By 2100, oceans may hold enough carbon to launch sixth mass extermination of species, mathematics predicts (Update)

September 20, 2017
Sedimentary rocks at Meishan, China. These rocks contain signatures of a disturbance in the carbon cycle immediately preceding Earth's greatest mass extinction. Credit: Shuzhong Shen

In the past 540 million years, the Earth has endured five mass extinction events, each involving processes that upended the normal cycling of carbon through the atmosphere and oceans. These globally fatal perturbations in carbon each unfolded over thousands to millions of years, and are coincident with the widespread extermination of marine species around the world.

The question for many scientists is whether the carbon cycle is now experiencing a significant jolt that could tip the planet toward a sixth mass . In the modern era, carbon dioxide emissions have risen steadily since the 19th century, but deciphering whether this recent spike in carbon could lead to mass extinction has been challenging. That's mainly because it's difficult to relate ancient carbon anomalies, occurring over thousands to millions of years, to today's disruptions, which have taken place over just a little more than a century.

Now Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center, has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years, including the five . He has identified "thresholds of catastrophe" in the carbon cycle that, if exceeded, would lead to an unstable environment, and ultimately, mass extinction.

In a paper published in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event.

Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world's oceans by the year 2100.

Does this mean that mass extinction will soon follow at the turn of the century? Rothman says it would take some time—about 10,000 years—for such ecological disasters to play out. However, he says that by 2100 the world may have tipped into "unknown territory."

"This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day," Rothman says. "It's saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict. In the geologic past, this type of behavior is associated with mass extinction."

History follows theory

Rothman had previously done work on the end-Permian extinction, the most severe extinction in Earth's history, in which a massive pulse of carbon through the Earth's system was involved in wiping out more than 95 percent of worldwide. Since then, conversations with colleagues spurred him to consider the likelihood of a sixth extinction, raising an essential question:

"How can you really compare these great events in the geologic past, which occur over such vast timescales, to what's going on today, which is centuries at the longest?" Rothman says. "So I sat down one summer day and tried to think about how one might go about this systematically."

He eventually derived a simple mathematical formula based on basic physical principles that relates the critical rate and magnitude of change in the carbon cycle to the timescale that separates fast from slow change. He hypothesized that this formula should predict whether mass extinction, or some other sort of global catastrophe, should occur.

Rothman then asked whether history followed his hypothesis. By searching through hundreds of published geochemistry papers, he identified 31 events in the last 542 million years in which a significant change occurred in Earth's carbon cycle. For each event, including the five mass extinctions, Rothman noted the change in carbon, expressed in the geochemical record as a change in the relative abundance of two isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13. He also noted the duration of time over which the changes occurred.

He then devised a mathematical transformation to convert these quantities into the total mass of carbon that was added to the oceans during each event. Finally, he plotted both the mass and timescale of each event.

"It became evident that there was a characteristic rate of change that the system basically didn't like to go past," Rothman says.

In other words, he observed a common threshold that most of the 31 events appeared to stay under. While these events involved significant changes in carbon, they were relatively benign—not enough to destabilize the system toward catastrophe. In contrast, four of the five events lay over the threshold, with the most severe end-Permian extinction being the farthest over the line.

"Then it became a question of figuring out what it meant," Rothman says.

A hidden leak

Upon further analysis, Rothman found that the critical rate for catastrophe is related to a hidden process within the Earth's natural carbon cycle. The cycle is essentially a loop between photosynthesis and respiration. Normally, there is a "leak" in the cycle, in which a small amount of organic carbon sinks to the ocean bottom and, over time, is buried as sediment and sequestered from the rest of the carbon cycle.

Rothman found that the critical rate was equivalent to the rate of excess production of carbon dioxide that would result from plugging the leak. Any additional carbon dioxide injected into the cycle could not be described by the loop itself. One or more other processes would instead have taken the carbon cycle into unstable territory.

He then determined that the critical rate applies only beyond the timescale at which the can re-establish its equilibrium after it is disturbed. Today, this timescale is about 10,000 years. For much shorter events, the critical threshold is no longer tied to the rate at which carbon is added to the oceans but instead to the carbon's total mass. Both scenarios would leave an excess of carbon circulating through the oceans and atmosphere, likely resulting in global warming and ocean acidification.

The century's the limit

From the critical rate and the equilibrium timescale, Rothman calculated the critical of carbon for the modern day to be about 310 gigatons.

He then compared his prediction to the total amount of carbon added to the Earth's oceans by the year 2100, as projected in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC projections consider four possible pathways for carbon dioxide emissions, ranging from one associated with stringent policies to limit , to another related to the high range of scenarios with no limitations.

The best-case scenario projects that humans will add 300 gigatons of carbon to the oceans by 2100, while more than 500 gigatons will be added under the worst-case scenario, far exceeding the critical threshold. In all scenarios, Rothman shows that by 2100, the will either be close to or well beyond the threshold for catastrophe.

"There should be ways of pulling back [emissions of dioxide]," Rothman says. "But this work points out reasons why we need to be careful, and it gives more reasons for studying the past to inform the present."

Explore further: Recovery after 'great dying' was slowed by more extinctions

More information: "Thresholds of catastrophe in the Earth system," Science Advances (2017). advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906

Related Stories

Recovery after 'great dying' was slowed by more extinctions

March 15, 2017

Researchers studying marine fossil beds in Italy have found that the world's worst mass extinction was followed by two other extinction events, a conclusion that could explain why it took ecosystems around the globe millions ...

Scientists investigate what breaks down permafrost carbon

February 14, 2017

A Florida State University researcher is delving into the complexities of exactly how permafrost thawing in the Earth's most northern regions is cycling back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and further fueling climate ...

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tblakely1357
2 / 5 (25) Sep 20, 2017
Hmm, next we'll be seeing articles linking GW to the death of our universe.
Bongstar420
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2017
The Permian extinction was the result of excess sulphide being emitted. The ocean became anoxic. Simply raising CO2 won't do that. There are other things that must be combined with the CO2. Also, CO2 was +1500ppm CO2. The Permian was probably initiated by massive erosion of phosphate combined with increased nitrogen fixation on top of the CO2.. CO2 is too narrow of a focus with this problem and is probably no where near as important as politics makes it out to be.
d3ad1te
4.3 / 5 (17) Sep 20, 2017
The Permian extinction was the result of excess sulphide being emitted. The ocean became anoxic. Simply raising CO2 won't do that. There are other things that must be combined with the CO2. Also, CO2 was +1500ppm CO2. The Permian was probably initiated by massive erosion of phosphate combined with increased nitrogen fixation on top of the CO2.. CO2 is too narrow of a focus with this problem and is probably no where near as important as politics makes it out to be.


Ah yes I trust "Bongstar420" on this issue over the venerable Daniel Rothman; professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center.
bschott
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2017

Ah yes I trust "Bongstar420" on this issue over the venerable Daniel Rothman; professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center.

Good choice, he has no agenda, no job to keep, no funding in jeopardy...and he's correct.

rderkis
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2017
Good choice, he has no agenda, no job to keep, no funding in jeopardy...and he's correct.


That's funny! Then why didn't he write the article? To shy? No that can't be it because he posted comments here.
billpress11
3.1 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2017
While global warming is a problem, a far worst problem is the almost completely ignored, irresponsible population growth in major parts of the world. You can kiss many of the worlds large mammals goodbye because of their lost of habitat and poaching by greedy and needy people.
rderkis
1 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2017
On top of that according to many studies. The most notable being done by Ray Kurzweil, which results were so unbelievable many scientists did their own study to prove him wrong. They all came up with approximately the same result. By 2100 our technology will have advance trillions of times over what it is now. Re-bio shaping the Earth will be literally child's play.

Study results = http://theemergin...ment.pdf
bschott
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2017
Good choice, he has no agenda, no job to keep, no funding in jeopardy...and he's correct.


That's funny! Then why didn't he write the article? To shy? No that can't be it because he posted comments here.

People only get paid to do certain types of "research"....
cortezz
5 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2017

People only get paid to do certain types of "research"....

Yes, they are paid to do certain type of research. However, they are not paid to present certain type of results.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2017
This is actually quite interesting research, and his conclusions about the fast VS slow thresholds seem very logical.
Shootist
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2017
there were four major bolide impacts near the Permian extinction, each far larger than Chixiulub, Wilkes land crater, 300 km in diameter, Falkland Island's Basin crater, 250 km diameter, and two 200 km diameter "twin" craters in Australia's Warburton Basin.

Anyone of these could have caused the mass extinction event. All of them together certainly would have.
jkrause5118
1 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2017
Daniel Rothman has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years.

