i find this story VERY interesting being a student of geology......note what i put in bold and underlined.....it says the ecosystem has been intact since between 250 and 500 million years ago......anyone have any clue what Antarctica looked like even 150 million years ago? it was about twice its present size cause it was attached to Australia.......not to mention the fact their were dinosaurs running around on it......do these idiots really think the earth has looked like it does now since this mountain of molten rock formed? do they really think there has been miles of ice on Antarctica for 200 million years, not to mention global warming zealots are claiming a 6 degree rise in global temps will melt the ice sheets..........it was likely much warmer than 6 degrees above present in the Triassic which is when they are talking about in the article..............can i have some of what they are smoking?
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
further proof biologists should take geology classes
- Thread starter rattler
- Start date
i find this story VERY interesting being a student of geology......note what i put in bold and underlined.....it says the ecosystem has been intact since between 250 and 500 million years ago......anyone have any clue what Antarctica looked like even 150 million years ago? it was about twice its present size cause it was attached to Australia.......not to mention the fact their were dinosaurs running around on it......do these idiots really think the earth has looked like it does now since this mountain of molten rock formed? do they really think there has been miles of ice on Antarctica for 200 million years, not to mention global warming zealots are claiming a 6 degree rise in global temps will melt the ice sheets..........it was likely much warmer than 6 degrees above present in the Triassic which is when they are talking about in the article..............can i have some of what they are smoking?
I never remember the exact numbers, but 250-500 million years sounds about right for the Paleozoic. I think Pangaea didn't begin breaking up until later, well into the Mesozoic, but that's just a minor detail.
I think what she means is that, after Pangaea began separating, benthic communities (seabed critters) began going separate down evolutionary paths. Those that don't have a mobile phase would be isolated from those on continents that had moved away. Since Antarctica has a unique climate, a cold current circling it, and is separated from every other continent by a rift, it's benthic community would have gone down a very different path than those around other continents.
So she makes an interesting point - if climate change allows more efficicient predators to move in, it would have a huge effect. Kind of like what has happened on thousands of islands where rats escaped off ships and destroyed ecosystems that had developed without predators.
I think what she means is that, after Pangaea began separating, benthic communities (seabed critters) began going separate down evolutionary paths. Those that don't have a mobile phase would be isolated from those on continents that had moved away. Since Antarctica has a unique climate, a cold current circling it, and is separated from every other continent by a rift, it's benthic community would have gone down a very different path than those around other continents.
So she makes an interesting point - if climate change allows more efficicient predators to move in, it would have a huge effect. Kind of like what has happened on thousands of islands where rats escaped off ships and destroyed ecosystems that had developed without predators.
the point being Antactica has only been covered/mostly with ice for between 23 and 15 million years, ......i dont understand ppl's facination with trying to keep earth the way it is. they seem to forget nothing on earth is constant, its always changing. Bruce do you honestly think that it has never been warmer than it is now in the last 15 million years?
I don't know if it has been warmer or not in 15 million years. It certainly was not very long before that, since one of the Cenozoic epochs (eras?) got very warm. And there was a big extinction event associated with that warming.
I wouldn't say people are trying to keep the earth the way it is as much as they're worried about causing something bad to happen that we can't undo. Since things that boost greenhouse gas emissions, such as wasteful energy use, forest clearing and industrialized cattle production have plenty of bad side effects, socially and environmentally, I think reducing emissions is a good thing. Global warming or no global warming. But global warming is the big threat because we can't escape the global climate and this warming cycle is being driven by something new.
We're running an experiment while living in the test tube. Bad idea.
I wouldn't say people are trying to keep the earth the way it is as much as they're worried about causing something bad to happen that we can't undo. Since things that boost greenhouse gas emissions, such as wasteful energy use, forest clearing and industrialized cattle production have plenty of bad side effects, socially and environmentally, I think reducing emissions is a good thing. Global warming or no global warming. But global warming is the big threat because we can't escape the global climate and this warming cycle is being driven by something new.
We're running an experiment while living in the test tube. Bad idea.
Finch
Whats it to ya?
rattler, you yourself like to point out in countless times how much we have yet to learn. And yet you are indicating that because the earth has changed and is changing that there are not going to be severe consequences. The things that existed during the past warm periods have died or changed into something different. And yet you who like to say how much we dont know are so certain that things like global warming and the bad side effects are all crap. It would be prudent to be cautious at the very least.
The point is that human distribution and habits are very much stuck to the ways it has been in the past. People want to move back to all of New Orleans. Irrisponsible development and water usage in the very arid southwest. No more illegal immigration. People count on things being as they have always been, but thats not the case. Humans are adaptable, but at the same time we are somewhat stuck in our ways. Not that I worry for humanity itself, but a lot of people have the potential to lose everything.
