Nature's past experiment on global warming?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparative importance of coral reefs versus tropical rainforests in the context of global warming and ecological preservation. Participants highlight the Amazon rainforest's critical role in carbon storage, with 90 billion tons of carbon potentially exacerbating global warming. Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri emphasizes the dire state of the Amazon ecosystem, while references to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) provide historical context for current climate changes. The conversation underscores the urgency of protecting marine biomes, as their destruction may have more immediate and severe consequences than that of terrestrial ecosystems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of marine ecosystems and their role in climate regulation
  • Familiarity with the Amazon rainforest's ecological significance
  • Knowledge of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and its implications
  • Basic concepts of carbon storage and its impact on global warming
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the ecological functions of coral reefs and their contributions to marine biodiversity
  • Study the effects of deforestation on carbon emissions and climate change
  • Examine the historical context of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and its relevance to current climate trends
  • Explore strategies for conservation and restoration of both coral reefs and tropical rainforests
USEFUL FOR

Environmental scientists, climate change researchers, conservationists, and policymakers focused on ecological preservation and the impacts of global warming.

Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
Suppose I am a defense attorney--I am NOT--arguing for an underdeveloped old-growth tropical rain forest and a coral reef from tumultuous destruction by development.

If I could only save ONE, it would be the coral reef. (My instructor said something along the lines of: "The destruction of our marine aquatic zones is much more diasterious than the obliteration of our rain forests. . ." Of course, either scenario is very __________insert devastatingly negative adj. here__________ for the planet.)

My question is:

Why would the destruction of marine biomes/marine life zones be more detrimental?

Thanks for any replies.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9005&stc=1&d=1170188368

snip>

The Amazon now appears to be entering its second successive year of drought, raising the possibility it could start dying next year. The immense forest contains 90 billion tons of carbon, enough in itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50 per cent.

Nepstead expects "mega-fires" rapidly to sweep across the drying jungle. With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the rainforest could become desert.

Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top forest ecologists, says research shows "the lock has broken" on the Amazon ecosystem and the Amazon is "headed in a terrible direction".

snip>


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10392615

I thought Bill Gates already saved the rain forest. There must be a bug or something.
 

Attachments

  • 24Amazon.jpg
    24Amazon.jpg
    12.2 KB · Views: 685
An experiment of nature on the effect of intense global warming has already occurred in the Eocene 38-55 million yrs. ago; the so-called Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).(1,4) There were no massive extinctions comparative to that of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) period defining the Mezozoic/Cenazocic eras at 65Myrs. At the Paleocene-Eocene divide, paleo-stratigraphic results show that there was deep water benthic foraminifera mass extinction associated with the increased temperature and hence dysoxic (less oxygenated) waters.(1) But most marine and terrestrial extinctions occurred with cooling at the end of the Eocene, and into the Oligocene epoch.(1) The consequences of the present warming are unknown in regards to extinctions. However nature already has conducted one experiment in regards to intense global warming, with seemingly not overwhelming catastrophic results.

An alternative question for the future and for our cognition/imagination might be as follows: From current habit destruction and hence species extinction, for say 100k years duration; would this be significant enough to leave a paleo-stratigraphic signature say 3 million years hence? The PETM might be considered herein as maximizing for over approximately 3 Myrs. So for shallow geological time, might the current extinction times we are inducing be more likely to leave a signature (if any?) due more to habit destruction (and ocean degrading environment?) than to any long term geological stratigraphic consequences from global warming?

1. Hallam Tony, Catastrophes and Lesser Calamities Oxford Univ Press, 2004, and references therein.

2. Raup David M., Extinction: Bad Genes or bad Luck?, W.W. Norton, 1991, and references therein.

3. Stanley Steven M., Extinction, Scientific American Books, 1987, and references therein.

4.Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Wikipedia.

some look at things and ask why,
while others dream of things that never were,
and ask why not.
George Barnard Shaw
 
I've been asked to set up a table at a High school for Earth day. I want to do something physics related, but I'm drawing a blank. I have access to all sorts of lab equipment. Any ideas?

I think I might try the greenhouse effect with some 2L bottles, dry ice, and temperature probes. This is an outside event.

Any suggestions? I doubt I'll have power, but I have battery powered probeware. I don't really want to make a sign or anything. I want to do some demonstration with standard equipment found in an educational science lab.