I have read the discussion of the paper above, and it is basically about distinguishing global warming from geological releases of stored biological carbon. The main difference is our release is much more sudden, but that may get obscured within the inaccuracy of the measurement records.
Silurian Hypothesis
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
Did you watch the video?
I'm not claiming the video is accurate but I am referencing it.
Disconnect might be from that. It's not really disagreeing with what you're saying.
As I said I thought it was fun. If the videos wrong I'm not that worried as I'm not treating it as gospel so to speak.
Zardnaar
Deity
Aliens!!!
OK, so I read a bit more (you understand how hard you are making this). I guess you are refering to Elmos?
Eocene events
In the 6 million years following the PETM, there are a number of smaller, though qualitatively similar, hyperthermal events seen in the record. Notably, the Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 event (ETM-2), and at least four other peaks are characterized by significant negative carbon isotope excursions, warming and relatively high sedimentation rates driven by increases in terrigenous input. Arctic conditions during ETM-2 show evidence of warming, lower salinity and greater anoxia. Collectively these events have been denoted Eocene Layers of Mysterious Origin (ELMOs).
If I still really need to say, no. Have you got any reference for the claims about the fossil record?
This is a discussion forum. I am disagreeing with what you are saying.
Zardnaar
Deity
As I said I'm quoting the video. If the videos wrong I'm not to worried I paraphrased it's claims in the OP.
IIm mire interested in the basic idea vs that particular video.
And yeah I've played similar games before with people about sources. I posted Cambridge one, the wiki with references as well.
Very broadly speaking I agree we coukd probably find evidence about Industrialization vs physical remains of buildings or artifacts. Assuming we went looking, found the right spot and interpreted it correctly. You cant go into your back yard and find the K-Pg boundary for example. It's exposed in specific spits and you need to know what you're looking for.
It would be a lot easier if you were actually quoting the video. You do know you can copy the transcript and actually quote the text, so people know what yo are taking about? Cntl-F allowed me to identify this bit that you may have been talking about:
My reading of the paper is that this is only used as an example of a change we have good data for, not one that could realistically hide an industrial civilisation. But you see how much easier it is if you actually quote what you are talking about in your post? BTW. this is the graph they are talking about:Video said:
Spoiler Illustrative stable carbon isotopes and temperature (or proxy) profiles across three periods :
In your paraphasing it is very hard to get at the details. Where was the above in the OP for example? Where did the 4 million years come from? We have technosignitures from our ancestors around that time.
Providing your sources is not a game, it is the heart if not the very definition of science. If you are going to critique trust in science without going to even that level of effort you have to expect criticism.
I posted the Cambridge one before you did, including the one paragraph were it discusses our impact on the fossil record. It is exactly contrary to what you were saying and what I was querying when I entered the thread.
Very broadly speaking I disagree with:
I think you are supporting my thesis. I think people do not put enough faith in science so people can get away with just saying stuff that is wrong. I think the world would be a better place if people could not get away with that. One of the way people get away with that is telling people to not trust science while behaving in the least trustworthy way. I think that should be called out at every opportunity. The press REALLY should do this, but more usually perpetuates the status quo.
Zardnaar
Deity
It would be a lot easier if you were actually quoting the video. You do know you can copy the transcript and actually quote the text, so people know what yo are taking about? Cntl-F allowed me to identify this bit that you may have been talking about:
My reading of the paper is that this is only used as an example of a change we have good data for, not one that could realistically hide an industrial civilisation. But you see how much easier it is if you actually quote what you are talking about in your post? BTW. this is the graph they are talking about:
Spoiler Illustrative stable carbon isotopes and temperature (or proxy) profiles across three periods :
In your paraphasing it is very hard to get at the details. Where was the above in the OP for example? Where did the 4 million years come from? We have technosignitures from our ancestors around that time.
Providing your sources is not a game, it is the heart if not the very definition of science. If you are going to critique trust in science without going to even that level of effort you have to expect criticism.
I posted the Cambridge one before you did, including the one paragraph were it discusses our impact on the fossil record. It is exactly contrary to what you were saying and what I was querying when I entered the thread.
Very broadly speaking I disagree with:
I think you are supporting my thesis. I think people do not put enough faith in science so people can get away with just saying stuff that is wrong. I think the world would be a better place if people could not get away with that. One of the way people get away with that is telling people to not trust science while behaving in the least trustworthy way. I think that should be called out at every opportunity. The press REALLY should do this, but more usually perpetuates the status quo.
What I meant by that is science is evolving.
Asteroid wiping out dinosaurs didn't really enter public consciousness pre 1980s.
A member made a specific claim about the fossil record. In relation to known species
Dinosaur footprints show predators as big as ‘T. rex’ stomped across Australia 160 million years ago
Photos from Queensland coal mines helped researchers discover a missing top predator in the ancient Australian food chain.
theconversation.com
Evidence a species existed but no fossils of the species in question.
I do not see what this has to do with what I said or what you have said in the rest of the thread. I am saying that science is all about showing your working, and not just saying stuff. You have said lots of stuff without showing any justification, here and elsewhere.What I meant by that is science is evolving.
Asteroid wiping out dinosaurs didn't really enter public consciousness pre 1980s.
A member made a specific claim about the fossil record. In relation to known species
Dinosaur footprints show predators as big as ‘T. rex’ stomped across Australia 160 million years ago
Photos from Queensland coal mines helped researchers discover a missing top predator in the ancient Australian food chain.
Evidence a species existed but no fossils of the species in question.
That is an interesting story, but how does it support your thesis? From the abstract:
All these tracks were found in sediments directly above coal seams in the ceilings of subterranean mines. This style of mining ceased more than a quarter of a century ago, and with many of the original mines having been back-filled or closed, ichnological investigations are restricted to the study of museum specimens and archival photographs.
Can you explain how this supports your thesis? I will remind you I have linked a paper showing 1 in 5 extant mammal species have been identified in the fossil record, and this sub thread started with your claim that only 1 in 100,000 are. On that you based a probabilistic argument that you have not referenced anywhere else.
Zardnaar
Deity
Basic math.
1 in a hundred fossils are land based. We only know 0.1% of estimated species.
You can do a Google search about the 0.1%.
You are only referencing mammals. The 0.1% is everything.
Things like Jellyfish are very rare and the reason so.many fossils are aquatic is around how fossils are formed.
Maths involves stating you axioms and going from them to the conclusion in a logically impeccable way. That is a higher standard that science, and you are not meeting that standard.
You are making the claim, and I have to do the google search? I tried to do a google search and have quoted the papers I came up with and the numbers do not support your statements. How about you try if it is so easy? I strongly recommend google scholar though for this sort of job.
We are talking about potentially industrial species. That kind of restricts it to mammals if you are talking about the last 60 odd millions years, and I would say mammal like species generally. If you are positing an industrialised jellyfish I think you have bigger things to explain than the fossil record.
Zardnaar
Deity
That's what the video said. I paraphrased it.
And it was everyth8ng over 300 million years. The video you didn't watch.
I'm not claiming anything else about the video. I thought it was a fun idea to talk about. Beyond that shrug.
You have made loads of claims throughout this thread, including about the existence of literature supporting your claims. You have yet to show any.
Zardnaar
Deity
I paraphrased the video. The one you haven't watched.
We posted same link one of mine was wrong as I copies the wrong. 3
It's basically a thought experiment. I also posted examples of species we know existed but haven't found fossils for.
Number might be off they're estimates. Overall point is we haven't found everything a very snall % as estimates do vary.
Make your own mind up about the numbers it's not the point of the thread.
The one peer reviewed paper you have so far referenced has only one paragraph about fossils and that says exactly the opposite of what you are arguing. Do you have another you meant to link?
Thought experiments do not usually involve estimating quantities.
They vary by like 4 to 5 orders of magnitude. That sort of "off" matters.
So what is?
As I say, that paper is all about how unique our current pattern of CO2 release is on geological timescales. The point is really made by the one graph in that paper, but you have to look at the X axis. The point is that to get our releases to like the geological record you need to alter the time axis by a factor or 3 - 6 orders of magnitude. Can that be hidden by the passage of time?
Also:
Summary
The Anthropocene layer in ocean sediment will be abrupt and multi-variate, consisting of seemingly concurrent-specific peaks in multiple geochemical proxies, biomarkers, elemental composition and mineralogy. It will likely demarcate a clear transition of faunal taxa prior to the event compared with afterwards. Most of the individual markers will not be unique in the context of Earth history as we demonstrate below, but the combination of tracers may be. However, we speculate that some specific tracers that would be unique, specifically persistent synthetic molecules, plastics and (potentially) very long-lived radioactive fallout in the event of nuclear catastrophe. Absent those markers, the uniqueness of the event may well be seen in the multitude of relatively independent fingerprints as opposed to a coherent set of changes associated with a single geophysical cause.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 12,867
International Journal of Astrobiology 2019. Peer reviewed journal. Published by Cambridge UP. Authors from Columbia and University of Rochester.
4 million years comes from their estimate for how long it would take for all physical traces of our society to disappear.
But all they wanted to do was ask "what traces would the Anthropocene leave in the fossil record?"
From the conclusion:
Scholars "we can't conclusively rule this out based on presently available evidence, so here are some new directions for research." Popularizers turn it to "there might have been.lizard people!"
In this case, though, the scientists are at least partly (and probably largely) to blame, by the title they gave their essay.
4 million years comes from their estimate for how long it would take for all physical traces of our society to disappear.
But all they wanted to do was ask "what traces would the Anthropocene leave in the fossil record?"
From the conclusion:
They just want to ask a question in a provocative way, in order to spur new lines of research.
Scholars "we can't conclusively rule this out based on presently available evidence, so here are some new directions for research." Popularizers turn it to "there might have been.lizard people!"
In this case, though, the scientists are at least partly (and probably largely) to blame, by the title they gave their essay.
Last edited:
Similar threads