The point is that human distribution and habits are very much stuck to the ways it has been in the past. People want to move back to all of New Orleans. Irrisponsible development and water usage in the very arid southwest. No more illegal immigration. People count on things being as they have always been, but thats not the case. Humans are adaptable, but at the same time we are somewhat stuck in our ways. Not that I worry for humanity itself, but a lot of people have the potential to lose everything.
On one hand, I agree with rattler: biologists should be *required* to learn about the history of this planet, both geological and paleontological, in part to prevent slip-ups like this, but also because it's necessary to fully understand biology.
However, one slip-up is not grounds for dismissing the fundamental concept, namely that changes in sea temperature will allow predators to expand their ranges into areas which formerly lacked major predators, upsetting the ecosystem.
Hang on, do you have a direct link to the article? Because that's not a direct quote. What if the scientist said "Paleocene" and the reporter screwed it up? It happens way too frequently (enough that many scientists I know of are squeamish about even talking to the media about non-politically-charged studies), so it's a real possibility.
Link?
Mokele
However, one slip-up is not grounds for dismissing the fundamental concept, namely that changes in sea temperature will allow predators to expand their ranges into areas which formerly lacked major predators, upsetting the ecosystem.
Hang on, do you have a direct link to the article? Because that's not a direct quote. What if the scientist said "Paleocene" and the reporter screwed it up? It happens way too frequently (enough that many scientists I know of are squeamish about even talking to the media about non-politically-charged studies), so it's a real possibility.
Link?
Mokele
This seems to give it more context - http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/15/antarctica-predators.html - although it doesn't explain why anyone was talking about the Paleozoic. I'm curious whether Antarctica has radically different sea floor creatures than elsewhere or if they're just different species of the same groups or if it's a place where species scarce everywhere else can dominate. To my simplistic way of thinking, that would answer the question of whether someone should toss out the word Paleozoic or even Paleocene in this situation.
By the way, back in my geology school days, I found a lot of cross-pollination among the sciences. But if you go to the website of the Biology Dept. at URI, where that biologist works, you'll see her specialty is shark physiology. A field like that doesn't tend to cross paths as much with geology as it would, say, with biochemistry. Don't get me wrong; as a geologist, I believe no one should graduate from high school with less than four years of earth science. Judging from the spelling we see, four years is wasted on English. But there are limits. While an environmental geologist like me picked up a lot of biologic sciences, the ones interested in metamorphic geology were looking at physical chemistry and weren't concerning themselves with the difference between the plants of a fen and a bog. With time, many make huge leaps into new specialties as they became more familiar with other fields.
By the way, back in my geology school days, I found a lot of cross-pollination among the sciences. But if you go to the website of the Biology Dept. at URI, where that biologist works, you'll see her specialty is shark physiology. A field like that doesn't tend to cross paths as much with geology as it would, say, with biochemistry. Don't get me wrong; as a geologist, I believe no one should graduate from high school with less than four years of earth science. Judging from the spelling we see, four years is wasted on English. But there are limits. While an environmental geologist like me picked up a lot of biologic sciences, the ones interested in metamorphic geology were looking at physical chemistry and weren't concerning themselves with the difference between the plants of a fen and a bog. With time, many make huge leaps into new specialties as they became more familiar with other fields.
Finch
Whats it to ya?
Pfft. There are thousands of words, and some very ambiguous rules with multiple exceptions. Expecting everyone to remember the correct format for every case is somewhat unreasonable in my opinion. Not that you are suggesting this, but some of us cannot remember how to spell some words we hardly ever use to save our life.
I agree with Mokele about the press misquoting.
I also agree with Rattler about the current and past nature of Antarctica.
Just got done reading a great book by Sean Carroll, part of which details the Antarctic ice fish. IIRC these things are only about 20 odd million years old as species and if you understand the biology behind them they can only survive in frigid waters. So they could not have evolved before said time period.
Different branches of biology have different understandings. I understand geology to a greater extent than most microbiologists because I have a deep interest in evolution. I would contend that most all evolutionary biologists are intimately aware of geology because they deal in geologic time spans. And most microbiologists don't because we deal with things that have generation times on the order of minutes. It is all a matter of "over specialization". Granted I may be the worlds expert in the activation of the skf operon but that does not necessarily make me smarter than anyone/everyone else. Too many scientists of every ilk forget that.
I also agree with Rattler about the current and past nature of Antarctica.