Wow! He is really old!
Broadlands
1 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2017
Even if all the mathematics and assumptions is correct, what can us humans do about it? So far, there have been less than 120 KNOWN animal extinctions in the last 100 years. And, new species are being found each year. Lowering atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm (to get us back to a "safe" 350 ppm) will mean technologically risky capture and geological storage of at least 100 BILLION tons of CO2. Simple arithmetic shows that very clearly.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2017
Even if all the mathematics and assumptions is correct, what can us humans do about it? So far, there have been less than 120 KNOWN animal extinctions in the last 100 years. And, new species are being found each year. Lowering atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm (to get us back to a "safe" 350 ppm) will mean technologically risky capture and geological storage of at least 100 BILLION tons of CO2. Simple arithmetic shows that very clearly.

There are a minimum of 486 species of animal recorded as extinct, along with some 200 plant species. You might want to check before tossing incorrect facts around. http://www.cell.c...23-C.pdf

If you are wrong about that, I expect you are wrong about the rest too.
dfjohnsonphd
4.4 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2017
At this point in time we are at the beginning of a mass extinction caused by human activities, and it's not just from CO2. Loss of habitat is primary, due to human encroachment. Rothman should have prefaced his work by saying there might be another one superimposed on the big one we are causing right now.

Here is a good overview:

https://www.washi...faf06ce8

The biggest question of all time: Is there intelligent life anywhere in the universe?
rderkis
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2017
You people have been presented with the facts about where we will be technologically in the year 2100, but you choose to ignore them. And you call yourselfs farsighted, objective, intellectuals?

More like blind closed minded children who ignore the facts when presented with them. Who only want to try to impress everyone here with your dribble.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2017
You people have been presented with the facts about where we will be technologically in the year 2100, but you choose to ignore them. And you call yourselfs farsighted, objective, intellectuals?

More like blind closed minded children who ignore the facts when presented with them.

And we will discover aliens and control the weather and have flying cars! Oh wait - that was predicted for 2015.....
edwaleni5
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2017
To assume man is the ONLY influence on global climate merely reflects our arrogance.

I would rather read the mathematics behind Milankovich Cycles.
rderkis
1 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2017
And we will discover aliens and control the weather and have flying cars! Oh wait - that was predicted for 2015...


Thank you! You make my case. Read the studieS before you open your mouth. :-)
Parsec
5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2017
The Permian extinction was the result of excess sulphide being emitted. The ocean became anoxic. Simply raising CO2 won't do that. There are other things that must be combined with the CO2. Also, CO2 was +1500ppm CO2. The Permian was probably initiated by massive erosion of phosphate combined with increased nitrogen fixation on top of the CO2.. CO2 is too narrow of a focus with this problem and is probably no where near as important as politics makes it out to be.


The article was talking specifically about changes to the carbon cycle. He was not attempting to go over the tens of thousands of article about Permian extinction, rather the speed and magnitude of the carbon cycle changes measured. It is unclear to me how the author was able to clearly differentiate cause and effect, but your objection is logically invalid by non sequitur.
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2017
While global warming is a problem, a far worst problem is the almost completely ignored, irresponsible population growth in major parts of the world. You can kiss many of the worlds large mammals goodbye because of their lost of habitat and poaching by greedy and needy people.


You continue to harp endlessly on about population growth. There are lots of ways to reduce the number of people. Some quick, some slow. They all to date have quite unfortunate side effects. For example: Where do you put the corpses? What happens when your single child couples all choose males? What happens when the average age of your population means a majority are retired?

Since you cannot possibly be stupid enough to actually believe you are saying anything remotely new, why not surprise us all with some solutions? Personally, I always thought Soylent Green was a particularly clever idea.
Mimath224
1.3 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2017
Even if all the mathematics and assumptions is correct, what can us humans do about it? So far, there have been less than 120 KNOWN animal extinctions in the last 100 years. And, new species are being found each year. Lowering atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm (to get us back to a "safe" 350 ppm) will mean technologically risky capture and geological storage of at least 100 BILLION tons of CO2. Simple arithmetic shows that very clearly.

There are a minimum of 486 species of animal recorded as extinct, along with some 200 plant species. You might want to check before tossing incorrect facts around. http://www.cell.c...23-C.pdf

If you are wrong about that, I expect you are wrong about the rest too.

Yes. The other point I wonder about is that in the past it was a 'natural' event where as today it MIGHT be anthropogenic. As a layman I just wonder if the 'natural' chemical build up is more embedded than the anthropogenic one?
rderkis
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2017
When you talk about population growth, you do realize that China by controlling it's population growth went from a backwater 3rd world country to the world class country you see today in only 3 generations? (Unheard of advancement)
Population growth does not seem to be as uncontrollable as you alarmists would want us to believe.
rderkis
1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2017
There is only one thing worse than a alarmist "crying wolf"or "the sky is falling" and that is a conspiracy theorist. Woops I was wrong. A Person afflicted with both mental problems is worse.
leetennant
5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2017
There is only one thing worse than a alarmist "crying wolf"or "the sky is falling" and that is a conspiracy theorist. Woops I was wrong. A Person afflicted with both mental problems is worse.


Thank you for your detailed analysis of the modelling and your compelling and insightful argument against it based on your extensive research in the field. Popper would be proud.

Oh, wait...
leetennant
5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2017
Daniel Rothman has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years.

Wow! He is really old!


This is why I know for a FACT that the world started in 1973 and anything that someone claims happened before that is mere conjecture.

Shit, I just revealed how old I am...

...Or did I...
Gigel
3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
Lowering atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm (to get us back to a "safe" 350 ppm) will mean technologically risky capture and geological storage of at least 100 BILLION tons of CO2. Simple arithmetic shows that very clearly.

We can convince the environment to do that for us. We have to find CO2 absorbing processes with strong feedforward reaction, i.e. a small initial action will trigger massive CO2 absorbtion. One of them is ocean fertilization. Research is ongoing.
Gigel
4.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2017
You people have been presented with the facts about where we will be technologically in the year 2100, but you choose to ignore them. And you call yourselfs farsighted, objective, intellectuals?

Humans are particularly nearsighted and constantly loose perspective when talking about the future. They think about everything through the sieve of present things, ideas, memes... Each period of the modern history (pre-WWI, interwar, post-WWII, post-Cold War etc.) had its own idea of the future; each cultural change brought a change in perspective as it was connected to the then-present.

Progress, technology advancements are some of the best things we can do for the future. Attempts at population control may have done more evil to humanity. As we are now, the most advanced countries, with the best perspectives of progress and education, also have old populations, which is a brake for progress. Overall we may be on the wrong way and heading into a trap.
xponen
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
Guys, here is an interesting facts:
CO2 emission during Permian extinction event is the same as today's emission rate!

The difference is; the CO2 in Permian extinction event was theorised to be produced by volcano eruptions in Siberia instead of Fossil Fuel burning.

If we use Permian extinction event as some sort of reference to what is coming to Earth (if we continue emitting CO2), we'll found that in 20,000 years 90% of all life on Earth will disappear and it will take millions of years to recover. That is really sad, that is literally killing the planet!

rderkis
1 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
There is only one thing worse than a alarmist "crying wolf"or "the sky is falling" and that is a conspiracy theorist. Woops I was wrong. A Person afflicted with both mental problems is worse.


Thank you for your detailed analysis of the modelling and your compelling and insightful argument against it based on your extensive research in the field. Popper would be proud..


Thank you! You hit the nail on the head. Since you are so hurt by my remarks, I have to believe you are insightful enough to feel they were directed at you. That means there is hope for your problem. :-)
xponen
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
Guys, we need to be quick in eliminating Fossil Fuel use.

If the article is correct, then an extinction level event will begin at that specific Carbon threshold predicted to be reached in less than 80 year in our children's lifetime. In just 4 generation (Gen X,Y,Z, ect ....) your family will embark in an extinction event with 90% of species on Earth.
dfjohnsonphd
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2017
When you talk about population growth, you do realize that China by controlling it's population growth went from a backwater 3rd world country to the world class country you see today in only 3 generations? (Unheard of advancement)
Population growth does not seem to be as uncontrollable as you alarmists would want us to believe.


Regarding human population declines, if we don't engineer it, the planet will. It will "dump" billions of people when food production and potable water supplies collapse as a result of climate change, and pollution and disease does the rest. Did someone say China has engineered a great society? Seen the air in Beijing lately? Tested their water lately? How are the people feeling over there?

No matter how you slice it, there will be another Great Dying, and it won't just be animals. It will make the Black Death of the good old days look like a bad cold.

And Soylent Green will be the answer for "what to do with all the corpses".

HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2017
Even if all the mathematics and assumptions is correct, what can us humans do about it? So far, there have been less than 120 KNOWN animal extinctions in the last 100 years. And, new species are being found each year. Lowering atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm (to get us back to a "safe" 350 ppm) will mean technologically risky capture and geological storage of at least 100 BILLION tons of CO2. Simple arithmetic shows that very clearly.

There are a minimum of 486 species of animal recorded as extinct, along with some 200 plant species. You might want to check before tossing incorrect facts around. http://www.cell.c...23-C.pdf

If you are wrong about that, I expect you are wrong about the rest too.


Expected from just another antigoracle sockpuppet.
rderkis
1 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2017
dfjohnsonphd says
[ It will make the Black Death of the good old days look like a bad cold.
And Soylent Green will be the answer for "what to do with all the corpses".


The sky is falling! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Wolf! WOLF! Run for your lives. :-)
Turgent
1.2 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2017
Read the paper: The math is heavy and model complex so I can't say I fully understand, but it does contain some high variable sensitivity in the boundary value equation so this looks like an academic exercise.
leetennant
5 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2017
There is only one thing worse than a alarmist "crying wolf"or "the sky is falling" and that is a conspiracy theorist. Woops I was wrong. A Person afflicted with both mental problems is worse.


Thank you for your detailed analysis of the modelling and your compelling and insightful argument against it based on your extensive research in the field. Popper would be proud..


Thank you! You hit the nail on the head. Since you are so hurt by my remarks, I have to believe you are insightful enough to feel they were directed at you. That means there is hope for your problem. :-)


Literally why Poe's Law exists
dfjohnsonphd
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2017
The Sky isn't falling, rderkis, but it is getting loaded with pollutants that are falling. A lot of micro-particulates from coal fired power plants are filled with pyrenes, mercury, etc. etc. etc. Many of these end up in our lungs, where they do nasty things to our tissues, or pollute our water. But you might not know about these things since you have heard about the big bad wolf too much.

The Chinese get a lot of that pollution too. They cannot cry Wolf over there without getting shot! They wished their sky WOULD fall so they could get some fresh air. Not likely. And there are not too many wolves left to be crying "Wolf". Most of the new generation of wolves are bankers and politicians, and you cannot cry too loudly about them.

Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo !!!!! Watch out for your money, watch out for your money and your lives!!!!
PeterY
5 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2017
Extremely interesting article. I haven't read the original article yet but this looks significant. It is clear that Earth's homeostasis has limits, normally it can correct itself but sometimes it goes horrifyingly wrong, and now this suggests what those limits are and a clue as to why. Great stuff, I look forward to follow up studies. Oh, and yeah, super scary for us, that isn't quite so 'interesting'.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2017
More GW porn , first he claims to have perfect knowledge of past extintion events , then

'''Rothman found that the critical rate was equivalent to the rate of excess production of carbon dioxide that would result from plugging the leak. Any additional carbon dioxide injected into the cycle could not be described by the loop itself. One or more other processes would instead have taken the carbon cycle into unstable territory.''

how does he know the leak [ co2 absorbion] would be plugged ,what would stop the formation of carbonates ? i know ! fake news, like acidification . . And what are ''one or more processes'' ?
rderkis
1 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2017
The Sky isn't falling, rderkis, but it is getting loaded with pollutants that are falling. A lot of micro-particulates from coal fired power plants are filled with pyrenes, mercury, etc. etc. etc. Many of these end up in our lungs, where they do nasty things to our tissues, or pollute our water. But you might not know about these things since you have heard about the big bad wolf too much.

The Chinese get a lot of that pollution too. They cannot cry Wolf over there without getting shot! They wished their sky WOULD fall so they could get some fresh air. Not likely. And there are not too many wolves left to be crying "Wolf". Most of the new generation of wolves are bankers and politicians, and you cannot cry too loudly about them.

Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo !!!!! Watch out for your money, watch out for your money and your lives!!!!


The sky is falling dfjohnsonphd! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Wolf! WOLF! Run for your life dfjohnsonphd. :-)
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2017
Aaah monkey antigoracle TURDgent and his riot of socks coming back just to get some more slaps in the face, it doesn't get more hilarious than this :D
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2017
Read the paper: The math is heavy and model complex so I can't say I fully understand, but it does contain some high variable sensitivity in the boundary value equation so this looks like an academic exercise.


The math is definately too heavy for your head, but then again, the word science is to heavy for your head to compute too.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2017
More GW porn , first he claims to have perfect knowledge of past extintion events.....

Antigoracle sockpuppet continiously thinking about the nasty definition of circle jerk... Again..?
Silly monkey, now get your mind clear and act together, that banana is only there for you if you keep your focus... ;)
Osiris1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
Ahhh, global warming. But Trumpf's knuckle dragger army says it ain't so. They also say for us not to look at Barbuda the uninhabitable, or Puerto Rico the wet, or Houston the wet, or Florida the soggy. Maybe it takes a newly created category 7 hurricane with steady winds of 270 miles/hour with gusts of up to 400 miles/hour and a storm surge of 50 feet and a width of 1000 miles to take direct aim at Washington District of Cauldrons during a heat wave of 118 degrees actual temperature and of course humidity of, say, 100 percent to either get those politicians to pay attention or tell everybody that hurricane Godzilla does not exist and pretend they are safe till the 'cane blows them all to perdition.
myelin47
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2017
thank you author for changing the incredibly annoying headline of this article.
rderkis
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
But Trumpf's knuckle dragger army . Maybe it takes a newly created category 7 hurricane with steady winds of 270 miles/hour with gusts of up to 400 miles/hour and a storm surge of 50 feet and a width of 1000 miles t.


The Sky is falling, THE SKY IS FALLING!
Let's blame president Trump for the last 100 years of climate change and also for the next 80 years while we are at it, And lets show how idiotic we can sound by mangling his name.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2017
oh look GW at work ! a story u won't see posted @ Phys.org

https://globalnew...alberta/

and
https://www.popsu...44028964

Gigel
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
If we use Permian extinction event as some sort of reference to what is coming to Earth (if we continue emitting CO2), we'll found that in 20,000 years 90% of all life on Earth will disappear and it will take millions of years to recover. That is really sad, that is literally killing the planet!

I don't think we will be emitting CO2 for the next 20 000 years. Moreover, on that time scale we will be able to find ways to revert far larger climate changes.
dfjohnsonphd
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
""The sky is falling dfjohnsonphd! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Wolf! WOLF! Run for your life dfjohnsonphd. :-)""

The sky isn't falling where I live. Perhaps we are on different planets. That would explain the deviations in your illogical and childish posts, which by the way are getting very bad reviews from the readers, in case you haven't noticed.

However you do provide some entertainment value, sort of like a clown! But you need to work on it. Try watching some Three Stooges movies. Take some blows to the head like Moe gives Larry and Curly. Perhaps that will help to knock some sense into your brain, despite its diminished capacity. Nyuck, nyuck!!

rderkis
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
dfjohnsonphd, you have no idea what your talking about. I would bet a dollar your a conspiracy theorist besides. Please don't misunderstand me, your point about this being a popularity contest is probably very important to some people, like yourself.

It is true, I am very eccentric. How many other 70 year olds have a 14" research grade telescope in their garage on a trolley they built themself? Or program in 6 computer languages and build autonomous robots?
Now I could do better if I could learn to program my full size bridgeport mill I converted to a full CNC (centronics) mill. Just have not found time because I am converting my exmark laser z to propane after rebuilding the heads.
dfjohnsonphd
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
rderkis, I know very much about these topics, or don't post about them, and have forgotten more since my last post then you ever knew in your entire life. And if you are only willing to bet a dollar, you are either very poor or have no confidence in your posts. More to the point, you do not provide any information of significance - Chicken Little quotes and Cry Wolf don't qualify as topics for debate. Give us something smart, if you are so smart as you claim. We're waiting.

Perhaps you can program one of your robots to take over your posting so we can get more informative notions from your location. AI is light years ahead of your own capacity. And the feedback is not about personality, it is about the value of the posts relative to the topic of this thread. I suspect you don't have a clue about what I am telling you, so to look really smart, it would be advisable to avoid commenting on my posts. Better to be quiet than remove all doubt about your ignorance - you ain't making it.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
Cannot even predict the path of a Hurricane beyond the obvious, yet you are panicked by this tripe? It is almost like the collective consciousness of humanity somehow is trying to manifest destruction in order to satiate a need to punish our domination. In essence the game has become dull and the gods wish to start anew. It's your game, play it as thou wilt! The big question for those such as PHDJohnson is, why are you scared? Why the drama? We all must die, so what is the big deal? You people amuse me with your games and the utmost and admirable dedication you espouse to fooling yourselves.
rderkis
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
have forgotten more since my last post then you ever knew in your entire life.


And how do you know that? Studies? science fact? Or just shooting your mouth off?

if you are so smart as you claim. We're waiting.


You have to will wait a long time because if you will get your 3rd grade teacher to read my comments to you, I never claimed to be smart. But you know that and are just shooting your mouth off again. :-)

If your going to say somthing please try to get it right. :-)

dfjohnsonphd
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
Stevepidge, I am not "scared". It is all very entertaining actually. As a fatalist, our demise as a species in inevitable at any rate, as you also noted. Read too much Hemingway maybe. If we don't kill ourselves, a big rock from space surely will. My comments are for those who do care. It makes for interesting debate. An intellectual activity you might not be able to appreciate since you cannot even get my name right. You seem to be enjoying yourself with "admirable dedication" to your own beliefs. And why not? it is a purely human endeavor, soon to be squashed in the grand scheme of things.
dfjohnsonphd
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
rderkis, I suspect you could not afford a Celestron C-14 SCT, and fell off the ladder looking through a cheap, super long newtonian scope and hit your head too many times. Responding to your juvenile comments has lost all its interest. A buffoon like you is only good for a few volleys before it becomes boring. Like the court jester who is more the village idiot than an entertainer, you are out of my sphere of interest. Go back to your telescope and take a long, steady look at the sun without any filters. That should give you great insight into how smart you really are. Trust me on this one. :o)

Stevepidge
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
Stevepidge, I am not "scared". It is all very entertaining actually. As a fatalist, our demise as a species in inevitable at any rate, as you also noted. Read too much Hemingway maybe. If we don't kill ourselves, a big rock from space surely will. My comments are for those who do care. It makes for interesting debate. An intellectual activity you might not be able to appreciate since you cannot even get my name right. You seem to be enjoying yourself with "admirable dedication" to your own beliefs. And why not? it is a purely human endeavor, soon to be squashed in the grand scheme of things.


Purely human? surely you jest.
dfjohnsonphd
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
Stevepidge, "surely you jest" is not exactly the brilliant reply one might expect. Indeed, it is does not even approach the level of an ignorant reply. Guess that says it all for you. "Purely human" is all we will ever know. It is by definition the best (or worst) we can do. But such notions have got to be waaaaay beyond your intellectual level. Happy trails.

rderkis
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2017
rderkis, I suspect you could not afford a Celestron C-14 SCT


No, its a Mead RCX 400 with a really good wedge and excellent finder scope.
And dfjohnsonphd you asked me about smarts so I will tell you this much --
I am smart enough to mute/ignore you. But I would bet you a million dollars your not smart enough NOT to respond anyways. :-)
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2017
Stevepidge, "surely you jest" is not exactly the brilliant reply one might expect. Indeed, it is does not even approach the level of an ignorant reply. Guess that says it all for you. "Purely human" is all we will ever know. It is by definition the best (or worst) we can do. But such notions have got to be waaaaay beyond your intellectual level. Happy trails.


As a fatalist, you are almost there. Yet you still feel pushed around by the world. we are not merely humans, but nature itself. We are every thing and yet no thing. The intellect means nothing to me, it is full of pompous assertions of which truth cannot be derived.
dfjohnsonphd
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2017
Even Darwin would be amazed at how many stupid people survive in the world. Evolution breaks down with the advent of civilization, which supports ignorant people at the expense of the rest of us. Nothing to be done about it but to marvel at the stupidity of others. Little wonder we are on the edge of destruction. Let's give a "Bundy Family" thanks to all the bone heads out there >> Thanks, Guys!!!!

Steve, you did not need to tell us that "intellect means nothing to me". That has been obvious from your first post. Redundant responses are just another form of showing your ignornace.

Intellect and truth cerrtainly can be derived, and proven. Just ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they believe in the reality of nuclear physics. They will overwhelm you with the truth, if you can handle it.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2017
LOL the reality of nukes. You are too funny. Take for instance Bikini atoll, a 23 KT nuke left a huge crater, yet at trinity, a 20 kt nuke there is no crater http://www.atomic...SB38.jpg

explain this to me.
There are no nuclear weapons. They are all frauds, a tool of fear to manipulate the masses. It is all hollywood jewish magic, created at lookout mountain.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2017
How cannot you not see this? NO ONE on this board can create a "nuclear" weapon because it is BS. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombings, any other explanation is egotistical non-sense. This should bring joy to the average person, yet you are infected with egoism. NUKES ARE A LIE, there is a global conspiracy to control and manipulate mankind and nukes are a "weapon" to deter resistance. This has been planned for over a hundred years, you have been warned.
rderkis
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2017
LOL the reality of nukes. You are too funny. Take for instance Bikini atoll, a 23 KT nuke left a huge crater, yet at trinity, a 20 kt nuke there is no crater http://www.atomic...SB38.jpg

explain this to me.
There are no nuclear weapons. They are all frauds, a tool of fear to manipulate the masses. It is all hollywood jewish magic, created at lookout mountain.

Wow, both a Sky is falling fatalist and the earth is flat because it's a conspiracy kind of guy.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2017
LOL the reality of nukes. You are too funny. Take for instance Bikini atoll, a 23 KT nuke left a huge crater, yet at trinity, a 20 kt nuke there is no crater http://www.atomic...SB38.jpg

explain this to me.
There are no nuclear weapons. They are all frauds, a tool of fear to manipulate the masses. It is all hollywood jewish magic, created at lookout mountain.

Wow, both a Sky is falling fatalist and the earth is flat because it's a conspiracy kind of guy.


Aren't you brilliant. Tell me, how does a 23 KT nuke creates a huge crater, yet a 20 KT nuke creates none. Please explain this?
HeloMenelo
4.9 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2017
Monkey antigoracle and his riot of socks grasping for air as he tries to get out of the circle. Only to be pulled back and slapped silly again :D
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2017
Of course nukes are fake and the world is flat, we all know that. :-)

I always wondered how people that are that stupid/naive can function in our society.
And why would they bother reading all this made up stuff in these articles?
Come to think of it maybe they are bots, only there is no such thing as a bot.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2017
There are a minimum of 486 species of animal recorded as extinct, along with some 200 plant species. You might want to check before tossing incorrect facts around. http://www.cell.c...23-C.pdf

If you are wrong about that, I expect you are wrong about the rest too.

Yes. The other point I wonder about is that in the past it was a 'natural' event where as today it MIGHT be anthropogenic. As a layman I just wonder if the 'natural' chemical build up is more embedded than the anthropogenic one?
Might be? I wonder what it might take to convince you? http://www.edf.or...uion.pdf
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 25, 2017
@Maggnus I don't really need to be convinced as I do feel that our manufacturing processes do harm the environment and from where I live it's accelerating too. When I was a small boy in London the smogs were real and painful...a lung full of that stuff and I was coughing all the way home. Where I live now there are two reasons, live for today, and don't care. The amount of air pollution is shameful...at night...as law prohibits in daytime. But that isn't really what I meant in my earlier post. The 'naturals' in the past can been seen as a build up in rocks etc but I wonder if the rate now is sufficiently gradual to leave the same print.
sascoflame
not rated yet Sep 25, 2017
Good. If you are going to drive working people into poverty we all should die.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2017
@steve-deadpigbrain
NO ONE on this board can create a "nuclear" weapon because it is BS
so... hiroshima and nagasaki were done in by Godzilla then? is that the "source" of the "firebombs" that displayed the mushroom cloud so clearly?

oh, and those mushroom clouds...? let me guess: shooped, right?
ROTFLMFAO

all this made up stuff in these articles?
@herp-a-derp-kis
if it's so "made up" why can't anyone actually prove it all wrong?

the scientific method doesn't have authorities
if you think it's made up, prove it with science, not stupidity

epic fail
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2017
Good. If you are going to drive working people into poverty we all should die.


If you make more than $18,000 a year then you are in the upper 4% of the world's population.
Quite crying.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2017
@herp-a-derp-kis
If you make more than $18,000 a year then you are in the upper 4% of the world's population.
Quite crying
1- pay is entirely dependent upon location as well as economy. the cost of eggs in a village in Ethiopia are not the same as in NYC

that is true throughout the US as well, because average cost of living NYC is far above average cost of living in rural KY or similar places

2- $18,000 is a lot of money considering there are places in the US where people don't average even that much

if you pull the Pine Ridge (reservation only) statistics you will find: "97% of the population lives far below the U.S. federal poverty line with a median household income ranging between $2,600 and $3,500 per year" -NIH

3- spell check is free

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.