[Terrapreta] expansion

[Greg and April]

I think that this post now stands of a perfect example of how someone will take 1 small part of what was said and twist it to fit their concept.

I'll interspace the rest of my comments, in Blue.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  To: Terra Preta ; Greg and April 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 14:03
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] expansion


  Hi Greg,

  You found the example in the fossil record!  96%, which is in the realm of 95%+ of all species lost due temperature rise and MOST LIKELY caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

  Wrong.    96% of MARINE species is no where near 95%+ of ALL species as you claim, and this did so over a 5M yr period.    There was already a high level of extinction at this time period - even before the "big event".    Keep in mind, that of the marine species that went extinct, most all relied on calicum carbonate - in fact there is a shortage of calicum carbonate in this period. 
   
  Human activity continuing to spew CO2 at 6-8 Gt yr-1 into the atmosphere is maybe a bit like volcanoes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere?

  Wrong.    If the cause was CO2 and given the location of the volcanoes in question, at best the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, would have simply doubled - which using current climate modeling techniques would have meant only a 1.5* - 4.5* C rise in temps..    

  The believed activity of the volcanoes that caused the problem, is the fact that at least 20% of the volcanic activity was pyroclastic in nature ( in other words lot's of ash and other solid debris being thrown high in the atmosphere ).    Make no mistake, the Siberian Traps eruptions was probably the single largest eruption, covering over 200,000 sq Km, but the Carbon and Oxygen ratios do not support the theory of such large CO2 concentrations being released ( not even in the form of Methane Hydrates from the sea floor which the eruption covered - estimates put this possability as only causing a 6* C rise in temperature at the equator ), and remember I specificaly mentioned how the isotopes were messed up in the 2nd to last paragraph that you are responding to.    


  If there was a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere, then there should not have been a shortage of Calcium Carbonate in fossil records.


  Permian-Triassic event - 250M yrs ago.
  Largest known extinction.    96% of all known marine species and 70% of land species.    Actually 2 separate events about 5M yrs apart, and with the final event accounting for 80% of the marine life with the greatest losses in marine invertebrates and the rest during the preceding event. 
  Most likely cause - multiple, starting with massive volcanic eruption ( Siberian Traps ), causing anoxic conditions due to POSSABLE ( but unsupported ) CO2 increases, which allowed anaerobic bacteria to thrive, which produced large amounts of atmospheric hydrogen sulfide.    Supporting evidence is not only the extinction of animal live, but the very unusual declines in plant populations of the period, which have otherwise thrived on occasions where CO2 is believed to increased causing climate change.

  So now what?  I did not say atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would go to 1000 ppm.  I said IF they went to 1000 ppm, then the likely temperature increases would MOST LIKELY cause mass species loses.   Don't you think and expected change of 9 degrees C on top of what has already occurred as a result of human activity will make any difference, Greg?   

  No.    Studies have shown that the poor of Carbon isotopes ratio can not account for what should be large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, if you were correct.    The very lack of calcium carbonate availability from the rock if this time period say's that there was no way such high levels of CO2 could be obtained.


  There was a conference two days ago somewhere (I'll find it and cite it) that said the Earth is losing 1 species every 20 minutes right now and that species loss is expected to reach 70% of plants and 25% of mammals within the next 2 or 3 decades.  Keep watching.

  This is the same prediction given back in the 70's by Greenpeace ( in fact, according to them there should be no more whales left alive at this point ).    It's now 3 decades later, and that is still being used - maybe not exactly, but every plant expert is saying that in the next 50 yrs, we will loose 70% of plant species first it's because of mono croping farms, then going to be due to Big Agro Business like Monsanto buying up all the old time seed and limiting what kind of seed is avalable for sale to farmers, now it's due to Global Warming  -  if everyone could get their stories to match, it might actualy be possable to take some of it serious.    

  The fact of the matter is, no one knows how many species there actually is, and new species are showing up all the time.    When you consider that species are evolving all the time, it just sounds like another hysteria tactic to get attention - sort of like the "plight of the polar bears", but when you get right down to it the genes of the polar bear are intermingled with those of the Grizzly bears of the same latitudes, and that my friend has been known for 4-5 yrs now, but do you think that people are spreading that bit of information?    No - they go on saying the polar bear is in danger due to global warming.


  Greg H.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080603/e5b3d47e/attachment.html