Welcome statement
Parting Words from Moristotle (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….
In awe of Nature's four billion years on Earth
Where does the inorganic realm of non-life end and life begin?
From Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors (1986), by
Lynn Margulis (1938-2011) and
Dorion Sagan (born 1959):
The tasks undertaken by bacterial teams amounts to no less than the conditioning of the entire planet. It is they that prevent all once-living matter from becoming dust. They turn us into food and energy for others. They keep the organic and inorganic elements of the biosphere cycling. Bacteria purify the earth's water and make soil fertile. They perpetuate the chemical anomaly that is our atmosphere, constantly producing fresh supplies of reactive gases.
The British atmospheric chemist James Lovelock [born 1919] suggests that certain microbially produced gases act as a control system to stabilize the living environment. Methane, for example, may act as an oxygen regulation mechanism and ventilator of the anaerobic (oxygenless) zone, whereas ammonia—another gas that reacts strongly with oxygen and therefore must be continually resupplied by microbes—possibly plays a major role in determining the alkalinity of lakes and oceans. A so-called greenhouse gas (like carbon dioxide) that lets in more radiation than it lets out, thereby increasing the temperature of the planet, ammonia also may have been important in the control of the ancient climate.
Methyl chloride, a trace gas in the earth's atmosphere, may regulate the ozone concentration of the upper atmosphere, which in turn has an effect on the amount of radiation which reaches the surface. This influences the further growth of gas-producing microbes. The list goes on and on. The environment is so interwoven with bacteria, and their influence is so pervasive, that there is no really convincing way to point your finger and say this is where life ends and this is where the inorganic realm of nonlife begins.
...For tens of millions of years excess oxygen was absorbed by live organisms, metal compounds, reduced atmospheric gases, and minerals in rocks. It began to accumulate in the atmosphere only by fits and starts. Many local populations were killed off, and many adaptations and protective devices evolved. From blue-green cyanobacteria that produced oxygen part-time emerged grass-green bacteria that emitted it continually. Thousands of species of aerobic photosynthesizers arose adapted to rocks, hot water locales, and scums. But by about 2,000 million years ago, the available passive reactants in the world had been used up and oxygen accumulated rapidly in the air, precipitating a catastrophe of global magnitude.
People are gravely worried today about an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 0.032 to 0.033 percent caused by our massive burning of fossil fuels...The Archeo-Proterozoic world saw an absolutely amazing increase in atmospheric oxygen from one part in a million to one part in five, from 0.0001 to 21 percent. This was by far the greatest pollution crisis the earth has ever endured. [pp. 92-93, 107-108]
I'm missing something. By what standard did the rapid accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere precipitate "a catastrophe of global magnitude" and "by far the greatest pollution crisis the earth has ever endured"?
ReplyDeleteGood question, Ken. I took the superlative as a perhaps unwarranted (and definitely unnecessary) way of emphasizing how much greater the change in oxygen then was than the change in carbon dioxide is now. The numbers alone say it about as emphatically as it can possibly be said: the percentage change in oxygen in the atmosphere then to the percentage change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now was 210000 to 1.03125, if my calculations are correct.
DeleteThe interesting point in that final sentence lies in the word crisis. I think human beings see the crisis now mainly in terms of the safety of their members and their artifacts (such as cities on coasts) and second in terms of what happens to other life forms and the trajectory of life on Earth. The crisis two billion years ago (with no sentient beings to interpret it) was purely a matter of how (and whether) Nature would adapt to such a striking change in conditions on Earth.
Of course, it did adapt, with one result's being that we're here to speculate about it.
Authors Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan (I hope no relationship to the great cosmologist Carl) claim that the 21% rise in oxygen levels that the earth experienced during the Archeo-Proterozoic period was far more catastrophic than the .001% rise in carbon dioxide levels since the Industrial Revolution. Their boner is obvious! The Archeo-Proterozoic lasted 3.258 billion years while the Industrial Revolution a mere 260 years. Straightforward math confirms that the rate (percent per year) of carbon dioxide increase that the earth is now experiencing is more than 6,000 times that of the rate of oxygen increase during the Archeo-Proterozoic period. Now which is the more catastrophic event?! Margulis/Sagan’s logic (if you can call it that) is a prime example of how statistics is all too often used as the drunkard uses the lamppost - for support rather than illumination…..
ReplyDeleteJim, actually Dorion is Carl and Lynn's son....
DeleteClever move, spreading the percentage increase out over time (I believe you need to subtract the duration of the Hadean eon [0.75 billion] from your 3.8, however), except that it assumes that the percentage of oxygen was steadily increasing over the whole duration of the Archean and Proterozoic eons, which was not the case.
If Microcosmos specifies the time it took for the rise to occur, I haven't come across it yet. The text seems to imply that the rise occurred during the Proterozoic eon rather than the Archean, which would subtract another 1.3 billion, if I'm reading the geologic time scale chart correctly. Also, the text seems to imply that the rise occurred early in the Proterozoic.
Though Lynn and Dorion aren't dolts, I probably am for comparing the percentage change in oxygen in the atmosphere then to the percentage change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, for "then" was likely a much longer time than the time that has so far elapsed since the Industrial Revolution, whatever small fraction of the 1.75 billion years it was.
Does fudging the numbers you dump into the statistical calculator rate as grabbing a lamppost?
I guess that’s why Carl spent the latter part of his life with Ann Druyan who co-authored Cosmos. Fudge the numbers as you will, the fact is that the earth is now experiencing an unprecedented high rate of increase of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere which is the cause of Global Warming. While the earth has gone through many cycles of global warming, the culprit this time is obviously us humans is it not?
ReplyDeleteHa, Jim, it may or may not have been Carl's reason for taking two wives after Lynn (married 1957): Linda Salzman (married 1968), then Ann Druyan (married 1981).
DeleteFudge the numbers as I will?
Yes, you and I and all the rest of us humans seem to be the culprits when it comes to carbon dioxide. We can't blame the micro-organisms for the rise of it.
Rather than "the rest of us humans," I probably should have said "the rest of us first- and second-world humans."
ReplyDeleteAnd I should have said "Fudge the numbers as they might ..."
ReplyDeleteFurther on the subject: To say that the rise in oxygen levels was a "crisis" is ludicrous. Crisis for who whom? Not us humans. The high levels of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere was a significant stepping stone on the path of human evolution.
And then to compare the "crisis" to the recent relatively rapid rise in carbon dioxide levels implying "not to worry", shows that Lynn and Dorion have learned nothing from ex-hubby/father who warned of "Greenhouse Warming" long before the phrase "Global Warming" was coined.
Therefore, I would take anything that Lynn and Dorion have to say on the subject with a grain of salt....
Jim, I took the authors (whom I continue to respect and learn from despite your own reservations) to have meant "crisis" in terms of its potential impact on the micro-organisms then in existence, along the lines of the big meteorite's colliding with Earth's having a fatal impact on the dinosaurs—and perhaps along the lines of global warming's possible eventual impact on the human race?
DeleteBut (as I mentioned) the organisms were able to adapt. The first chapter from which my excerpt was taken is titled "Sex and Worldwide Genetic Exchange"—about the mechanisms by which these organisms changed and evolved (and continue to change, as when they become resistant to our latest antibiotics).
Do let me know how your grain of salt helps you if you read Lynn & Dorion's excellent book yourself.
Morris, micro-organisms suffered neither a "crisis" nor a "catastrophe" as the level of oxygen increased in the atmosphere. They survived very nicely, and probably with very little agony. In the context you quote, these are more than emphatic terms; they are absurd terms. I can see that you respect the authors, and perhaps more reading would make it plain why. The excerpt, however, left questions of credibility in my mind.
ReplyDeleteKen, Not all of the micro-organisms survived, let alone nicely (whatever "badly" might mean for a bacterium). The ones that survived did so because they adapted. The words "crisis" and "catastrophe" usually pertain to humankind. Since they are (in that sense) anthropomorphic, we may need to permit the authors to use them metaphorically?
DeleteI believe that I am at fault for any credibility questions you may have. I chose to excerpt a continuous passage from the middle of one chapter, together with and a couple of paragraphs from the middle of the next. I think I should not have done that.
In re-reading the second chapter (titled "The Oxygen Holocaust"—the authors are, perhaps, laying it on a bit thick; Dorion is, I see from Wikipedia, an "American science writer" and has won journalism awards, so he may be what we'd call a "science popularizer"), I found a sentence that bears on the question how long it took for the huge percentage of oxygen to build up in Earth's atmosphere: "Although the mineral record clearly shows a sudden [emphasis mine] build-up in the amount of atmospheric oxygen, exactly when oxygen-producing photosynthesis left earth-changing quantities of oxygen in the atmosphere is hotly debated." [–p. 103]
Are humans really the "culprits" in global warming? For that matter, is the earth really warming, or just returning to a norm that existed before the "Little Ice Age" arrived in the 16th century?
ReplyDeleteLogic says that having seven billion humans on earth today versus an estimated 370 million in the year 1350 has to have an impact. As an environmentalist and conservationist I believe that and do what little I can to mitigate. Yet there are questions, especially for those who have interest in points north of the Arctic Circle.
Being a descendant of the Vikings, I have taken interest in their history and have visited my homeland. Vikings from Iceland established settlements in Greenland in the 10th century. They flourished for several hundred years, growing maize, grapes and other warmth-oriented crops and catching cod from the teeming schools in the warm, shallow waters off southwest Greenland. Having spent time there I can vouch these are not great places to raise corn and grapes today.
The Viking settlements died out with the coming of the Little Ice Age, which scientists generally accept as lasting from the years 1550 to 1850. This period of extreme cold coincides with the world's population beginning a steady climb starting in the mid 1300s, after recovering from the impact of the Great Famine and the Black Death.
Going back to my original questions,if humans are the "culprits" in global warming, why did the harshest cold period occur as the human population began to greatly expand? And is it possible that Nature is so powerful that 370 million versus seven billion humans doesn't matter, and the earth is simply reverting to where it was 1,000 years ago?
The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling on which humans had little or no impact. It's only this current warming cycle that the earth is now experiencing that humans are the culprits. I hope everyone reading this has seen Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Academy Award Winning "An Inconvenient Truth" and was able to relate to the science therein and forgive Al's occasional melodrama.
ReplyDeleteMoto, I think the answers to your questions lie in clarifying how harsh is "harsh" (surely not "harshest" if we widen our perspective). Also, the geographic boundaries of the Little Ice Age are relevant and the changes in its potency over the centuries. It would be of further interest to understand how the expansion of travel, exploration, colonization, and changes in living standards correlated with procreation. My view is that the Renaissance put human development on an express train and that climate change is a symptom of the Irresistible Force approaching the Unmovable Object.
ReplyDeleteJim, No question the earth is going through a warming cycle. While it makes sense the explosion in the human population isn't helping matters, is there truly irrefutable proof humans are having significant impact?
ReplyDeleteThinking as someone who has been an active environmentalist since high school and the first Earth Day, I want to believe the information Gore and others put forth. Thinking as someone who has spent considerable time in Washington, DC and some time around Gore during the Clinton era, I am wary of what he and others of his ilk will champion to make a buck and stay in the public eye.
If we are indeed confronting a global-warming crisis caused by humans, why aren't we being forced by our leaders, and by a supply-and-demand economy, to take logical affordable steps to combat it? Why are we instead seemingly always confronted with complex, unbelievably expensive options that require vast research and funds to produce only dubious results?
Taking it to the personal level: If vehicles and excessive fossil-fuel use are indeed the global demons they are portrayed to be, why hasn't a law been passed to outlaw drive-through service for fast food, banking, etc? If the parents who would vote on such a measure really believe their vehicles are contributing to the destruction of their children's planet, why do they drive the kids to school instead of making them ride the bus? And why the ridiculous waste of water and energy on the green desert that is the typical lawn?
When I look at the absurd levels of waste we humans are still allowed, and that we willingly perpetuate, it is difficult for me to believe that anyone truly believes humans are a serious factor in global warming. They may say the words because they are trendy, but if they truly believed they would be taking action.
Motomynd, the answer to whether there is "irrefutable proof" just might be in "An Inconvenient Truth". I hope you are not shying away from seeing it because it's author belongs to some "ilk". Al Gore is very will off and I doubt that he was out to make a buck by lecturing on Global Warming and then making a documentary. But what difference does it make if he was? Isn't his message the important thing on which to focus and to critique. Keep in mind that Gore won the Nobel Prize and these prizes are typically not given out to dummies. When you get around to it, I hope you enjoy "An Inconvenient Truth" as much as I did. It was a real eye opener for me.
ReplyDeleteKen, yours are exceptionally well written and excellent points. However, if the earth's climate is cyclical and it is returning to where it was 1,000 years ago, is there really anything humans can do to stop it?
ReplyDeleteWould we not be better served to put our efforts into matters we definitely could control, rampant over population as an example, rather than expending time and research on matters that competing political powers will never agree on?
Jim, yes I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth." I gave much of it about as much credibility as I did many of the speeches I had to sit through by George W. Bush. To me it tells one side of a story about as well as Bush spun his tale about why we should attack Iraq.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are much like consultants, a few truly try to resolve issues, most seek to maintain power and make money for themselves and their backers by prolonging problems. If Gore wanted to have a real impact on the earth's well being he could have tackled any number of issues that could actually be dealt with - such as over population, as I just mentioned in a reply to Ken. Instead he chose a topic he knew he could never make any progress with due to entrenched political perspectives.
"An Inconvenient Truth" achieved for Al Gore what he wanted it to achieve for Al Gore and his friends. Just as George W. Bush and his attack on Iraq achieved what he wanted for himself and his cronies. So far I have yet to see any concrete evidence the movie or the war were anything but self-serving enterprises.
Moto, you are right, of course, that the Earth's climate is cyclical, but what are the intervals and amplitude of the cycles? I have no special geological or climatological knowledge, but it seems to me that if our planet were returning to a pre-1300 climate, we'd know it. Even though written records are far from abundant, would there not be some mention in Greek or Latin or Arabic or Chinese of decades of scorching heat and freakish storms? Wouldn't geologists find clues in rocks and core samples of drought and melting icecaps?
ReplyDeleteI think you greatly underestimate the tendency of people, especially those enjoying abundant lives in democratic nations, to fight to the death for the status quo. It's really hard to budge the ship of state, even in a single nation. Trying to budge the world is exponentially harder. If you can acknowledge this, you'll understand that a popular movement to control the world's population has no chance whatsoever of succeeding.
Ken, We do know the world is returning to a pre-1300 climate, at least in northern Europe, because there are abundant written records of what the weather was like then. I can't speak for changes in climate in the rest of the world because I haven't studied that, but I assure you historians and scientists agree that much of Greenland was a warm, lush place 1000 years ago and that same area is today basically a lump of ice. It will take a LOT of global warming, or at least northern European warming, to get Greenland anywhere near as warm as it was then, so that pre-1300 climate is still possibly hundreds of years away. As much as my idealistic environmentalist heart wants to believe we are entering a period of unnatural warmth and we need to do everything possible to prevent it, my biologist brain filters the historical and scientific evidence and reasons that we should be putting our efforts into things we can control instead of possibly wasting them on matters we can't even affect. Some people have great belief in the power of people and their gods; for eons Nature has proven its power over all and will probably continue to do so for eternity.
ReplyDeleteYes, people living in abundance will fight for the status quo. Where I disagree with you is I don't think they will fight to the death. The people living without abundance with nothing to lose are the ones who will fight to the death. Look at the French and American revolutions, the overthrow of the Russian czars and the Chinese emperors, the recent "Arab" spring; change didn't come because people living abundant lives were willing to fight to the death, it came because they weren't and others were.
If humans really are causing global warming they won't worry about it because Al Gore makes a movie and wins an award for his trophy case. And they won't stop because the United Nations issues yet another toothless, flowery proclamation. They will stop when masses of poor, starving people realize they shouldn't have to give up water to raise crops so rich people can water their lawns. They will stop when those masses realize they can't cook food because rich people use all the energy for their air-conditioned cars, houses and shopping malls.
I do agree with you that those living in prosperity will fight for the staus quo. But clever movies or not, I don't think human attitudes and actions toward global warming will change until it becomes a fight for life. Until then we should be investing our efforts where we can actually achieve results, instead of wasting them on feel-good slogans, movies and PR campaigns that accomplish nothing.
Moto, it looks like I'm not going to convince you to share my vision of the doable versus the undoable, so I'll go no further there. However, I will ask you to check your facts. I've done some checking on the Little Ice Age, and it seems your timeline is wrong. The LIA was a climate change of small consequence, lowering temperatures by less than 1 degree (Celsius, if I recall correctly). The 1300s actually saw rising temperatures, and the LIA caused genuine discomfort only in the 17th century.
ReplyDeleteI found that I was right about scientists' ability to to discover changes in temperature in recent millennia. For example, there's a cold cave in South America whose stalactites reveal temperature changes going back 3000 years. So far, I haven't heard any news that this data has revealed warming and freakish weather that corresponds to the phenomena in our lives. Of course, there could be a conspiracy of silence...
Ken, I understand your vision of the doable versus the undoable. My point is that the reason things don't get done isn't because they are really undoable but because people, and leaders in particular, choose to get bogged down in matters they can argue about (climate change, for example) instead of tackling issues where hard choices and actions could actually accomplish something (overpopulation, for example). Why it is human nature to put so much energy into issues that people can't agree upon, rather than making hard choices where people and facts agree they desperately need to be made, now there is a topic where we could wear ourselves out. But then, of course, we would not be putting that energy into getting things done in far more important arenas.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Little Ice Age...again, I'm not an expert on climatological matters, but I don't see how we can dismiss the LIA as being of "small consequence" as you put it. In Northern Europe it created unpredictable and far colder weather than usual from the 1300s to 1800s, leading to the demise not only of the Vikings in Greenland but to villages in the Alps and allowing armies to march on neighboring cities and countries while the victims' hapless fleets were frozen in their harbors. In the Southern Hemisphere the LIA created massive floods along with ice and snow where they never occurred before or since.
Core samples, tree rings, even the testing of remains of insects that thrived in warm weather versus cold, can indeed tell us much about climate trends. My question isn't about the accuracy of the science, it is about the relevance. If the earth is indeed warming to a new level previously unheard of, or if it is just returning to a point where it was 5,000 years ago, we are all going to be affected. But long before we are done in by a change of 1-2 degrees Celsius we are likely to do ourselves in by self-created water shortages, pollution and over-population. So I still think we should address what we can rather than worrying about matters that may be beyond our control. Unlike you, I don't believe resolving these issues is really undoable, it is just something people choose not to do.