Just got done reading a great book by Sean Carroll, part of which details the Antarctic ice fish. IIRC these things are only about 20 odd million years old as species and if you understand the biology behind them they can only survive in frigid waters. So they could not have evolved before said time period.
Different branches of biology have different understandings. I understand geology to a greater extent than most microbiologists because I have a deep interest in evolution. I would contend that most all evolutionary biologists are intimately aware of geology because they deal in geologic time spans. And most microbiologists don't because we deal with things that have generation times on the order of minutes. It is all a matter of "over specialization". Granted I may be the worlds expert in the activation of the skf operon but that does not necessarily make me smarter than anyone/everyone else. Too many scientists of every ilk forget that.
my question is why does everyone seem to think that the Earth is supposed to stay the way it was at the point directly before the industrial revolution. we know that even within the last 1,000 years the global temps were a degree or so warmer than present. i think the main problem with all this global warming stuff is the fact no living person has seen just how quickly the natural processes of this planet can change the climate, even if temproary. when Krakatoa blew in the 1880's it dropped global temps 1.6*C and kept the average temps below normal for most of 5 years. that was just one major erruption of a single volcano, think of what can happen if you get a couple going off like that.
man is not responsible for 99% of the current rise in temps. in order for us to do that the air would have to be heating up at a faster rate than the ground which is not happening, they are rising at about the same rate. so infact it is increased radiation from the sun causing the vast majority of the global warming......who would think that huge nuclear reaction going on not that far from us would influence the temps on earth?
are we warming up at present? yes, is it abnormally fast? no not really. we are still coming out of an ice age. we are going to spike and just as likely as temps continuing to rise we are likely to start down another valley into another ice age like has been cycling for the last 40 million years.
the earths climate is not going to stay the same with or without us. do i think we should reduce polution? yes ofcourse, but passing stupid legislation because of the theory man is causing the earth to warm up is idiotic in the extream. is it possible we will loose the ecosystem around the Antactic? not really, will it change? of course its inevitable. hell the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is only between 20,000-60,000 years old. 20 million years is a hella long time for an ecosystem to stay intact on this planet.
man is not responsible for 99% of the current rise in temps. in order for us to do that the air would have to be heating up at a faster rate than the ground which is not happening, they are rising at about the same rate. so infact it is increased radiation from the sun causing the vast majority of the global warming......who would think that huge nuclear reaction going on not that far from us would influence the temps on earth?
are we warming up at present? yes, is it abnormally fast? no not really. we are still coming out of an ice age. we are going to spike and just as likely as temps continuing to rise we are likely to start down another valley into another ice age like has been cycling for the last 40 million years.
the earths climate is not going to stay the same with or without us. do i think we should reduce polution? yes ofcourse, but passing stupid legislation because of the theory man is causing the earth to warm up is idiotic in the extream. is it possible we will loose the ecosystem around the Antactic? not really, will it change? of course its inevitable. hell the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is only between 20,000-60,000 years old. 20 million years is a hella long time for an ecosystem to stay intact on this planet.
Well the reason everyone is up in arms about it is because it has to do with evil horrible nasty sharks coming in to wipe out the entire ecology of the Antarctic... If it were something cute and fuzzy like sea otters that were going to invade Antarctica and decimate the ecology we would have friggin Greenpeace boats carting the otters in in droves under armed protection. People are stupid. George Carlin said it best.
That's just plain wrong. The woman who Rattler's original post quoted is a shark biologist. Greenpeace is one of the organizations that has taken up the cause to protect sharks and made its name protecting whales, which aren't cute and fuzzy either. I'm no fan of Greenpeace and think some of its stunts have alienated a lot of people who might otherwise favor environmental causes, but at least try understand what it's all about.
As for "why does everyone seem to think the earth is supposed to stay the way it was", that sounds like a strawman Rush Limbaugh cobbled together to knockdown for his fans. I've never heard anyone say something like that. The fundamental argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that there's strong (but not conclusive) evidence that we might cause catastrophic changes if we don't.
One of the most aggravating things about this is that so many of the same people who, with little concern for evidence, supported our president's decision to invade Iraq choose to ignore the far more compelling case about global warming.
As for "why does everyone seem to think the earth is supposed to stay the way it was", that sounds like a strawman Rush Limbaugh cobbled together to knockdown for his fans. I've never heard anyone say something like that. The fundamental argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that there's strong (but not conclusive) evidence that we might cause catastrophic changes if we don't.
One of the most aggravating things about this is that so many of the same people who, with little concern for evidence, supported our president's decision to invade Iraq choose to ignore the far more compelling case about global warming.
It is called hyperbole Bruce. I know I was misrepresenting the case but I did it in an extreme fashion to make a point, which you obviously missed.
It does not matter who originally put out the theory it is how the media spins it and how the public is going to view it. And a sad fact of life is that 99.9999% of the common public hate sharks for no reason other than they are sharks. Jaws did a great job of exploiting that fear and at the same time exacerbating it. Your average Joe on the street thinks that a shark is a mindless eating machine. Likewise he probably does not know or even care how threatened sharks are. It is the same case with many many animals.
You want a different spin on it? There are (conservatively) hundreds animals much closer to extinction than the Giant Panda but what is the WWF logo?? There is a reason for that, people like Pandas. People don't like Aye-Ayes. Personally I think the Aye-Aye is a lot cuter but then I have been told I am odd.
And, if I may, this statement is equally wrong:
You need to add a caveat there-- to man. We only give a rip about what happens to the environment because of how it will effect us. Does the planet in and of itself care if hurricanes get stronger? Not one whit. But when one levels a city we sure freak out. Does the planet care about rising sea levels? Nope. But we do because it'll effect out crops and out weather patterns and our real estate.
Nature is a remarkable force and there is nothing we can do to destroy life on this planet shy of detonating all the atomic arsenal on the planet at one place at one time. And even then I would put good money on life surviving. But I am biased by the (low estimate of) 10^28 bacteria that inhabit the planet.
Evolution thrives on catastrophe. It is humans that do not.
It does not matter who originally put out the theory it is how the media spins it and how the public is going to view it. And a sad fact of life is that 99.9999% of the common public hate sharks for no reason other than they are sharks. Jaws did a great job of exploiting that fear and at the same time exacerbating it. Your average Joe on the street thinks that a shark is a mindless eating machine. Likewise he probably does not know or even care how threatened sharks are. It is the same case with many many animals.
You want a different spin on it? There are (conservatively) hundreds animals much closer to extinction than the Giant Panda but what is the WWF logo?? There is a reason for that, people like Pandas. People don't like Aye-Ayes. Personally I think the Aye-Aye is a lot cuter but then I have been told I am odd.
And, if I may, this statement is equally wrong:
You need to add a caveat there-- to man. We only give a rip about what happens to the environment because of how it will effect us. Does the planet in and of itself care if hurricanes get stronger? Not one whit. But when one levels a city we sure freak out. Does the planet care about rising sea levels? Nope. But we do because it'll effect out crops and out weather patterns and our real estate.
Nature is a remarkable force and there is nothing we can do to destroy life on this planet shy of detonating all the atomic arsenal on the planet at one place at one time. And even then I would put good money on life surviving. But I am biased by the (low estimate of) 10^28 bacteria that inhabit the planet.
Evolution thrives on catastrophe. It is humans that do not.
I have no doubt life will endure as long as the planet remains tectonically active and the sun doesn't do anything too drastic. But to justify a particular action or inaction by saying, don't worry life will still survive in some form, is to argue against caring or doing anything about anything. That's a way of thinking I just can't agree with.
Finch
Whats it to ya?
where did i loose yah Finch?......i said the sun is more responsible for the change in climate than the gases in our atmosphere.......did not say we werent changing chit, just said the greenhouse gases we are putting into the air have minimal bearing on our current rise in temps. since the earth i not currently experiencing a "greenhouse effect" the sun happens to be doing almost all the warming what gases we put in the air are have minimal impact on global climate change............are they causing pollution and other things? defiantly but they have minimal bearing on the current changing climate
By that logic, we should be free to pollute all we like, since that's just the earth changing!
The problem isn't change, it's the rate at which it happens. We're inducing change to happen far faster than it should, faster than natural systems can deal with. Furthermore, unlike volcanic eruptions, the effect will linger for more than just a few years.
Now, time to get to your "facts":
Wrong.
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." - US Climate Change Science Program
So your assertion is based on false data.
Wow, that's amazing! The sun is somehow warming us more in spite of having NO CHANGE in solar output since 1960.
It's magic! Or denial, one of the two.
Wrong again -we're in a COOLING phase of the Milankovich cycle.
You mean like that silly theory about CFC causing ozone depletion? The one that was *correct*? Notice something about the ozone lately? Yeah, it's all come back after we banned CFCs.
Got any proof of that? Other than your "solar radiation" theory which I just skewered?
Mokele
I am sorry Bruce but I can not help but feel you are purposefully being obtuse here. I never made the argument that we should do nothing because "life will survive." I was merely stating a fact. One would think that the person who just trashed people for not acknowledging facts would would themselves recognize the difference between stating a fact and making an argument.
You called me out for my comment with the accusations of "little concern for evidence" and "ignore the far more compelling case of global warming" and I retorted that you yourself were explicitly ignoring facts, mainly that the only reason people really care about global climate change is because it will make their lives difficult and not because of what will happen to the animals. I find it extremely hypocritical that someone can accuse me of blindly towing some party line when they themselves are blindly towing a party line.
Global climate change was going to disrupt the Antarctic ecosystem whether or not the sharks moved in. That is nature, you upset a system and there will be consequences. In point of fact, it already has been effecting the ecosystem, most of us just did not know (or care for that matter) until the media decided to exploit peoples fear of "killer" sharks to bring it to our attention!! Very very few people would have heard about it if the shark researcher had not put out her theory and had the media latch onto it. How many people reading this had even heard of an icefish before I brought them up in this thread?? And how many people know of the drastic decline of the icefish population that has been going on since the 60's?? I can guess with pretty high confidence that there may be 1-2 people who would raise their hands (Hi Mokele.)
And that is what I am taking issue with here. People who make claims that they are up on all the facts of "global warming" but they only know what has been piped to them by the "news." If people really truly cared about the impact of greenhouse gasses then they would demand an end to the excessive use of fossil fuels. Instead they just urinate and moan about the high cost of gas prices while they pump 50 gallons into their SUV while wearing their synthetic material shoes and pants and yapping away on their plastic cell phones. It is BS and I am so tired of it that I am no longer moved by their gripping.
I can not stand hypocrisy! So to sit here and have someone seemingly purposefully misconstrue my comments and then pass judgment on my based on that misrepresentation leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth. Especially when that same person is making me out to be some kind of "anti-green" while they themselves are just as guilty as I am of using more than their fair share of power and water to light, heat and water their carnivorous plant collection.
Last edited:
yah know Mokele......i presented you with facts to back up my case from reputable sources and not crack pots.....your reply to that wasnt that my data was wrong but that it only changed things by minor degrees. the whole argument is based on changes of a few tenths of a degree.
out of the last almost 120 years out of the 10 warmest on record, five are pre WWII. only 3 have occured in the last 10 years. doesnt that seem odd to you if the earth is infact on a major warming trend?
the top ten warmest years are:
1924
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1999
my problem with the global warming scare is there isnt chit for hard data before the 1880's or so.....all you have to back up your data is theory's. your trying to convince me that we are warming up based on theories. i agree that the general data based on ice cores and sea floor sediment is prolly more or less right however that is not hard data about what temps were. you cant tell me the average temps for Europe, NA and Asia for 1659 and 1754 based on ice core data, you can tell me that it was likely warmer or cooler than 10 years previous but that is about it. that is why i have problems with the cries of global warming.
as far as CFC's and the ozone layer i seem to remeber being told the hole in the Ozone layer was due to CFC's let loose 40 years or so previous cause the CFC's take time to travel into the upper atmosphere, let alone be concentrated at the south pole. why in the hell did a crack down on CFC's in the 80's and 90's close up the hole so fast?, it shouldnt have started closing up till the 2050's or so. based on what we did 10 years ago. either the scientists were wrong about what CFC's due to the ozone layer, or how fast they move, or it was part of the natural processes......we will find out soon i think cause i highly doubt China and India follow the rules on such......so in theory it should open back up again shortly
out of the last almost 120 years out of the 10 warmest on record, five are pre WWII. only 3 have occured in the last 10 years. doesnt that seem odd to you if the earth is infact on a major warming trend?
the top ten warmest years are:
1924
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1999
my problem with the global warming scare is there isnt chit for hard data before the 1880's or so.....all you have to back up your data is theory's. your trying to convince me that we are warming up based on theories. i agree that the general data based on ice cores and sea floor sediment is prolly more or less right however that is not hard data about what temps were. you cant tell me the average temps for Europe, NA and Asia for 1659 and 1754 based on ice core data, you can tell me that it was likely warmer or cooler than 10 years previous but that is about it. that is why i have problems with the cries of global warming.
as far as CFC's and the ozone layer i seem to remeber being told the hole in the Ozone layer was due to CFC's let loose 40 years or so previous cause the CFC's take time to travel into the upper atmosphere, let alone be concentrated at the south pole. why in the hell did a crack down on CFC's in the 80's and 90's close up the hole so fast?, it shouldnt have started closing up till the 2050's or so. based on what we did 10 years ago. either the scientists were wrong about what CFC's due to the ozone layer, or how fast they move, or it was part of the natural processes......we will find out soon i think cause i highly doubt China and India follow the rules on such......so in theory it should open back up again shortly
Last edited by a moderator:
