End-Permian mass extinction: global warming

[lpetrich]

I'd earlier posted on how The end-Permian mass extinction was very fast by geological standards. The  Permian–Triassic extinction event was the biggest mass extinction ever, at least in the Phanerozoic.

Finally, We Know What Killed Sea Life in The Deadliest Mass Extinction in History noting Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction | Science

Global warming.

Around the end-Permian mass extinctions were some big volcanic eruptions in Siberia, eruptions that made big sheets of "flood basalt" volcanic rock, the Siberian Traps, a Large Igneous Province. The Earth has several other flood-basalt LIP's, like at the Columbia River in western North American, and also the Deccan Traps of India. The Moon's "seas" are also flood-basalt LIP's.

The authors of that paper simulated the effects of the carbon dioxide emitted by those volcanoes, and they found an increase in the average temperature of 11 C / 20 F. This both speeded up the metabolism of marine animals and reduced the solubility of oxygen in the oceans. Many of these animals suffocated. Comparison to the oxygen needs of similar present-day organisms reveled a good match, though an imperfect one.

Our Planet's Largest Mass Extinction Had Warning Signs - And They're Happening Again noting Pre–mass extinction decline of latest Permian ammonoids | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
From the first article,

By examining previously unresearched fossils in Iran, they have now found warning signs as early as 700,000 years before the event occurred.

They found that several species of ammonoids - marine molluscs also known as ammonites - were killed off around that time, and the species that survived grew increasingly smaller and less complex.

There were other signs, too - and they are shockingly familiar.

"There is much evidence of severe global warming, ocean acidification, and a lack of oxygen," said lead author Wolfgang Kießling of the FAU.

"What separates us from the events of the past is the extent of these phenomena. For example, today's increase in temperature is significantly lower than 250 million years ago."

Brachiopods were shrinking and radiolarians were in decline, and there is some evidence that that may be happening today, like Atlantic menhaden fish shrinking by 15%. However, overfishing can also cause size decline.

 

[steve_bank]

There was a report the coastal sea life is in California are slowly shifting north to stayin ther temperature confort zone.

Bird watchers report that birds in North America are returning earlier. Trees and plants are also moving north.

We are seeing it happen in real time.

 

[repoman]

So in the long time span for a human and short geological time span, if all of the reserves of fossil fuels are used (what is really going to stop us?) and feedbacks happen in full force what is the prognosis?

The major feedbacks that will lead to more warming are:

loss of ice leading to lower albedo
melting and release of tundra carbon stores
shallow arctic ocean methane hydrate stores release
the rest of the methane hydrate stores that are very deep after heat penetrates ocean.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

what is really going to stop us?...

In a given country, a sufficient number of people upset because they and their children have lots of respiratory illnesses (e.g., chronic bronchitis and considerably more frequent respiratory infections) with its general result of reduced quality of life and lifespan, can reduce significantly the amount of coal burning. That probably happened in China, where the government is much more concerned about that that global warming, and so they're still making coal power stations (powerful lobby), but not at the previous pace - and they're decommissioning the worst of the lot.

Alternatively: lots of people willing to oppose coal in another country can significantly reduce its usage - as it has regrettably happened with nuclear power.

Give it time, and - save for widespread carbon capture -, the burning of coal will either end or at least take much longer.

In any case, the situation is bad, but not nearly as dire as some political claims suggest. It's not as if there is a serious risk of human extinction from global warming.

 

[repoman]

 

[steve_bank]

Itlooks we are headed for catastrophic failure.

From the last 50 years it is obvious that it goes not take much to bring chos and failure.

We act as if there is no tomorrow. A major solar event can take out satellites and the grid. One happened in the late 19th century disrupting telegraph. Minor ones affected Canadian power.

We are very fragile.

There could be an unforeseeable tipping point that starts a cascade ecological failure.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Itlooks we are headed for catastrophic failure.

From the last 50 years it is obvious that it goes not take much to bring chos and failure.

We act as if there is no tomorrow. A major solar event can take out satellites and the grid. One happened in the late 19th century disrupting telegraph. Minor ones affected Canadian power.

We are very fragile.

There could be an unforeseeable tipping point that starts a cascade ecological failure.

That seems improbable. A major (i. e., sufficiently big to be more than an inconvenience for a few days or at most months) solar event is itself improbable, and if it does not happen in, say, 200 years, I doubt it will do significant damage to the capabilities of the far more advanced civilization of the 23rd century. But even if it happens, it would only set us back for a while in some areas and for a relatively short period, whereas we would continue moving ahead in others.

As for ecological failure, sure other things are getting extinct. It's not an extinction threat to humans, though.

 

[steve_bank]

Itlooks we are headed for catastrophic failure.

From the last 50 years it is obvious that it goes not take much to bring chos and failure.

We act as if there is no tomorrow. A major solar event can take out satellites and the grid. One happened in the late 19th century disrupting telegraph. Minor ones affected Canadian power.

We are very fragile.

There could be an unforeseeable tipping point that starts a cascade ecological failure.

That seems improbable. A major (i. e., sufficiently big to be more than an inconvenience for a few days or at most months) solar event is itself improbable, and if it does not happen in, say, 200 years, I doubt it will do significant damage to the capabilities of the far more advanced civilization of the 23rd century. But even if it happens, it would only set us back for a while in some areas and for a relatively short period, whereas we would continue moving ahead in others.

As for ecological failure, sure other things are getting extinct. It's not an extinction threat to humans, though.

Solar events are a recognized threat to electronics and the grid. You can google the Canadian event small scale but portentous.

Crockery stores typically have supplies on hand for 1 to 2 weeks. A two week widespread energy interruption would ne catastrophic for places like NYC and LA. 4 weeks and who knows what happens.

Climate is only one issue. A read a govt paper that within 40 years or so LA will begin running short of drinking water. The Colorado River is essentially consumed.

Looking at it from an engineering view the system is not sustainable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Solar events are a recognized threat to electronics and the grid. You can google the Canadian event small scale but portentous.

Yes, and yet the grid has never been significantly affected. It might happen, but it is very unlikely.

Crockery stores typically have supplies on hand for 1 to 2 weeks. A two week widespread energy interruption would ne catastrophic for places like NYC and LA. 4 weeks and who knows what happens

And yet, that has not happened in any city on the planet. But even if it did, that would not be "catastrophic failure" in a species-wide or civilization-wide sense. Humans and human civilization would go on even if there were millions of fatalities as a result.

Climate is only one issue. A read a govt paper that within 40 years or so LA will begin running short of drinking water. The Colorado River is essentially consumed.

Yet, that sort of thing has not happened, and if it did, it would not have a global reach.

Looking at it from an engineering view the system is not sustainable.

The system is not static. Technology advances at a very fast pace. It does not have to be sustainable at present levels of technology for thousands of years, or even for a hundred years (though present-day tech would probably handle that sufficiently well, even if with local disasters).

 

[steve_bank]

I was living in Stamford Ct about 40 miles from NYC during the great Northeast blackout in the 60s. By all accounts the grid is in bad shape.

Human error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_1965

Lightning strike causing a cascade failure. A fine line between chaos and civilization..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977
In all, 1,616 stores were damaged in looting and rioting. A total of 1,037 fires were responded to, including 14 multiple-alarm fires. In the largest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were arrested. Many had to be stuffed into overcrowded cells, precinct basements and other makeshift holding pens. A congressional study estimated that the cost of damages amounted to a little over $300 million (equivalent to $1.2 billion in 2017).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977
Looting and vandalism were widespread, hitting 31 neighborhoods, including most poor neighborhoods in the city. Possibly the hardest hit were Crown Heights, where 75 stores on a five-block stretch were looted, and Bushwick, where arson was rampant with some 25 fires still burning the next morning. At one point two blocks of Broadway, which separates Bushwick from Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, were on fire. Thirty-five blocks of Broadway were destroyed: 134 stores looted, 45 of them set ablaze. Thieves stole 50 new Pontiacs from a Bronx car dealership.[1] In Brooklyn, youths were seen backing up cars to targeted stores, tying ropes around the stores' grates, and using their cars to pull the grates away before looting the store.[1] While 550 police officers were injured in the mayhem, 4,500 looters were arrested.[1]

Mayor Abe Beame spoke during the blackout about what citizens were up against during the blackout and what the costs would be.

 

[bilby]

The USA is fragile because they refuse to accept that infrastructure is a public good that is best provided by government from general taxation revenue, rather than by a number of disjoint and uncoordinated local monopolies.

The US power grid is far from the worst example; US police departments are an insane patchwork of local forces, with bad coordination and woeful cooperation in places where jurisdictions overlap.

The rest of the world will cope far better with the unexpected. Europeans don't panic, don't try to place themselves above society when faced with unexpected crisis, and don't think that the government is an evil force that should be starved of the necessary funds to plan and prepare for disasters, nor that government should be ignored and/or treated with suspicion when disaster has struck.

The USA is brittle. A severe blow will shatter society beyond repair. The rest of the developed world is far more resilient. Your local disasters won't destroy the world, even if they destroy the USA.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In any case, the situation is bad, but not nearly as dire as some political claims suggest. It's not as if there is a serious risk of human extinction from global warming.

So since we're not in danger of extinction it's okay. That's your implication. Life is hard enough, don't you think, without bringing in such low expectations. Your comment reminds me of a friend who said that until he sees birds dropping dead out of the skies pollution is nothing to worry about.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So since we're not in danger of extinction it's okay. That's your implication.

No, that is false, and there is not even a hint of anything like that in any of my posts.

Life is hard enough, don't you think, without bringing in such low expectations.

Life is hard enough, don't you think, without bringing in doomsday expectations that are not justified on the basis of the available evidence, and against which I am arguing?

Your comment reminds me of a friend who said that until he sees birds dropping dead out of the skies pollution is nothing to worry about.

The reminder comes from you. I'm saying that the dire, doomsday expectations that were brought up by another poster are extremely improbable.