////////////////////////Cold Evidence for a Cosmic "Texture"?October 25, 2007 A ripple in the cosmic background radiation hints at an irregularity in spacetime. . . maybe. > read more
///////////////////SILENCE OF THE BEES=COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER
//////////////////////TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE
////////////////////////NIKE=
Philosopher's Notes: Just Do It.
"What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
~ Unknown
As Ralph Waldo Emerson teaches us, "Always, always, always, always, always do what you are afraid to do."
He also advises, "Do the thing you fear and the death of fear is certain."
I guess he felt pretty strongly about it.
What would you do if you weren't afraid?
Just do it.
Philosopher's Notes: Just Do It.
"What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
~ Unknown
As Ralph Waldo Emerson teaches us, "Always, always, always, always, always do what you are afraid to do."
He also advises, "Do the thing you fear and the death of fear is certain."
I guess he felt pretty strongly about it.
What would you do if you weren't afraid?
Just do it.
///////////////////I FEEL FOR U,UNFORTUNATELY THE FEELING IS NAUSEA
/////////////////////AXDENTAL INSERTION OF XX INTO LF=NAYIKA SANGBAD
/////////////////////////////////////THE INNOCENT 60s OF BLACK AND WHITE MOVIES
///////////////////////BLS CRTSY=What People with Cancer Want You to Know
Lori Hope ne in two men and one in three women will get cancer during their lifetimes, according to the American Cancer Society. The advent of new treatments has allowed many cancer patients to live relatively normal lives, and about nine million Americans are cancer survivors.
When someone has cancer, friends and family members want to help and give support, but sometimes they unknowingly say things that may be disturbing. There are many ways to express concern and love when someone is faced with cancer or any serious illness... and just as many ways to make someone cringe. Here's what cancer survivors wish people would do...
BE PRESENT
People may disappear or withdraw when a loved one gets sick. Some are afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing. Others are geared toward fixing problems and get frustrated when they can't help. Still others have experienced their own tragedies with cancer and don't feel strong enough to face the emotional turmoil again.
Though it's uncomfortable to confront a person's outpourings of fear and grief, make the effort. Cancer patients need to cry and release their pain. One of the greatest acts of love is to be with him/her, to listen as he shares his fears.
If you live far away, call or write. Let him know that he's loved... that he matters... and that your heart is with him.
If you simply can't be there, at least explain why the situation is too difficult for you to cope with.
GIVE HOPE
People often talk about their own experiences when they meet a person who has cancer. Their intention may be to show empathy or unload their own burdens, but the stories can hurt more than help.
Example: When people heard about my diagnosis, many said things like, "Lung cancer -- that's really bad." A waiter at an Italian restaurant even told me that his wife died of the same cancer. He shared all the gruesome details -- about the surgery, how the cancer returned and how she died. It brought back all of my own terror.
People who have cancer don't need to be reminded that they could die -- they live with that fear every day. They would rather hear stories of hope and success.
Better: When I told my cousin about my diagnosis, she related a story about one of her professors who had had the same cancer 20 years before -- and who is still alive and healthy.
When I told my best friend, with whom I have always taken an annual vacation, she said that we would still be vacationing together when we're old ladies. That's the type of encouragement people with cancer need to hear.
ASK PERMISSION
Few of us ask permission before sharing our feelings or advice, but asking permission is important when you are dealing with someone who has a life-threatening illness. That's when people are at their weakest and most vulnerable.
People say things like, "You really should try this immune-boosting herb" or "You should ask your doctor about this new treatment I read about." The word "should" suggests that the person with cancer would be remiss not to take your advice.
Instead, ask him if he is interested in your advice or information or wants to hear your stories. Back off if he says no. Possible ways to ask...
"I have been looking into this type of cancer. Would you like to hear some of the treatment options I've read about?"
"A friend told me about an herb that might help. Would you like to hear about it?"
LAUGH
We all tend to be overly serious when we're with people who have serious illnesses. That's appropriate some of the time, but not all the time. People with cancer may want to forget the pain and just laugh and be happy.
I interviewed a woman who received a cancer diagnosis on a Friday. She had all weekend to worry before she saw her doctor again on Monday, so to make herself feel better, she went to a video store and rented a bunch of comedies.
Going through cancer is not all about fear. There's always room for humor and joy.
DON'T HARP ON POSITIVE THINKING
It's normal to be angry, depressed or sad when you have cancer. No one feels positive all the time. Nevertheless, friends and family members often nag cancer patients about the importance of positive thinking and tune them out when they express worries, pessimism or fear.
The implication is that the cancer is somehow the patient's fault or that he can control the outcome. There's a myth that some people have a "cancer personality." There's no truth to it -- and it implicitly blames the patient for causing the disease.
It is important to understand that people who have cancer need to allow themselves to feel everything. They shouldn't have to hide their true emotions. It's okay to feel rotten sometimes.
SPARE THE PLATITUDES
Platitudes are reassuring words that usually are said without much thought or understanding.
Everyone with cancer has heard things like, "You never know how much time any of us has -- you could go outside tomorrow and get hit by a truck."
One woman I talked to had heard this cliché at least 10 times from people she knew -- even from her doctor. Her comment? "Okay, so then in addition to the fact that I could die from cancer, I might also get hit by a truck." That isn't comforting.
No one who has had cancer sees it as "a gift." Cancer patients don't want to hear how lucky they are or what they can learn from the experience. They just want to get better.
Silence and compassion are more helpful than empty words.
Lori Hope ne in two men and one in three women will get cancer during their lifetimes, according to the American Cancer Society. The advent of new treatments has allowed many cancer patients to live relatively normal lives, and about nine million Americans are cancer survivors.
When someone has cancer, friends and family members want to help and give support, but sometimes they unknowingly say things that may be disturbing. There are many ways to express concern and love when someone is faced with cancer or any serious illness... and just as many ways to make someone cringe. Here's what cancer survivors wish people would do...
BE PRESENT
People may disappear or withdraw when a loved one gets sick. Some are afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing. Others are geared toward fixing problems and get frustrated when they can't help. Still others have experienced their own tragedies with cancer and don't feel strong enough to face the emotional turmoil again.
Though it's uncomfortable to confront a person's outpourings of fear and grief, make the effort. Cancer patients need to cry and release their pain. One of the greatest acts of love is to be with him/her, to listen as he shares his fears.
If you live far away, call or write. Let him know that he's loved... that he matters... and that your heart is with him.
If you simply can't be there, at least explain why the situation is too difficult for you to cope with.
GIVE HOPE
People often talk about their own experiences when they meet a person who has cancer. Their intention may be to show empathy or unload their own burdens, but the stories can hurt more than help.
Example: When people heard about my diagnosis, many said things like, "Lung cancer -- that's really bad." A waiter at an Italian restaurant even told me that his wife died of the same cancer. He shared all the gruesome details -- about the surgery, how the cancer returned and how she died. It brought back all of my own terror.
People who have cancer don't need to be reminded that they could die -- they live with that fear every day. They would rather hear stories of hope and success.
Better: When I told my cousin about my diagnosis, she related a story about one of her professors who had had the same cancer 20 years before -- and who is still alive and healthy.
When I told my best friend, with whom I have always taken an annual vacation, she said that we would still be vacationing together when we're old ladies. That's the type of encouragement people with cancer need to hear.
ASK PERMISSION
Few of us ask permission before sharing our feelings or advice, but asking permission is important when you are dealing with someone who has a life-threatening illness. That's when people are at their weakest and most vulnerable.
People say things like, "You really should try this immune-boosting herb" or "You should ask your doctor about this new treatment I read about." The word "should" suggests that the person with cancer would be remiss not to take your advice.
Instead, ask him if he is interested in your advice or information or wants to hear your stories. Back off if he says no. Possible ways to ask...
"I have been looking into this type of cancer. Would you like to hear some of the treatment options I've read about?"
"A friend told me about an herb that might help. Would you like to hear about it?"
LAUGH
We all tend to be overly serious when we're with people who have serious illnesses. That's appropriate some of the time, but not all the time. People with cancer may want to forget the pain and just laugh and be happy.
I interviewed a woman who received a cancer diagnosis on a Friday. She had all weekend to worry before she saw her doctor again on Monday, so to make herself feel better, she went to a video store and rented a bunch of comedies.
Going through cancer is not all about fear. There's always room for humor and joy.
DON'T HARP ON POSITIVE THINKING
It's normal to be angry, depressed or sad when you have cancer. No one feels positive all the time. Nevertheless, friends and family members often nag cancer patients about the importance of positive thinking and tune them out when they express worries, pessimism or fear.
The implication is that the cancer is somehow the patient's fault or that he can control the outcome. There's a myth that some people have a "cancer personality." There's no truth to it -- and it implicitly blames the patient for causing the disease.
It is important to understand that people who have cancer need to allow themselves to feel everything. They shouldn't have to hide their true emotions. It's okay to feel rotten sometimes.
SPARE THE PLATITUDES
Platitudes are reassuring words that usually are said without much thought or understanding.
Everyone with cancer has heard things like, "You never know how much time any of us has -- you could go outside tomorrow and get hit by a truck."
One woman I talked to had heard this cliché at least 10 times from people she knew -- even from her doctor. Her comment? "Okay, so then in addition to the fact that I could die from cancer, I might also get hit by a truck." That isn't comforting.
No one who has had cancer sees it as "a gift." Cancer patients don't want to hear how lucky they are or what they can learn from the experience. They just want to get better.
Silence and compassion are more helpful than empty words.
/////////////////////SANDHYA SONGS OF CHILDHOOD NOSTALGIA
///////////////////////MUTUAL RECIPROCATED KISSING
////////////////Life Extension Update Exclusive
Animals on calorie restricted diets stay fit longer
The October issue of Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences reported the discovery of researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo that restricting calories, a technique long proven to extend the life span of laboratory animals, enabled rats to maintain their physical fitness into their later years.
UB School of Public Health and Health Professions assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences Tongjian You, PhD, and associates evaluated 18, 24 and 29 month old male rats, equivalent in age to humans 50 to 70 years old. The animals had been divided to eat as much as they wanted from birth or to receive diets that contained 40 percent fewer calories than the normal amount. The rats were tested for grip, swimming speed, muscle tone and stamina, and data was obtained on whole body mass, lean body mass, fat mass, proinflammatory cytokine levels, and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.
Rats that received the restricted diets had significantly higher physical performance scores than animals on normal diets, less body and visceral fat and a reduced fat to lean ratio. The animals also experience lower adipose secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) and decreased circulating C-reactive protein.
Reduced levels of interleukin-6 may be the mechanism through which the benefits associated with calorie restriction in this study occurred. Inflammation can cause chronic disease and reduce physical performance.
"This is the first study to report that caloric restriction reduced production in visceral fat of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and enhanced performance on overall physical function assessments," Dr You announced. "In addition, rats that ate a normal diet lost a significant amount of lean muscle mass and acquired more fat, while calorie-restricted rats maintained lean muscle mass as they aged."
"Based on an average of 2,000 calories per day for adult women and 2,500 for men, cutting by 40 percent would mean surviving on 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day, respectively,” Dr You observed. "It's very difficult for people to maintain that type of diet for short periods of time, and it would be nearly impossible over a lifetime, while staying healthy."
Dr You suggested restricting calories by 8 percent as a more practical goal. "Preclinical testing of this 8-percent regimen could be informative and beneficial in translating to humans,” he noted.
Health Concern
Caloric restriction
It appears that caloric restriction works by slowing biological aging in many ways, including decreasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) damage to cells, limiting inflammation, enhancing insulin sensitivity, and repairing damaged cells. Certain nutrients have demonstrated similar effects, leading one group of researchers (Lemon JA et al 2005) to attempt to mimic calorie restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON) with a formula containing 31 ingredients that included a wide range of antioxidants and nutrients that have been extensively studied in humans (such as vitamin E, vitamin C, coenzyme Q10, glutathione precursors, and essential fatty acids).
This formula was given to normal mice and mice that over-expressed growth hormone. The mice that over-expressed growth hormone were larger and had a shorter life span than the normal ones, presumably because they aged faster.
The results were dramatic. Supplementation extended the life span of the growth hormone mice by 28 percent, to 431 days. In normal mice, supplementation extended life span by 11 percent on average, from 688 days to 765 days (Lemon JA et al 2005).
How does this 11 percent increase in longevity in normal mice compare to caloric restriction? Although a CRON group was not included in the study described above, other investigators have reported that 40 percent restriction in calories increased survival in the same strain of mice about 19 percent (Forster MJ et al 2003). Thus, supplementation yielded about half as much longevity as caloric restriction.
http://www.lef.org/protocols/lifestyle_longevity/caloric_restriction_01.htm
Animals on calorie restricted diets stay fit longer
The October issue of Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences reported the discovery of researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo that restricting calories, a technique long proven to extend the life span of laboratory animals, enabled rats to maintain their physical fitness into their later years.
UB School of Public Health and Health Professions assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences Tongjian You, PhD, and associates evaluated 18, 24 and 29 month old male rats, equivalent in age to humans 50 to 70 years old. The animals had been divided to eat as much as they wanted from birth or to receive diets that contained 40 percent fewer calories than the normal amount. The rats were tested for grip, swimming speed, muscle tone and stamina, and data was obtained on whole body mass, lean body mass, fat mass, proinflammatory cytokine levels, and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.
Rats that received the restricted diets had significantly higher physical performance scores than animals on normal diets, less body and visceral fat and a reduced fat to lean ratio. The animals also experience lower adipose secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) and decreased circulating C-reactive protein.
Reduced levels of interleukin-6 may be the mechanism through which the benefits associated with calorie restriction in this study occurred. Inflammation can cause chronic disease and reduce physical performance.
"This is the first study to report that caloric restriction reduced production in visceral fat of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and enhanced performance on overall physical function assessments," Dr You announced. "In addition, rats that ate a normal diet lost a significant amount of lean muscle mass and acquired more fat, while calorie-restricted rats maintained lean muscle mass as they aged."
"Based on an average of 2,000 calories per day for adult women and 2,500 for men, cutting by 40 percent would mean surviving on 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day, respectively,” Dr You observed. "It's very difficult for people to maintain that type of diet for short periods of time, and it would be nearly impossible over a lifetime, while staying healthy."
Dr You suggested restricting calories by 8 percent as a more practical goal. "Preclinical testing of this 8-percent regimen could be informative and beneficial in translating to humans,” he noted.
Health Concern
Caloric restriction
It appears that caloric restriction works by slowing biological aging in many ways, including decreasing reactive oxygen species (ROS) damage to cells, limiting inflammation, enhancing insulin sensitivity, and repairing damaged cells. Certain nutrients have demonstrated similar effects, leading one group of researchers (Lemon JA et al 2005) to attempt to mimic calorie restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON) with a formula containing 31 ingredients that included a wide range of antioxidants and nutrients that have been extensively studied in humans (such as vitamin E, vitamin C, coenzyme Q10, glutathione precursors, and essential fatty acids).
This formula was given to normal mice and mice that over-expressed growth hormone. The mice that over-expressed growth hormone were larger and had a shorter life span than the normal ones, presumably because they aged faster.
The results were dramatic. Supplementation extended the life span of the growth hormone mice by 28 percent, to 431 days. In normal mice, supplementation extended life span by 11 percent on average, from 688 days to 765 days (Lemon JA et al 2005).
How does this 11 percent increase in longevity in normal mice compare to caloric restriction? Although a CRON group was not included in the study described above, other investigators have reported that 40 percent restriction in calories increased survival in the same strain of mice about 19 percent (Forster MJ et al 2003). Thus, supplementation yielded about half as much longevity as caloric restriction.
http://www.lef.org/protocols/lifestyle_longevity/caloric_restriction_01.htm
CAL RESTRICTION REDUCES INTERLEUKIN RELATED AGEING
////////////////////Halloween [Oct 31]
Make A Difference Day [Oct 27]
Mother-in-law's Day [Oct 28]
.////////////////////////http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/23/galaxy-caught-stealing-gas/#more-11970One galaxy gobbles another galaxy's gas
///////////////////http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21422845/Dinosaurs once roamed the pole
///////////////////CANCER-5 STAGES=http://www2.mdanderson.org/depts/oncolog/articles/07/10-oct/10-07-hc.html
//////////////////WYE, WYG=WHAT YOU EXPECTED,WHAT YOU GOT
WYSIWYG=WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET
///////////////////LONG CLOUDY WINTRY AFTERNOONS OF DARK DEPRESSION
//////////////////GOLEMALE GOLEMALE PIRIT KORO NA
/////////////////////BIONIC ACCENT=?CHER
///////////////////PPL PLEASING CONTROL FREAK
/////////////////RT BRAINED OR LEFT=ME LEFT=http://wewe-wetwet.com/?p=443
//////////////////TAXI CAB CONFESSIONS
///////////////////HUMAN FACE FISH=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVwgvqhwn8
//////////////////EXUBERANT EXTROVERT ATTITUDE OF WEST
VS CONTEMPLATIVE,PHILOSOPHICAL ATTITUDE OF EAST
//////////////////////////ALMOST A FEELING TO JUMP IN=http://slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/amazingimages/volcanoes.htm
BTGON
////////////////////SITN GETTING OOC=OUT OF CONTROL
///////////////////RAIL GAVE OWN FIRST JOB
/////////////////////DROPPED IN AND LIKED IT
////////////////////MRRG FIGHTS=DO NOT ACCUSE=http://www.essentiallifeskills.net/relationship.html
//////////////////////CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPN=http://timepass.onlyfanpics.com/?thenewtitanic
///////////////////////The Day The Earth Nearly Died - programme summary
250 million years ago, long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the land and oceans teemed with life. This was the Permian, a golden era of biodiversity that was about to come to a crashing end. Within just a few thousand years, 95% of the lifeforms on the planet would be wiped out, in the biggest mass extinction Earth has ever known. What natural disaster could kill on such a massive scale? It is only in recent years that evidence has begun to emerge from rocks in Antarctica, Siberia and Greenland.
"At the end of the Permian you'd see virtually nothing alive"
Professor Peter Ward, University of Washington
The demise of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago (at the so-called K/T boundary), was as nothing compared to the Permian mass extinction. The K/T event killed off 60% of life on Earth; the Permian event 95%. Geological data to explain the destruction have been hard to find, simply because the rocks are so old and therefore subject to all kinds of erosion processes. It seems plausible that some kind of catastrophic environmental change must have made life untenable across vast swathes of the planet.
250 million years ago, long before dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the land and oceans teemed with life. This was the Permian, a golden era of biodiversity that was about to come to a crashing end. Within just a few thousand years, 95% of the lifeforms on the planet would be wiped out, in the biggest mass extinction Earth has ever known. What natural disaster could kill on such a massive scale? It is only in recent years that evidence has begun to emerge from rocks in Antarctica, Siberia and Greenland.
"At the end of the Permian you'd see virtually nothing alive"
Professor Peter Ward, University of Washington
The demise of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago (at the so-called K/T boundary), was as nothing compared to the Permian mass extinction. The K/T event killed off 60% of life on Earth; the Permian event 95%. Geological data to explain the destruction have been hard to find, simply because the rocks are so old and therefore subject to all kinds of erosion processes. It seems plausible that some kind of catastrophic environmental change must have made life untenable across vast swathes of the planet.
///////////////////
The Day The Earth Nearly Died - questions and answers
Can we estimate how much life there was on Earth before the Permian extinction events?
We have no way of knowing how densely the Permian world was inhabited or how large the different animal populations were because the fossil record is too patchy and inaccurate. However we do know that what was significant about the Permian world was that, for the first time, practically every ecological niche was occupied. This was a self-sustaining world as complete, in its way, as ours is today. In fact this was the first time such a complete array of creatures had existed.
Moreover we know that some of these creatures were in the process of evolving into mammals and were, therefore evolutionarily, extremely sophisticated. The early dinosaur period, which followed the Permian extinction, was much less sophisticated. In this sense, the Permian extinction marks a step back in evolution. Indeed it's doubtful the early dinosaurs - which were evolutionarily rather primitive - would have been able to find a niche in the world had the more advanced animals of the Permian world not been wiped out. In other words, the Permian extinction probably cleared the way for the dinosaurs and if there hadn't been a Permian extinction, there may not have been any dinosaurs.
What proportion of plants and animals survived the end of the Permian?
The Permian extinction wiped out around 95% of all life on earth. By contrast the extinction which ended the reign of the dinosaurs killed a mere 65% of all life. Almost all scientists agree the Permian extinction was the biggest recorded event of its kind in the history of the world.
What new information does this insight into Permian extinction offer on dinosaur extinction, 200 million years later?
The Permian extinction, and the later K/T extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs, have led some scientists to suggest that extinctions are a normal part of evolution; that the extinction of one species clears the way for the next. Thus the extinction of the Permian's thorapsids, or mammal-like creatures, cleared the way for the early reptilian dinosaurs, and the extinction of the dinosaurs cleared the way for mammals. If this is true then evolution is not a smooth process of advance but is marked by steps and even reverses.
It may also be true that there is an intimate relationship between the evolution of life and the physical/geological development of the earth. In other words as the earth has undergone geological change, so have the animals that have lived on it. Geology and evolution go hand in hand, each throwing light on the other.
