What abrupt warming did, by one estimate

Those are good examples. Your original point about many species being wiped out before Climate Change even has a chance to affect them is a great point. Few realize that a species is condemned to extinction when the minimum viable population level is achieved, not when the last pair dies. Sustainability requires a lot more than just reducing CO2 emissions, and getting emissions down is a multi-decade project in changing the world's (not just the US's) culture and political systems.

 

Species conservation efforts are centered on 'charismatic megafauna'. This cannot be strongly justified by what we know of ecology. If I may be forgiven for saying so, it is a marketing tool.

As noted above the world is populated by people who are apparently happy about not understanding diddly about science. Much policy appears to flow from this base, including towards Pandas and Cheetahs and Eagles and what not. I harbor no ill will towards them, but they are not 'habitat' and they are not 'ecosystems'. The latter things appear more suitable conservation goals. but just you try raise public interest in a mollusc.

The other stumble is where you find a chunk of land that needs saving because it harbors endangered species X, the developers get all bent out of shape, and a larger effort to find X shows it to be rather widespread. Developers get to call conservationists ninnies. (snail darter).

Well-deserved, one might say, but it misses the point that we ought to be conserving chunks, here and there, 'just because' and even though we cannot readily justify it to the broad public. Blame marketing-oriented conservationists if you like; I blame the people who are happy about not knowing things.

A species is probably pre-extinct if it is few in number. It also is, if the surviving individuals are so genetically similar that they are almost clones, even if they are much more numerous. Several big cat species are like that. Popular for salvation, y'know.

You may have read about ideas to de-extinct mammoths because some DNA persists, and it looks to perhaps be feasible. I would propose a different 'conservation' goal. Select a surviving species (Cheetah, maybe), go to the rugs and cots and artifacts of the world in search of more diverse DNA from that species. The goal here is not to de-extinct them, but to de-narrow them. Then you have a genetically viable population that could be re-introduced into conserved areas.

Those being conserved areas that are opposed by developers and abetted by John Q Public above. Yes, problems abound. But that doesn't mean we should cease striving towards figuring out ecological futures. The possibility remains that John Q could wake up, and that conservationists would be able to market sensible instead of huggable.

 

Exactly, but... there is a unique place that
A) Houses unique endangered megafauna
B) Protecting gives a big bang for buck on reducing ghg

I've got to question anyone who makes the polar bear the poster boy for endangered species.

Hopefully Norway is going to successfully protect one of these places of biodiversity. Have you guessed where it is?
Borneo and Sumatra | Places | WWF

20% of the endangered spiecies on wwf list live on these two islands, and there is nowhere else in the world where they survive

Norway pledges to help protect Indonesia’s forest – BorneoPost Online | Borneo , Malaysia, Sarawak Daily News | Largest English Daily In Borneo

We should know in about 10 years if its working. I hope its not lost on our warmest friends, that one pressure that we have leading to severe endangerment of these unique habitats, is replacing old growth with palm oil. The price of palm oil shot up because of its use in biofuels that supposedly combat global warming and somehow that was deemed at a time more important than land use or unique places.

I wish more people thought like you

 

I don't know % palm oil going to food or fuel. Would have thought that the former still dominates. This crop is clearly the strongest driver in tropical deforestation today. We could go on about it, sufficient to quote a visiting scientist here who claimed that oil palm produces more quick cash per hectare than opium poppies. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Oil palms planted in peat areas proved to be very flammable in the regional El Nino drought in 1998.

 

My thoughts exactly, but much better said. Thank you kindly.

 

Really, they singled out CO2 as the main culprit, and said a mass extinction is applicable to today?

emphasis in bold italics mine.

We have many theories of how the volanos killed plant life reducing oxygen, reducing the ability to recover and produce more oxygen quickly. Other things may have reduced oxygen, but definitely removing plants reduced oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

Does the research really turn past theories on their heads and say carbon dioxide was the main culprit? No it does nothing of the sort. Does it try to analyse how carbon dioxide at levels of 4000 ppm were part of the reason? absolutely. Does it mean that the main mechanism for the next mass extinction will be carbon dioxide? Absolutely not. Will levels of carbon dioxide over 800 ppm (double from today) contribute to some sea creatures extinction? Most theories say yes, and point to coral bleaching from temperatures and calcium carbonate troubles because of acidity.

