3 New Papers: Permian Mass Extinction Link With Global Cooling—Not Warming

In the past, it has been widely reported that high and abruptly changing CO2 concentrations during the Permian led to climate conditions that were “too hot for complex life to survive” on the planet.

Today, scientists have determined that the opposite may be true: the Permian mass extinction event occurred during a period of global cooling, expansive ice sheet growth, relatively low CO2 levels, and a marine-habitat-destroying sea level drop of 100 meters.

Image Source: Kani et al., 2018

A year ago, the press release for a paper published in Scientific Reports argued that during the Permian mass extinction event, “the majority of marine species” were killed off by an “extreme cold” period that coincided with widespread glaciation and a dramatic drop in global sea levels.

“Analysis of the newly dated layers showed a significant reduction of seawater levels during the [Permian]extinction event. The only explanation for such a dramatic decrease in water levels is a sudden increase in ice. The ice age lasted just 80,000 years, but the extreme cold was enough to kill off the majority of marine species.”

Within the last few months, at least two more papers have been published that also affirm that the Permian mass extinction event that annihilated up to 90% of marine species and 70% of land-dwelling species coincided with extreme global coolingice sheet expansion over land, and dramatically-falling sea levels — 100 meters lower than they were in previously warmer climates.

The lowering of sea levels alone may have been enough to destroy a substantial percentage of marine habitats, and the expansion of ice sheets may have austerely limited the habitat ranges for land-dwelling fauna.

CO2 Concentrations And Mass Extinctions: A Questionable Link  

Further analysis reveals that, contrary to commonly popularized claims, neither the Ordovician mass extinction event nor the Permian mass extinction event had a clear causal link to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Indeed, it has long been documented that CO2 concentrations may have fluctuated between about 280 ppm and 2800 ppm during the Permian, with the low CO2 values coinciding with cool periods and the high values coinciding with warm periods (Saunders and Reichow, 2009).

While both extinction events occurred during global cooling periods accompanied by significantly lowered sea levels, the CO2 concentrations were relatively high (“over 2000 ppm”) during the Ordovician but relatively low (~300 ppm) during the Permian extinction event.

The latter CO2 values would appear to undermine the contention that CO2-driven ocean “acidification” and too-high CO2 concentration levels were causally connected to the extinction of marine species during the Permian.

And the relatively high CO2 values during the Ordovician are not compatible with the accompanying global cooling, glaciation, and plummeting sea levels of that period.

In sum, a growing body of evidence suggests that commonly-held assumptions about a direct causal link between CO2 concentration flux and mass extinction events may not be as clear as previously thought.

Read rest (and papers) at No Tricks Zone

Trackback from your site.

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Richard Wakefield

    |

    Triggered by an impact. Impact site has been found in the south burried under the Atlantic Ocean.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    “Indeed, it has long been documented that CO2 concentrations may have fluctuated between about 280 ppm and 2800 ppm during the Permian, with the low CO2 values coinciding with cool periods and the high values coinciding with warm periods (Saunders and Reichow, 2009).”
    Henry’s Law teaches us that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a proxy for sea temperature. Professor Endersbee derived a formula which shows at 2800 ppm CO2 the sea needs to be 17.2 oC hotter, giving an average SST of 33.3 oC. This means there was periodically a very humid atmosphere as well as a high CO2 concentration. A meteor hitting the sea at such a time can be expected to raise a substantial quantity of sea water to greater than 50oC. At this temperature the pervasive bicarbonate ion disassociates back to carbon dioxide gas – which explodes from the sea into an atmosphere already rich in CO2. The result is CO2 raises to suffocating levels. As a heavy gas, CO2 stays preferentially at low levels. Animals such as birds operating at higher altitudes are more likely to survive – as will egg laying animals that do not incubate their eggs. These groups survive because the CO2 will reabsorb back into the ocean over a period of a few days.
    This CO2 spike will not show in the geological record other than through a mass extinction event. The elevated sea temperature can be expected to also cause extinction to several marine species.
    This leads me to the conclusion that earth’s core operates in a non linear fashion producing periodic bursts of heat into the sea.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    “The only explanation for such a dramatic decrease in water levels is a sudden increase in ice.”
    If the SST is around 33 oC, the evaporation rate of sea water will be much higher producing a dramatic decrease in water levels, but not one associated with ice.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Damian

    |

    The End Permian Extinction Event is linked to the Siberian Traps larg igneous province, the second largest volcanic event in history.
    All the cooling events in the last few thousand years are linked to volcanism.
    The increase in insolation produced by tens of thousands of years of volcanism wouldn’t leave much incoming energy to be “back radiated”.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Yes Damian, the Daacan traps also emerged either side of the K-T boundary. This all points to a hot sea and accelerated evaporation. If the cooling events are predicated on low sea levels, they will need some serious reconsideration.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Fellows,

    “The only explanation for such a dramatic decrease in water levels is a sudden increase in ice.” I totally agree with this general statement. But I have read this only applies to ice being supported by land surfaces. For if floating ice melts there should be no change in water levels
    .
    I can propose a hypothetical: The Arctic Ocean could [a common word used by those who speculate] be warmed geothermally at its bottom so that no ice forms on its surface during the winter season year after year. This condition would limit its liquid surface temperature to about negative 3 degrees Celsius whereas its solid ice surface is observed cool to several tens of degrees Celsius below zero during the winter season. And I speculate that the only way water can be transferred from the Arctic Ocean to the surrounding land is by evaporation from it surface to condense to form clouds and then the condensed water to fall as snow over the surrounding cold land surface which does not melt it as it falls. So the snow, with its significant albedo, does melt during the summer and fall season. But during the spring and summer seasons, the ice (snow) free liquid surface with its significantly lower albedo could augment the geothermal warming with solar warming which cannot occur as strongly over that portion of the Ocean which remains ice (snow) covered year around.

    And the winter clouds, necessary to transfer the water to the land, will limit the radiation cooling of the ocean’s surface which commonly occurs if the atmosphere is cloud free. Which clouds might be more limited over a much colder ice surface with its much lower water vapor pressure.

    I have read that some have proposed that the glaciers which, based on physical evidence, covered the northern portions of the North American and European and Asian Continents were over a mile thick. And I read that even today the general thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is generally more than 2km (1.2mi). So one might conclude that any atmosphere moving from the ocean to lower latitudes over the continental surface would begin to form a ridge of snow and ice that would have to lift this atmosphere which is known to cause cooling and precipitation (snow) whose height would increase from one year to the next if the Arctic Ocean never became ice covered from year to year.

    I bet modelers could take this proposed mechanism and conclude that it might not take an enormous quantity of geothermal warming of the Ocean to create an ice free ocean since they propose that even a little more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could [that word again] create an ice free Arctic Ocean by the end of a summer season.

    Just a little simple speculation by a simple mind.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Hi Jerry,
      You are right when it comes to the current earth surface conditions. When we contemplate what the world was like in the Permian, we need a completely revised view of what conditions may have been like in those days.
      IMO the sea was much hotter as evidenced by the higher CO2 atmospheric values. This leads to a giant blanketing atmosphere a bit similar to Venus in that it has a high albedo, but not due to surface ice, but due to high permanent cloud. The ground heat comes from the core, not from the sun, but is retained by the cloud blanket. Under these circumstances moisture condensation does not fall as snow, it falls as warm rain which can easily evaporate again if it flows onto a hot surface – a condition which seems to have covered most of the lower level surfaces. Free water surfaces may have been restricted to elevated mountain lake regions.
      The combination of high CO2 and a thick cloud bank leads to high atmospheric pressures, suited to supporting large dinosaurs and pterodactyls – which is another important piece of evidence needed to describe life in those times.
      The high CO2 level means that the whole oxygen life support system was very delicately balanced and vulnerable to suffocating spikes in CO2 concentration, as previously discussed.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Robert,

    “The combination of high CO2 and a thick cloud bank leads to high atmospheric pressures, the combination of high CO2 and a thick cloud bank leads to high atmospheric pressures.”

    Our present oceans contain a lot of water. Where was this water in the ancient past? What is the value of your proposed high CO2? You place ‘life’ (plants and animals) on your ‘hot’ surface. I have read and observed that greenhouses need to ventilated to avoid the high temperatures that occur if not ventilated. I accept the fossil evidence of different creatures of the past. But I read those with those long necks and those that had grown to great weights and long necks lived in liquid water of the proper depth so they, having the approximate density of liquid water could be buoyed up by liquid water and not by a dense gas.

    We see evidence that the earth surface was not like it is today. But when were the ‘great’ mountains formed which have to be supported by the matter at their bases so that they do not seem to sink back into the earth’s core. But that core is proposed to be iron (I have read) which probably is more dense than the rock above it.

    Because of the evidence of glaciers we accept there have been an Ice Age so we know beyond reasonable doubt that there has been some climate change. But i read the last ice sheets melted only 10,000 years ago. But if we understand that glaciers of the mountains have a different cause of their existence than the much lower elevations of the ice sheets which have melted, it seems to me we come back to geologic earth surfaces of the present and not necessary those of hundreds of thousands years ago.

    And I thought there was evidence of repeated glaciations and not just one of great length. I have no idea of what the actual time-lines were. The purpose of my speculations was merely to propose what ‘could’ happen if the volcanic activity occurring on the Big Island were occurring beneath the Arctic Ocean. For along the west coast of the Americas there is evidence of the great volcanic activity of the past. And I have read that there is evidence of volcanic activity beneath the Arctic Ocean. Of course, I understand I should not believe everything that I read. But I know Mount Saint Helens blew its top during my lifetime. So, I can appreciate the power of what is occurring beneath the earth surface and has occurred in the past.

    Here something I have not read. The continuous centrifugal effect of the spinning earth upon cloud droplets, which are more dense than the atmosphere which ‘supports’ them above the Arctic Ocean and its shores. In chemistry we use devices called centrifuges to more rapidly settle, than gravity does, tiny precipitates more dense than water to the bottom of our test-tubes. It seems obvious to me that at the latitudes greater than 45 degrees the effect is more horizontal than vertical which is the case at the latitudes less than 45.

    So, when I proposed my speculated mechanism, I forgot to seize the opportunity to introduce this mechanism which I consider ‘could’ be an important factor of our present weather systems.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      You raise several questions that are best answered by going to the bosmin web site and studying the PSL file. Thanks for your interest.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via