[HN Gopher] Sea life bounced back fast after the 'mother of mass... ___________________________________________________________________ Sea life bounced back fast after the 'mother of mass extinctions' Author : gmays Score : 126 points Date : 2023-02-15 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | lkrubner wrote: | In his book Metazoa, Peter Godfrey-Smith mentions that life in | the ocean was more diverse than life on land, until a 130 million | years ago, when diversity on land became exceptional, mostly | driven by a feedback loop between insects and plants, as plant | diversity allowed insect specialization and insect diversity | allowed plant specialization. (Until finally we arrived at a | situation where every species of fig tree had a specialized | species of wasp responsible for pollinating that species of fig | tree.) | | https://www.amazon.com/Metazoa-Animal-Life-Birth-Mind-ebook/... | mistrial9 wrote: | also not all water is healthy water | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation | | rediscovering ancient sea states, this Blue Planet went through | extreme anti-fertile stages. "recovery" necessarily includes | devolving to those states as a possible outcome | bannedbybros wrote: | [dead] | dpflan wrote: | In 1 million years. | hw-guy wrote: | Is that all? That makes me feel a lot better about the next | climate-related mass extinction. | FireBeyond wrote: | Right, exactly. One of the challenges with this is the | soundbite. For those whose agenda is suited, they'll latch on | to the word 'quickly'. "Hey, no problem, even if everything | goes to hell, it'll recover just fine. No big deal, carry on as | usual", entirely ignoring that it's "quickly" on a geologic | time scale, not a human. | bell-cot wrote: | At least with palaeontologists, you can ~always adjust the | adjectives in one direction. | | Vs. with astronomers, physicists, and such...a phrase like | "extremely bright" could mean "the comet will be visible with | binoculars, if you know exactly where to look". Or, it could | mean "if there were any Earth-like planets in that | galaxy...well, there aren't now". | wwwpatdelcom wrote: | Whew...relax guys, with the current ocean acidification going | on[1], we will only have to wait about a million years for | recovery, not ten million like you were probably thinking. | | [1] https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean- | co... | photochemsyn wrote: | Nice image of a fish fossil from this discovery here: | | https://www.sci.news/paleontology/guiyang-biota-11644.html | | Also see the related (linked) discussion of the cause of the | Permian extinction: | | > "The team's findings showed that volcanic eruptions in Siberian | Traps released immense amounts of carbon dioxide into the | atmosphere. This release lasted several millennia and led to a | strong greenhouse effect on the late Permian world, causing | extreme warming and acidification of the ocean." | | > "Dramatic changes in chemical weathering on land altered | productivity and nutrient cycling in the ocean, and ultimately | led to vast de-oxygenation of the ocean. The resulting multiple | environmental stressors combined to wipe out a wide variety of | animal and plant groups." | | It's worth noting that current fossil fuel emission rates of CO2 | to the atmosphere are as much as 14X the rates during the Permian | extinction, although humans have only really been at it for 150 | years or so, compared to thousands of years during the Permian | era. | toss1 wrote: | >> current fossil fuel emission rates of CO2 to the atmosphere | are as much as 14X the rates during the Permian extinction, | although humans have only really been at it for 150 years or | so, compared to thousands of years during the Permian era. | | And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields the equivalent of 2100 | years of Siberian Traps pollution. | | Current knowledge is that this activity preceded the Permian | extinction for 250K years [0]. That might seem like "Oh, we're | only around 1% there". | | But, critically, the authors of the paper point out: | | "We don't know if a little erupted for 250,000 years, and right | before the extinction, boom, a vast amount did, or if it was | more slow and steady, where the atmosphere reaches a tipping | point, and across that point you have mass extinction, but | before that you just have critically stressed biospheres," | | We are creating serious danger here with this massive | uncontrolled experiment on the climate. Once the food web | breaks, we're fooked, with no way to recover in time. | | [0] https://news.mit.edu/2015/siberian-traps-end-permian- | extinct... | soperj wrote: | > And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields | | There's a vast difference between what we were releasing 150 | years ago, or even 50 years ago compared to now. | toss1 wrote: | Yes, I understand that the rate isn't constant. This is a | brief post looking at the scale of the issue, not an | exhaustive dissertation. | | The output is also accelerating, despite efforts to contain | it. The only thing that seemed to cause a dip was the | beginning of the pandemic. | | But by all means, please continue to provide an example of | the kind of dismissive opposition that is and will be faced | by people trying to fix the problem, even when the food web | is already collapsing. | soperj wrote: | Wow snark. | | > And a rate of 14x times 150 years yields the equivalent | of 2100 years of Siberian Traps pollution. | | From your original comment you display no understanding | that the rate isn't constant. | toss1 wrote: | Again: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; | brief posts tend to omit many obvious factors. | | Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post, | you could instead add to the discussion by digging up the | actual historical rate of increase and using it to rework | the calculation for a more detailed result, and then | project the current rate of increase into the future for | the next few centuries and see how much of a dent that | makes. Come to think of it, why didn't you do that in the | first place? | | But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's | thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing | progress. Keep right on helping ensure that no one can | make a point that disturbs the status quo, and make sure | that nothing changes... | | sheesh | soperj wrote: | > But, thanks for again demonstrating Vladmir Lenin's | thesis on how effective Useful Idiots can be in derailing | progress. | | That's a lot of words for name calling. | | > Perhaps instead of lamely defending your original post | | You made a simple error, and yet I'm the one defending? | You're projecting. Honestly, it's people like you that | put people off doing things climate change related. Self | important, with a smart aleck response for everything. | toss1 wrote: | Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no encouragement | from me; you demoed it just fine by showing up doing the | easiest thing in the world -- only finding fault -- and | doing it by adding purposeful obtuseness as if you're | trying to implement the CIA Sabotage Handbook [0] | | Your entire point is dithering about values of 0.005 vs | 0.01 and I was noting that we're somewhere around two | orders of magnitude within the greatest climate disaster | and extinction in the planet's history, but sure, let's | waste our time over that 50% error. | | [0] https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple- | sabotage... | soperj wrote: | > Your anti-climate-action attitude needs no | encouragement from me; | | I don't have one. You're encouraging other to though. | Finding fault is part of Science, it has nothing to do | with disagreeing with your world view. | jbottoms wrote: | Is there a chart or charts for the time vs evolution velocities? | GalenErso wrote: | Sea life may bounce back, but gigantic aquatic fauna seems to be | on a permanent decline. Megalodon, mosasaurus, liopleurodon, and | dunkleosteus are extinct and... nothing like them is evolving | again? All the above animals evolved after the Tr-J mass | extinction event. So why are we not seeing similarly large | animals evolve today? Blue whales and Carcharodon Carcharias are | cool, for sure, but they're just not the same. | sgtnoodle wrote: | I suspect it has to do with a decline in atmospheric pressure. | The pressure is lower now, and it makes the physics of large | living creatures more difficult. | 988747 wrote: | I wonder if the fact that we have much lower oxygen content now | than 100-50 millions years ago might be a factor here. Also, | the fact that despite "climate change" we are living in one of | the coolest periods in Earth's history: | https://www.climate.gov/media/11332 | mistrial9 wrote: | this is "cold comfort" .. plenty of long geological eras were | highly poisonous or unstable. It is annoying-or-worse to see | a one-liner that implies that rapid increase in overall | temperatures is OK or even "normal" | TSiege wrote: | The blue whale is the largest known animal to have ever existed | on this planet not just today. We had plenty of very large | (larger than extant) land animals until the holocene | extinctions began. The Paraceratherium (a extinct animal like a | rhino) was head to toe 24feet! (7.4m). (perhaps higher oxygen | levels as others might have pointed out played a role too in | sheer size.) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraceratherium | DanCarvajal wrote: | Oceans as an ecosystem are fascinating. This is simplified but on | land the food chain is usually something like Plant-Herbivore- | Predator but in the ocean the food chain is much longer, algae- | Zooplankton--Predator-Predator-Predator-Predator-Predator- | Predator-Predator. There's so much opportunities in the predator | niche in the oceans that land animals keep going back to the | ocean, because the evolutionary challenges were regularly worth | it. This truly is a blue planet. | wardedVibe wrote: | I mean, if you start including insects the tree on land is way | deeper. There's more size niches in land photosynthesizers for | whatever reason, so there's more variety in herbivore size too. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | One of the most awesome experiences was being able to see an | Orca in person closeup. It was truly humbling to realize that | in all the vastness and diversity of the ocean, this was the | apex predator! | DanCarvajal wrote: | Got to see my first whale earlier this year (Gray Whale) and | on the way home I kept tying to hype my SO up on the fact | that it's a privilege to be alive on this planet at the same | time as the largest animals ever (the whales specifically the | Blue). Hoping to see some Orcas later this year on a PNW | trip. | kridsdale1 wrote: | I did so on a trip to Orcas Island WA this summer! Our boat | travelled farther north than Victoria BC (no border at sea) | to find them, then we tailed them back south. The pod | located some porpoise and hunted them with encirclement and | charges. The mom was training her baby and they rammed the | prey so hard it flew at least 20 feet in the air. Probably | broke all the bones in its body. | abraae wrote: | We sometimes have pods of orcas hunting stingrays around | here. In their urgency to get away, the rays will sometimes | hurl themselves up out of the water and onto the rocks. | Apparently (though I've never seen it) the orcas will | sometimes chase them up onto the rocks. | bcrosby95 wrote: | Another fascinating thing is that, as far as we know, the | Blue Whale is the largest animal that has ever existed. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | You mean fungi / bacteria > bacteriophage / virus > herbivorous | insects > predatory insects > plants / fungi > microogranisms | more generally > plants / fungi > insects > reptile > birds > | plants > birds > insects > reptile / birds > herbiverous | mammals > insects <> bird eating spiders > birds > plants > | predatory mammals > bacteria / fungi <> viruses ... | | You're over simplying it because you think the oceans are more | complicated or something. | at_a_remove wrote: | I think there's room for Corpse-Scavenger subloops in there. | | After the mother of all extinctions, it would be a field epoch | for the scavengers. | throwaway5752 wrote: | Nothing that was talked about in the parent post is unique to | marine ecosystems, is it? | | The terrestrial food chains information is just incorrect. | Fungi are absent in that description. Insects are eaten by | countless prey species, apex predators have multiple trophic | levels below them. There are countless insect, fungal, and | animal carrion feeders. | | A post that is so factually inaccurate should not be so | upvoted. We shouldn't meta comment, but the rapid decrease in | submission and comment quality on Hacker News is really a | problem. | | And the fact that land animals evolve to marine lifestyles is | just expected, oceans are more than 70% of Earth's surface. | The lack of marine, pelagic animals is notable in that sense. | DanCarvajal wrote: | Well I did say that I was simplifying somethings, which I | think is useful as this is kind of a classic shorthand way | of comparing example food chains for the layperson. My goal | was to not lose the forest for the trees. | | Come to think of it, I talk to a lot of five years olds | which has definitely impacted how I approach topics. | [deleted] | canadianfella wrote: | [dead] | ramesh31 wrote: | >but in the ocean the food chain is much longer, algae- | Zooplankton--Predator-Predator-Predator-Predator-Predator- | Predator-Predator. | | And some of the algae and the predators even gang up on the | zooplankton: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooxanthellae | culi wrote: | Interesting, I wouldn't really think the ocean food chain is | "more complicated". Soil ecosystems themselves are extremely | complex and much more tightly integrated with what's happening | above ground than we often realize for example | | But I do agree there's some really interesting key differences. | For one, speciation on land is often driven by geological | barriers that split populations apart. But these types of | barriers are much less common in the ocean where this only | really happens to organisms that are restricted to shallow | waters (and even then "island-hopping" happens much more | commonly) | gtvwill wrote: | Temperature and depth are your barriers in the ocean. Water | can be shallow and swimmable but if it's too cold to live in | for a species it may well be a brick wall. | Lammy wrote: | We should also thank the Moon for its tidal energy :) | | "Ages ago, life was born in the primitive sea. Young life forms | constantly evolved in order to survive. Some prospered -- some | did not. All sorts of life ebbed and flowed like the tide. In | the quiet rhythm of the mother sea, life grew, always seeking | to survive and flourish." | olivermarks wrote: | Also the phytoplankton in the oceans that process the air we | breath. | | https://www.nationalgeographic.org/activity/save-the- | plankto... | canadianfella wrote: | There is a lot less life in the oceans than you may imagine. | | " there is roughly 80 times more biomass on land than in the | oceans. " | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016823/ | swores wrote: | That same link says that it's plants that make up the | majority of biomass on land, and that "Bar-On et al. (1) | estimate that more than 70% of global animal biomass is found | in the ocean". | HPsquared wrote: | I suppose in economic terms there is a lot of "liquidity" | (pardon the pun). Species can move around very freely and find | their ideal niche. | deepsun wrote: | I can argue the other way. | | When I dived in different oceans, I was surprised to see the | same fish (most popular ones). It's hard to imagine the same | on land. Finding a niche is much easier on land, especially | in mountains. | timst4 wrote: | Cool. They'll bounce back fast after this mass extinction that's | happening right now. That is, unless humans succeed in | terraforming Earth into a Mars clone. Then all life is screwed. | willio58 wrote: | To preface what I'm about to say, I'm anti-mass extinction and | I definitely agree that as a planetary society we need to | continue pushing to slow down and eventually reverse climate | change. | | But I really think the "all life is screwed" mantra is damaging | to us, especially our youth. There needs to be a balanced take | on this, because saying that all life is screwed gives no hope | or even purpose to the kids growing up now who will | _inevitably_ need to fix what we 're leaving them. I'm mid-20's | and I grew up with some level of media telling me that the | world was ending, but it was pretty muted and didn't make me | feel like there was no way we could fix things. | | I'm not saying people won't die or people won't have to | massively change how they live to adapt to climate change in | the future, but we need to stop basically saying that every | single human dying is an inevitability with climate change. | | As a thought experiment: Let's say in ~50 years 10% of humans | die in a 5 year span due to catastrophic climate change (~800 | million based on current pop.). What is the incentive at that | point for governments to NOT force radical regulation | legislation to go through? Money? In the past few years we've | gotten to the point where renewable energy is simply cheaper | than the alternative. Now imagine we have better batteries | years down the line. Exactly who is profiting at that point? | The oil companies? They can just invest in renewables and save | the money they'd lose fighting uprisings from the people in | their countries who have lost, in this thought experiment, 800 | million fellow humans. | | All this to say, climate change is a BIG DEAL. But let's stop | wallowing in that fact, and let's focus all that energy in | pushing for governments to force companies to do the right | thing. | amilios wrote: | I think the issue is feedback loops. You're right that | eventually governments will be "forced" to do the "right | thing", but the problem is that it is likely going to be too | little too late, and the climate feedback loops already set | in motion may indeed "finish the job" and make the planet too | inhospitable for any humans to feasibly live on. | dogcomplex wrote: | Agreed. We should also consider the context that - yes - the | damages of climate change are disproportionately going to | affect developing nations and increase natural disaster risk | and food security, but these dangers are coming in against a | strong trend of those risks going down for many people. | Things were bad in the past - and they're still bad in many | places now - but that has been shrinking rapidly. Climate | change could very-well slow or even reverse this trend for a | time, but barring a complete destruction of our technological | progress, people in the future in general will still be far | better off than now, even with this mess, and even in | developing countries. | | Now, of course, this doesn't mean these benefits will be | evenly distributed (this is going to even further increase | wealth inequality and be a deadly disaster for many people), | and we are pretty terrible at prioritizing e.g. protecting | natural ecosystem biodiversity. There will certainly be | irreversible (in human timescale) losses to our ecosystem and | therefore the knowledge and potential of future civilizations | from this. And there are even some truly catastrophic death | spiral scenarios possible. But it's likely that even the | cynical reality will end up being something of a widespread | unfairly distributed uptick in disaster risk and continuation | of the mass extinction we've already started - slowing | quality of life improvements for much of the world, but not | stopping them - with an eventual strong recovery in all areas | if/when we engage our new levels of technological advancement | and begin re-wilding programs to purposefully regrow thriving | natural habitats. (This is somewhat inevitable if/when the | average quality of life of people is high enough they have | room to care about such things. Industrial processes applied | to helping nature thrive would do a lot) | | This is the "human nature sucks and we're slow to change | course" cynical view but with a "technology and industry is | crazy good in the long term at achieving its goals and | uplifting people" bullish caveat prediction - which I believe | to be the age-old trend. We clearly need better global-level | response organization to deter the worst effects of climate | change and help distribute risk so it's not all falling on | the poorest people, but industry-wise - if we have to dump a | trillion into something stupid-inefficient like direct carbon | capture machines, we will. (My preferred solution is mass- | farming kelp - far cheaper per CO2 ton and numerous | additional beneficial products that basically make it pay for | itself at scale). The world isn't coming to an end. It's | coming to a recession/depression - which will be felt to | different degrees very unfairly - and it's spurring new | responses. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-15 23:00 UTC)