Now we can dump items in the ocean and create oxygen depleted dead zones. We can also deforest the land, so that we simulate the eco system destruction of volcanic or other belching. Do that in the extreme to weaken the ecosystems, and ignore what you have done, and you may be able to kill spiecies off with just more ghg. You need to be a bullet head to think that weakening the ecosystems can be ignored.

That is one thing most seem to agree on.

This was pointed to from the article, about a study of what might happen at 750 ppm
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/full/nclimate1122.html

 

Increasing atmospheric oxygen requires that photosynthesis >> decomposition for a long period of time. Decreasing it requires the opposite. Since we are talking about long times, it does not matter whether the imbalance is terrestrial or marine. The long mixing times of ocean water exit the discussion. I assume this is about what AustinG meant above.

If large pools of reduced sulfur or iron come into contact with atmospheric oxygen, it can be drawn down separately from the photosynthesis/decomposition balance above.

 

Well, yes, we don't know precisely what made the oxygen drop, but we do know huge numbers of plants were destroyed preventing oxygen levels to come back quickly. Here is one POV of the great dying.
"Great Dying" Lasted 200,000 Years

We do indeed have higher methane and carbon dioxide levels, but its hard to ignore the deforestation and low oxygen levels. It is the deforestation and pollution that draws the most parallels to today, not the carbon dioxide levels which were much higher at the beginning of the great dying than they are today. Still if you want to cause a mass extinction deforesting the land, dumping pollution, and producing a lot of ghg is a good way to do it.

From the link in that national geographic article.
One in Four Mammals at Risk of Extinction

Just about all those mammals at risk from extinciton are at risk even if ghg stops. If you want to help them, you need to protect the habitats, reduce pollution, and restrict hunting. Hunting and Pollution are the major reasons that the polar bear is at risk. Its not endangered. Although warming will reduce its populations.

 

You probably need to reread any study you think you have read. The low oxygen was not because of water temperature. There was low oxygen and dead plants. How the oxygen got low has many theories, but hot water is not one of them. It makes no sense. some speculate on buring of coal in the traps, other volcanos, others things bubbling up from the depths.

I just am rejecting the crack pot theory that the main thing going on had to do with carbon dioxide. You need to reject just about every real theory to get there.

Let's see do you think pompeii was destroyed by global warming or lava? I am not rejecting the idea that the lava came with sulfur and methane.

I guess pompeii and mount st hellens were mainly about buring oil in our cars. What? Perhaps burning the coal in the siberian traps. Certainly not mainly as the mechanism.

If the main mechanism was ocean acification, why did animals and plants on land die at the same time? Why did the animals most sensitive to low oxygen die first according to this new study? Its a theory on how the methane from volcanic eruptions and perhaps the burning of coal and wood could have led to such a great dying in the oceans. This new story does not contradict at all the pollution, fire, dust, and low oxygen of the previous theories. It just tries to explain some more mechanisms for such a large extinction event.

Email them. Please ask if they think the main culprit was carbon dioxide. Report back. Certainly don't take my word for it, but your reading is lacking something. Here is a link to their emails and abstract
Acidification, anoxia, and extinction: A multiple logistic regression analysis of extinction selectivity during the Middle and Late Permian

 

O2 levels going down still requires the Oxygen molecules to end up somewhere. If the O2 levels went down substantially, then CO2 levels had to go up substantially. That much burning had to be catastrophic where the CO2 is the end result. It's hard to do that much burning with that much O2 loss and point the finger at the CO2. If the O2 molecules did not end up as CO2, then the alternative chemical reaction on that scale probably was worst than burning carbon.

 

One theory on how volcanic sulfur can greatly reduce oxygen -
FuturePundit: 100 Million Year Ago Volcanoes Cut Oxygen Supply
A sulfate spike in the oceans increased phosphorus availability (how?) and phytoplankton went wild and created massive dead zones.

​

​

That was just the first google result. Lots of other theories including coal and wood burning from the volcanoes. If this was a big source of the low oxygen, then huge dead zones dwarfing the one in the gulf of mexico would have greatly weakened the marine ecosystems. Every measurement of the great dying had low oxygen levels. Again, I am not saying carbon dioxide did not go up in the great dying. The evidence points to massive belching of methane and evidence of higher ocean acidity. You just can't ignore the low oxygen levels and say the main thing is carbon dioxide.​

​

As was pointed out in the article about the research, the concentration of calcium carbonate in the oceans, which act as a buffer is much higher in today's oceans than it was in the great dying. As has been pointed out in other papers, doubling carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere through combustion of fossil fuels will not have a major effect on oxygen concentration in the air or water, while agricultural run and other pollution off has a great effect on oxygen concentration in water.​

​

250 million years ago the carbon dioxide levels were also much much higher, leading to toxicity for many of these marine invertibrates. Doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from todays levels at least according to those studying it will decrease spieces diversity (fewer coral spiecies, but still many etc.) but is not at toxic levels. It is a stressor that when combined with other stressors like pollution can cause great damage.​

 

A bit off topic, but something I always found interesting living on a submarine. CO2 levels and O2 levels are independent managed on a submarine. To increase O2 levels, turn on or adjust the O2 bleed. To decrease CO2 levels, turn on the CO2 scrubbers. The band for CO2 levels was much wider and scrubber efficiency was not adequate to bring CO2 levels down to regular atmospheric levels, so CO2 levels varied (sawtoothed) significant above normal for sustained underwater operation. Meanwhile O2 levels are a much more important parameter. Too low and headaches abound, too high and many non-inflammable materials become flammable (and vice vs. in the other extreme). I would expect for all other animals, especially marine animals needing O2 from the ocean, that O2 variations would be of much greater impact than CO2 variations.

 

Quoted from the article in the OP.
This is such a basic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect , its embarrassing for Schaller.


"This leads them to draw analogies between today’s rapid CO2 increase and the past. Even though the base-line levels of CO2 were much higher 200 million years ago, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations leads to a 3 degree Celsius increase whether it’s from 2,000 to 4,000 ppm or from 280 to 560 ppm, Schaller said"….

 

Although the sensitivity is subject to debate, the increased temperature from a doubling should be the same. That is the basic physics of green house gases. As pointed out in the research, the oceans carbon cycle is quite different so this will have quite different effects on marine life. The push of acidity and heat are in the same evolutionary direction. As I mentioned before there were also the push of low oxygen and high sulfur during that period.

 

Its not the same.Its logarithmic and diminishes with each doubling.Once its reached 100% of blocking the wavelengths there can be no further greenhouse effect .There would be no more IR in those wavelengths to block.
Im not certain what point that is .If anyone knows Id be interested.

 

Its logarithmic which means going from 300 to 600 will have the same effect as going from 2000 to 4000. I do not know the limits, but I would assume the effects of going from 2000-4000 would have more effect on marine life, not less. For many organisms there are toxic levels. Your reasoning, would have that doubling have less of an effect.

For example some corals stop growing at 800 ppm, some much higher. Bleaching from heat will kill zooxanthellae which are symbiotic with coral, and high carbonic acid will stop the coral from regrowing. Other species will take over that can grow at higher levels of acidity. At 4000 ppm the carbonic acid likely was toxic to many more species, and helped weaken and desolve calcium carbonite shells.

 

Meanwhile water vapor is supposedly increasing as well.Water vapor blocks the same wavelengths as CO2.

Doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm will increase about 1 degree C.
Doubling CO2 from 2000-4000 would be less.But may have ZERO effect if there is no remaining IR in the wavelengths.

[/ATTACH]

 

Oh mojo, please try some basic math and physics skills. At 400 ppm, carbon dioxide is not near saturation today. The physics says
Sensitivity x (log2(X)-log2(Y)) = temperature change caused by carbon dioxide and its feedback. To make the numbers work out easily, lets use 3 degrees C for sensitivity, and 256 ppm for old CO2, 512 for new CO2 now, and 2048 for beginning and 4096 ending at the great dying.

Great dying
3 x (log2(4096)-log2(2048)) = 3 x (12-11) = 3 degrees C warming

Hypothetical rise
3 x (log2(512)-log2(256)) = 3 x (9 - 8) = 3 degrees C warming

The only real debate is sensitivity which includes both the direct physics and feedback. Most agree that it is somewhere in the range of 2-4.5 degrees C, but it may not even be a constant. Lindzen and Choi have one of the lower sensitivities, but have greatly upped their estimate from 2009. Here is the paper for those interested, and it includes many of the IPCC AR4 included sensitivities also. There is much criticism about this new number being too low also.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf