@wildgrass saidWhat does that have to do with O2 levels?
The Permian was a 47 MILLION YEAR period of time. 10 million generations of dinosaurs. 3-4 well-documented massive worldwide extinction events happened during that time.
A lot happened. Again, to my earlier point, we need to be careful about geological levels of gases, which do not have the level of granularity to allow cause-effect comparison to modern climates.
What is your point?
@metal-brain saidThe article says the spike was transient and caused by mass extinction, but when they say transient they are referring to a 1 million year period near the end of the Permian.
What does that have to do with O2 levels?
What is your point?
A million years? Just 2% of the Permian epoch. But still long time. Actually they don't know if it was really the entire 1 million, because the data is binned in those increments. It does not have the ability to distinguish between 1 million and 100.
So now you're trying to compare that to our current climate where we have rising CO2 levels on a year over year level? I'm just making the point that you can't make definitive comparisons using drastically different time scales.
@wildgrass saidI don't recall comparing anything to today's climate other than our 21% O2 levels compared to 30% during the permian. That was only to ask where the 9% went to and it is a good question. Nobody can answer it and you are digressing into I don't know what. I seems like you are claiming a mass extinction caused high O2 levels, but that doesn't make sense.
The article says the spike was transient and caused by mass extinction, but when they say transient they are referring to a 1 million year period near the end of the Permian.
A million years? Just 2% of the Permian epoch. But still long time. Actually they don't know if it was really the entire 1 million, because the data is binned in those increments. It does not have t ...[text shortened]... making the point that you can't make definitive comparisons using drastically different time scales.
What are you trying to say? What is your point?
@metal-brain saidMB, there is a repeating pattern here where you seemingly refuse to read the reference material that you yourself are posing on the forum. The article you posted said that about mass extinction. You can read it since you posted it.
I don't recall comparing anything to today's climate other than our 21% O2 levels compared to 30% during the permian. That was only to ask where the 9% went to and it is a good question. Nobody can answer it and you are digressing into I don't know what. I seems like you are claiming a mass extinction caused high O2 levels, but that doesn't make sense.
What are you trying to say? What is your point?
Transiently, a mass global extinction would transiently reduce aerobic respiration on a large scale, which might increase oxygen concentrations. Transiently.
@wildgrass saidWhich link is it that you are referencing?
MB, there is a repeating pattern here where you seemingly refuse to read the reference material that you yourself are posing on the forum. The article you posted said that about mass extinction. You can read it since you posted it.
Transiently, a mass global extinction would transiently reduce aerobic respiration on a large scale, which might increase oxygen concentrations. Transiently.
@wildgrass saidNot the link I posted in my OP. You are mistaken. I think you read a totally different link and have it confused with the one I posted. Adjust your memory.
The op link
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't read your own link, which clearly says massive several hundred thousand years of volcanism increased CO2 levels which acidified the oceans and lowered O2 levels there to the point where most life died out.
I guess you didn't get that far into your own link.
@sonhouse saidThat is NOT what wildgrass said. Apparently you don't read much.
@Metal-Brain
I gather you didn't read your own link, which clearly says massive several hundred thousand years of volcanism increased CO2 levels which acidified the oceans and lowered O2 levels there to the point where most life died out.
I guess you didn't get that far into your own link.
@sonhouse
This is what he wrote:
"Transiently, a mass global extinction would transiently reduce aerobic respiration on a large scale, which might increase oxygen concentrations. Transiently."
Read it. That is not what you said. You two need to get on the same page. I don't think wildgrass was even on the right website. That quote was not even on the link I posted in my OP. He didn't even have his cause and effect in the right order. The high oxygen concentration was before the extinction event, not after.
@Metal-Brain
YOU didn't read it, that is clear.
"Although ancient marine oxygen levels were on a downward trend ahead of the spike and remained low afterward, it's the geologically rapid shift back and forth and long-term oxygen deficiency that seemed to be more detrimental to life than the gradual decrease. The carbon dioxide released during that volcanic eruption caused the Earth's atmosphere to warm, which lowered oxygen in the oceans and caused the oceans to become relatively inhospitable for millions of years."
This is directly from your link.
@sonhouse saidAgain, that is not what wildgrass said.
@Metal-Brain
YOU didn't read it, that is clear.
"Although ancient marine oxygen levels were on a downward trend ahead of the spike and remained low afterward, it's the geologically rapid shift back and forth and long-term oxygen deficiency that seemed to be more detrimental to life than the gradual decrease. The carbon dioxide released during that volcanic eruption cause ...[text shortened]... oceans to become relatively inhospitable for millions of years."
This is directly from your link.
@Metal-Brain
Oh, so you don't want to actually believe your own article but instead want to weaponize it so you can make yourself feel superior which has always been your goal.
@sonhouse saidNo, I want you to know the difference between what the article says and what wildgrass claimed it said. If you want to bring up something in the article I posted in my OP that is fine, but do it in the correct context.
@Metal-Brain
Oh, so you don't want to actually believe your own article but instead want to weaponize it so you can make yourself feel superior which has always been your goal.
You falsely claimed I was wrong about something when wildgrass confused 2 totally different links. Bring up something else separately if you like, but explain where the oxygen went and keep wildgrass out of it. He was wrong.