[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Mystery of Mass Extinctions Is No Longer Murky
> From: David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Mystery of Mass Extinctions Is No Longer Murky
> To: "DML" <email@example.com>
> Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 7:10 AM
> I don't understand why some people insist that a mass
> extinction cannot
> possibly have a single cause.
I don't either.
> Sure everything tends to turn
> out to be more
> complicated than we thought at first, but why start with
> the maximally
> munificent hypothesis?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "don ohmes" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:17 PM
> > If: [...]
> > 2) our current climate system is such that a
> "run-away" greenhouse can
> > occur.
> If by "runaway" you actually mean
> "runaway", as on Venus, then it isn't.
> There is no chance that it could get so hot it doesn't
> rain anymore.
In practical terms I agree, although will point out that life as we know it
might be over before that point is reached. However, due to my continuing
skepticism re the constancy of atmospheric N through post-Archean time, I don't
have your level of certainty.
You seem to be saying that even a 97% CO2 atmosphere (er, from some totally
hypothetical extraterrestrial CO2 source for example) wouldn't start a runaway
on Earth. This aroused my curiosity. Is that what you meant?
> But a sea-level rise of a single meter, let alone three, is
> bad enough.
> We're talking about hundreds of millions of people
> having to move. Even if
> spread through decades, that's horror enough.
> And I
> haven't even mentioned
> the golden toad yet.
Phew! Thanks! I definitely am not yet spiritually prepared to contemplate the