What are the Consequences of a Longer PETM?

  • Context: Writing: Input Wanted 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnWDailey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ecology Evolution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of a prolonged Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) in an alternate Earth scenario, particularly focusing on its effects on marine ecosystems. Participants explore various hypotheses regarding temperature changes, ocean acidification, and the survival of different species during this extended period of warming.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) outlines the PETM's impact on marine life, including ocean anoxia, acidification, and the fate of coral reefs and foraminifera.
  • Some participants suggest that a longer PETM could lead to a higher lysocline, affecting carbonate dissolution and marine biodiversity.
  • There are questions about the survival of shark and ray species in warmer, more acidic waters, as well as the potential for freshwater species to endure better than marine ones.
  • One participant proposes that aquatic species might migrate to cooler regions as temperatures rise, which could influence the narrative of the alternate history.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of world-building in storytelling, arguing that strict adherence to scientific accuracy may limit creative expression.
  • There is a contention regarding the prioritization of world versus history in storytelling, with differing views on whether people or place should take precedence in narrative development.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between scientific accuracy and storytelling, with no consensus on whether a longer PETM would definitively lead to specific outcomes for marine ecosystems or narrative structure.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about species resilience, ecological interactions, and the implications of temperature changes remain unresolved. The discussion reflects a range of speculative scenarios without definitive conclusions.

Who May Find This Useful

Worldbuilders, writers of speculative fiction, and those interested in paleoclimatology and marine biology may find the exploration of these ideas relevant to their work.

JohnWDailey
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
This is for an alternate Earth that I've been building and rebuilding for years.

Sometime between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs, there was a mysterious, sudden, dramatic rise in global temperature. This moment in time was known as the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum", shortened into "PETM". In just 20 to 50 millennia, the temperature rose by five to eight degrees Celsius, and this heatweave persisted for another 200 millennia (and that's just the mean estimate.)
While its impact on terrestrial plant and animal life is well-known, the focus of the thread is on how the PETM impacted the marine ecosystems. The warmer the water's temperature, the less oxygen it can hold, resulting in ocean anoxia. And since water has a low albedo, it absorbs carbon dioxide rather than reflects it. And in an episode as CO2-rich as the PETM, the oceans absorbed so much of the greenhouse gas that they had become acidifed. That, in turn, depleted the supply of carbonates, which many animals relied on to build shells and other structures. Indeed, fossil remains of coral reefs dating from the PETM to several million years afterwards were rare, and anywhere between one-third and half of all the deep-sea species of foraminifera (tiny, planktonic lifeforms) went extinct. Finally, the warmer waters also affected the arrangement of a particular layer called the lysocline:
The lysocline marks the depth at which carbonate starts to dissolve (above the lysocline, carbonate is oversaturated): today, this is at about 4 km, comparable to the median depth of the oceans. This depth depends on (among other things) temperature and the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Adding CO2 initially raises the lysocline, resulting in the dissolution of deep water carbonates. This deep-water acidification can be observed in ocean cores, which show (where bioturbation has not destroyed the signal) an abrupt change from grey carbonate ooze to red clays (followed by a gradual grading back to grey). It is far more pronounced in north Atlantic cores than elsewhere, suggesting that acidification was more concentrated here, related to a greater rise in the level of the lysocline. In parts of the southeast Atlantic, the lysocline rose by 2 km in just a few thousand years.
In an alternate Earth, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum did happen at the same time as OTL and at the same speed, but it lasted three to four times longer. With that in mind, questions follow:
  1. Would a longer PETM lift the lysocline closer to the surface?
  2. Based on our knowledge of shark and ray species that were around to witness the PETM, would any of them survive the longer period of warmer, more acidic oceans? And were there any freshwater species at the time?
  3. Would a longer PETM destroy the coral reefs (as is my primary target), and if yes, how would that affect the other invertebrates and the fish that relied on the reefs for food, shelter and breeding?
  4. Would life in brackish and fresh water fare better than in seawater?
  5. Could pelagic (open-ocean) species have a chance of surviving a longer PETM? And if they colonized the shallow water ecosystems, could they evolve to grow smaller?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you could make cases for either scenario to each of your questions so you choose and create your story the way you want.

One thing that happens when ocean waters warm is migration of aquatic species to regions where the temperature is better or where the food supply has migrated. You could use that notion in your story perhaps.

https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and...res also deplete,to migrate elsewhere to feed.

Also, I don't think your readers would get into the science as much as you have here and these details may actually prevent you from writing an interesting story. This one of the reasons why sci-fi writers develop warp speed because space is large. However, they mostly ignore ignore Special Relativity as it gets in the way and your stories become more about someone aging and someone not.
 
This is not for a story. This is for an alternate history textbook that'd serve as a blueprint for any stories set in that world. World comes before history, and history comes before story. That is how things were, and that is something that too many worldbuilders just missed.
 
Orson Scott Card wrote extensively on world-building. My point is that when you try to adhere too closely to science then your sci-fi story is no longer sci-fi and indeed the plots become more confining.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1599631407/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Let your imagination soar. Carry on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
JohnWDailey said:
This is for an alternate history textbook that'd serve as a blueprint for any stories set in that world.

You've been writing this textbook since 2017. I think you have to ask yourself if this is really helping you write your stories or getting in the way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and jedishrfu
JohnWDailey said:
World comes before history, and history comes before story.

I'm not sure I buy this. Are you writing about people or are you writing about place?
People are more interesting.
 
I think it’s a paraphrase from LoTR

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”

― Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,The Lord of the Rings
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
jedishrfu said:
I think it’s a paraphrase from LoTR

Wrong. It's the truth. In Earth's four-and-a-half-billion-year history, only ten thousand at the least have been spent on telling stories, which have basis on history.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm not sure I buy this. Are you writing about people or are you writing about place?
People are more interesting.
Place comes first. If you don't pay attention to how the geography influences the climate, then this world is not believable, and reading it would be lacking in substance.
 
  • #10
jedishrfu said:
Orson Scott Card wrote extensively on world-building. My point is that when you try to adhere too closely to science then your sci-fi story is no longer sci-fi and indeed the plots become more confining.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1599631407/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Let your imagination soar. Carry on.
Tell that to the Speculative Evolution Forum.
 
  • #11
I think it’s best to close this thread as we have tried to answer an unanswerable question that only the OP can answer.

Take care
Jedi
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K