Amazing!
And, when it comes to reducing CO2, what state does that leave the atmosphere in? With more oxygen? Everyone knows that oxygen is, yup, a poison gas. Of course, if people want insects to grow huge again, like they did during the Carboniferous period, when the oxygen content was 36% higher, well, to each his own.
Did you know that coal is natural, and mostly came from the Carboniferous period? Plants. Amazing!
Meanwhile, via Martin at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, comes an article from Der Spiegel
According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is convinced global warming is already making the world sweat. At least that's the gist of the "Summary for Policymakers" from the group made up of hundreds of scientists.
Yeah, apparently the do not think anyone else has the capability to read the report. Snicker.
- Some 20 to 30 percent of all species face a "high risk of extinction" should average global temperatures rise another 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius from their 1990 levels. That could happen by 2050, the report warns. (using my kindergarden math, the report states that there will be a .2C rise over the next two decades, and .1C thereafter, meaning a .7C rise by 2050)
- Coral reefs are "likely to undergo strong declines." (despite lasting millions of years, through ice ages, hot spells, highly oxygenated, and highly CO2'd eras, now they are going to disappear? Please.)
- Salt marshes and mangrove forests could disappear as sea levels rise. (see previous comment)
- Tropical rainforests will be replaced by savanna in those regions where groundwater decreases. (welcome to natural Earth forces. Heck, all the continents were combined into one in the past, creating the worlds largest desert ever. And the Sahara is shrinking, too)
- Migratory birds and mammals will suffer as vegetation zones in the Artic shift (isn't the Arctic mostly, you know, ice?)
Silly stuff, based on fake science. All that is missing is to blame it all on George Bush and the USA. Martin has another great post on global warming today, too.
Here’s the truth about Global Warming
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.htm
I left the l off
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
The Permian mass extinction is thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect. This is not what is causing the current rise in temperatures. It’s interesting that you use this article to challenge the anthropogenic argument for global warming but miss the bigger point completely – that the sudden rise in temperature 250 million years ago lead to the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history. Life barely survived and it took hundred of million of years for it to recover.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm
Teach said: yeah, apparently the do not think anyone else has the capability to read the report. Snicker.
Since the article is referring to the second part of the report that has not been released yet, how could you have read it?
Teach said: Coral reefs are “likely to undergo strong declines.” (despite lasting millions of years, through ice ages, hot spells, highly oxygenated, and highly CO2’d eras, now they are going to disappear? Please.)
No, it says “strong declines†– not disappear.
Teach said: Tropical rainforests will be replaced by savanna in those regions where groundwater decreases. (welcome to natural Earth forces. Heck, all the continents were combined into one in the past, creating the worlds largest desert ever.)
That was caused by movement of the Earth’s crust over millions of years not climate change. Big difference.
Teach said: Migratory birds and mammals will suffer as vegetation zones in the Artic shift (isn’t the Arctic mostly, you know, ice?)
Yes…which is all the more reason to protect what little vegetation is there now.
Very interesting read, Jeff.
Silke, there are many hypotheses for what caused the extinction even, and, no, I did not ignore that extinctions happened. Simply pointed out that life continued, despite the higher temps then today.
So, are you saying that the second part of the report contradicts, or changes the first part of the report? I would think that the second part would validate the first, but, according to you, that isn’t what it is going to do.
If part 2 is vastly different, doesn’t that invalidate part 1, as well as causing people to say “well, they said this in part 1, but now are saying something different. If I cannot trust part 1, how can I trust part 2?”
As far as protecting areas, we should, but, we cannot protect them against natural earth and solar forces. Just like in the Permian, things like underwater volcano’s are changing the lay of the land.
Teach said: no, I did not ignore that extinctions happened. Simply pointed out that life continued, despite the higher temps then today.
It’s not just that “extinctions happened†– it was the worst mass extinction event in Earth’s history. To say, “yah – but life continued†is to miss the point completely.
Teach said: So, are you saying that the second part of the report contradicts, or changes the first part of the report?
No, but the article could have reported it wrong. Even if it didn’t we need to see the quote in context to understand its full meaning.
It all comes down to a flawed, and one sided, view of what is happening. Any scientist, or non scientist, who says they disagree is treated as a heretic. CO2 is not that bad of a greenhouse gas. It accounts for a minor portion of the atmosphere, and is a necessary gas.
Methane, which is primarilly released from natural sources, is much worse. Don’t hear that in the “scientific” releases by political bodies, eh?
If Der Speigels article is wrong, then they should retract it, shouldn’t they?
Teach said: Methane, which is primarilly released from natural sources, is much worse. Don’t hear that in the “scientific†releases by political bodies, eh?
Methane also comes from human sources like landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment and some industrial processes.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
As for not hearing that in the “scientific releasesâ€, go back and read the report. It’s right there on page four…
“The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and is 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320-790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentrations is due to the anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined.â€
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
250 years ago ? you mean in 1757?
You guys are missing the bigger picture: Life on Earth will certainly survive, Thanks to recent scientific research we know that primitive organisms can live in just about any climate imaginable, and if you live in apartments, you know that cockroaches can too. The problem is, that HUMAN life is not nearly that adaptable. 250 million years ago the dinosaurs were (not counting birds) wiped off the face off the face of the Earth, clearing the way for mammals to arise. So by all means, pollute as much as you want. I am sure once the humans are wiped, the intelligent slugs or whatever evolution will create in our place will erect a monument to people like the author of this inane piece as a thanks for betraying his own species.