What theories are there for how such a large animal as lystrosaurus could have weathered the climate warming by 10°C?
Lystrosaurus was a herbivore and is believed to be the ancestor of every mammal now on Earth. Nobody really knows why some animals survived the extinction and others didn't. In particular we can only guess at why lystrosaurus was the only thorapsid (mammal-like creature) to survive. Paleontologists speculate, from looking at its fossil remains, that it may have had a particularly well adapted jaw or mouth which enabled it to eat tough woody vegetation and thus survive in desert like conditions. This is only an informed guess.
Why does Greenland have such useful geological records for this period?
The Permian geological record is extremely patchy across the world. This is partly because it was such a long time ago (roughly 290 million - 250 million years ago) and has been overlain or disrupted by later geological activity, and partly because many parts of the Permian world - and in particular most of what is now Europe and North America - were hot and desert like and the fossil record vaporised. Thus the Permian rocks in Britain, for instance, are mostly a red sandstone which contains no fossils; some of the bst examples of this are along the dorset coast in the cliffs around budleigh salterton.
One of the results of this absence of Permian fossils in Europe and North America is that, for many years, scientists were extremely ignorant about the Permian period. This ignorance has been exacerbated by the fact that, by a perverse set of accidental circumstances, the best Permian fossil records tend to be in some of the most physically or politically challenging places which have been extremely expensive or politically difficult to visit. As a result it's only in recent years that scientists have begun to collect accurate data on the period.
Does the theory rule out the possibility of an asteroid sparking off the extinction period? Could the extensive movement of continents since then not have erased any huge impact crater?
The debate about what caused the Permian extinction remains unresolved. The weight of evidence currently tends to discount a large meteor as the culprit and to favour a multicausal explanation: probably volcanism and methane. But new evidence could, once again, turn all this on its head. It is possible that somebody may, one day, find the crucial evidence of a meteor impact that is currently missing. It may be that the impact crater, for instance, has been buried under later geological activity, or is hidden on the bottom of an ocean. All we can say for sure is that nobody has yet found all the usual indicators of a large meteor impact. That doesn't mean they do not exist.
Is there any pattern emerging in the timing of such mass extinctions?
No. There is no apparent pattern to the timing of the different extinction events in the Earth's history. However, if it's true that the geological evolution of the Earth is related to the evolution of life on Earth, then if, in the future, geology becomes a predictive science then we may be able to predict future extinctions. Indeed to the extent that we are correctly predicting global warming we may already be partly along this road. What we don't know, with any certainty, is how adaptable life, in all its different guises, is to change.
How much of a threat to global climate change is there still from sub-sea methane hydrate?
The existence of huge reservoirs of frozen methane hydrate around the world's coasts is a relatively recent discovery and nobody knows quite how unstable it is or what it would take, today, to melt it. Scientists calculate that a global increase of 10°C might have been sufficient to release frozen methane hydrate during the Permian period but nobody knows whether that would be sufficient under today's conditions. What is clear, however, is that should it be released, huge quantities of greenhouse gases would escape into the atmosphere and the world would very rapidly warm up.
The Day The Earth Nearly Died - questions and answers
Can we estimate how much life there was on Earth before the Permian extinction events?
We have no way of knowing how densely the Permian world was inhabited or how large the different animal populations were because the fossil record is too patchy and inaccurate. However we do know that what was significant about the Permian world was that, for the first time, practically every ecological niche was occupied. This was a self-sustaining world as complete, in its way, as ours is today. In fact this was the first time such a complete array of creatures had existed.
Moreover we know that some of these creatures were in the process of evolving into mammals and were, therefore evolutionarily, extremely sophisticated. The early dinosaur period, which followed the Permian extinction, was much less sophisticated. In this sense, the Permian extinction marks a step back in evolution. Indeed it's doubtful the early dinosaurs - which were evolutionarily rather primitive - would have been able to find a niche in the world had the more advanced animals of the Permian world not been wiped out. In other words, the Permian extinction probably cleared the way for the dinosaurs and if there hadn't been a Permian extinction, there may not have been any dinosaurs.
What proportion of plants and animals survived the end of the Permian?
The Permian extinction wiped out around 95% of all life on earth. By contrast the extinction which ended the reign of the dinosaurs killed a mere 65% of all life. Almost all scientists agree the Permian extinction was the biggest recorded event of its kind in the history of the world.
What new information does this insight into Permian extinction offer on dinosaur extinction, 200 million years later?
The Permian extinction, and the later K/T extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs, have led some scientists to suggest that extinctions are a normal part of evolution; that the extinction of one species clears the way for the next. Thus the extinction of the Permian's thorapsids, or mammal-like creatures, cleared the way for the early reptilian dinosaurs, and the extinction of the dinosaurs cleared the way for mammals. If this is true then evolution is not a smooth process of advance but is marked by steps and even reverses.
It may also be true that there is an intimate relationship between the evolution of life and the physical/geological development of the earth. In other words as the earth has undergone geological change, so have the animals that have lived on it. Geology and evolution go hand in hand, each throwing light on the other.
What theories are there for how such a large animal as lystrosaurus could have weathered the climate warming by 10°C?
Lystrosaurus was a herbivore and is believed to be the ancestor of every mammal now on Earth. Nobody really knows why some animals survived the extinction and others didn't. In particular we can only guess at why lystrosaurus was the only thorapsid (mammal-like creature) to survive. Paleontologists speculate, from looking at its fossil remains, that it may have had a particularly well adapted jaw or mouth which enabled it to eat tough woody vegetation and thus survive in desert like conditions. This is only an informed guess.
Why does Greenland have such useful geological records for this period?
The Permian geological record is extremely patchy across the world. This is partly because it was such a long time ago (roughly 290 million - 250 million years ago) and has been overlain or disrupted by later geological activity, and partly because many parts of the Permian world - and in particular most of what is now Europe and North America - were hot and desert like and the fossil record vaporised. Thus the Permian rocks in Britain, for instance, are mostly a red sandstone which contains no fossils; some of the bst examples of this are along the dorset coast in the cliffs around budleigh salterton.
One of the results of this absence of Permian fossils in Europe and North America is that, for many years, scientists were extremely ignorant about the Permian period. This ignorance has been exacerbated by the fact that, by a perverse set of accidental circumstances, the best Permian fossil records tend to be in some of the most physically or politically challenging places which have been extremely expensive or politically difficult to visit. As a result it's only in recent years that scientists have begun to collect accurate data on the period.
Does the theory rule out the possibility of an asteroid sparking off the extinction period? Could the extensive movement of continents since then not have erased any huge impact crater?
The debate about what caused the Permian extinction remains unresolved. The weight of evidence currently tends to discount a large meteor as the culprit and to favour a multicausal explanation: probably volcanism and methane. But new evidence could, once again, turn all this on its head. It is possible that somebody may, one day, find the crucial evidence of a meteor impact that is currently missing. It may be that the impact crater, for instance, has been buried under later geological activity, or is hidden on the bottom of an ocean. All we can say for sure is that nobody has yet found all the usual indicators of a large meteor impact. That doesn't mean they do not exist.
Is there any pattern emerging in the timing of such mass extinctions?
No. There is no apparent pattern to the timing of the different extinction events in the Earth's history. However, if it's true that the geological evolution of the Earth is related to the evolution of life on Earth, then if, in the future, geology becomes a predictive science then we may be able to predict future extinctions. Indeed to the extent that we are correctly predicting global warming we may already be partly along this road. What we don't know, with any certainty, is how adaptable life, in all its different guises, is to change.
How much of a threat to global climate change is there still from sub-sea methane hydrate?
The existence of huge reservoirs of frozen methane hydrate around the world's coasts is a relatively recent discovery and nobody knows quite how unstable it is or what it would take, today, to melt it. Scientists calculate that a global increase of 10°C might have been sufficient to release frozen methane hydrate during the Permian period but nobody knows whether that would be sufficient under today's conditions. What is clear, however, is that should it be released, huge quantities of greenhouse gases would escape into the atmosphere and the world would very rapidly warm up.
///////////////////IRIDIUM-COMMON CONTENT OF METEORS
/////////////////////// It's called the Permian mass extinction and it was the worst disaster ever to hit earth-250 mya
/////////////////////INTERNET EXPLORIAN OR COMPUTER GEEKUS
////////////////////FAV ART=http://www.monicel.info/2007/09/16/fruit-and-veggie-art/
///////////////////TIGERS-NEARLY GONE=http://thirdeyedumb.com/2007/05/tigers_amazing_wildcats.html
//////////////////HALLOWEEN=NIGHTMARE B4 CHRISTMAS
///////////////////////
///////////////////////
//////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment