13 Jun 2008

Biodiversity in the Balance

Paleontologists and geologists are looking to the ancient past for clues about whether global warming will result in mass extinctions. What they're finding is not encouraging.
By carl zimmer

Last November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report, a sprawling synthesis of what climate scientists know about global warming. The message was starkly grim — but to appreciate it, you had to spend some time unpacking carefully assembled passages like this:

“There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5oC (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5oC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.”

Translation: While it’s not certain, it’s definitely in the realm of possibility that global warming will put a sizable fraction of the world’s biodiversity at risk of extinction.

If somewhere between 20 and 70 percent of species eventually do become extinct, man-made global warming will have triggered one of the largest bouts of mass extinctions in the history of the planet.

While such a huge die-off is possible, it is by no means certain. One way to narrow those certainties down is to look back at how mass extinctions unfolded in the past. “We cannot run an experiment on the Earth, so there’s a benefit to studying these ancient events,” says Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England.

As is always the case when scientists study things that happened millions of years ago, the clues about mass extinctions are scarce and their mysteries vast. But paleontologists and geologists are still managing to create a fairly detailed picture. And when you place it alongside the picture from the IPCC report, it’s a disturbing one.

The patterns of mass extinctions in the past suggest that the IPCC’s projections of extinctions from global warming are far too conservative. Shooting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn’t simply harm wildlife by raising the average global temperature. It triggers a chain of events that is far more devastating than heat alone.

The most famous mass extinctions were the ones that took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous Period. About half of all species on Earth disappeared; among the victims were most dinosaurs (with the exception of birds).

These mass extinctions became famous thanks to a startling hypothesis scientists made in the late 1970s: The extinctions were caused by the impact of a giant object from space.

Three decades later, an overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that indeed a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid dropped into the Gulf of Mexico. Many scientists argue that the effect of the impact would have been more than enough to cause the Cretaceous mass extinctions. It triggered forest fires, a dark pall that hung over the planet for months, acid rain, and other forms of environmental devastation.

Since the solar system is teeming with asteroids and comets, a number of scientists suggested that impacts might be the trigger for all the mass extinctions on Earth. What few people realize, however, is that today the Cretaceous impact looks like a rare fluke, not a general rule. “Ten years ago, I would have bet that by now some good evidence for another impact-extinction would have emerged,” says James Powell, a geologist who directs the National Physics Science Consortium and author of Night Comes to the Cretaceous. “But so far, it has not.”

Many experts now believe that other mass extinctions did not have an extraterrestrial trigger. An earthbound cause is far more likely: the sudden release of greenhouse gases, leading to rapid global warming.

Long before humans started lofting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Earth was creating its own greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases rise from the interior of the planet through volcanoes and other outlets. They kept the planet far warmer than it would have been without an atmosphere. Over millions of years the levels of greenhouse gases gradually rose and fell, depending both on how much gas the Earth released and how much it was drawing back in as carbon settled on the ocean floor.

Geochemists reconstruct this climate history from the chemistry of rocks that formed at the time. For example, elements found in rocks, such as carbon and oxygen, come in heavy and light forms known as isotopes. The climate when a rock is forming helps determine which isotopes it will end up with. The understanding that comes from these sorts of studies is far from precise, but the margins of uncertainty are shrinking as they invent new ways to extract clues.

As the history of Earth’s climate comes more and more into focus, paleontologists are comparing it to the history of life. They’re discovering some striking parallels. Researchers at the University of York, for example, compared the rate of extinctions over the past 520 million years to changes in the planet’s temperature. They found a consistent pattern. When the planet gets warmer, the diversity of life goes down.

For much of the history of life, the rise of temperature and extinctions was slow, taking millions of years to become detectable. But the history of Earth’s climate has also been punctuated by relatively abrupt changes. And in some cases, those swings have coincided with some of the biggest, fastest bouts of mass extinctions on record.

For experts on mass extinctions, the most interesting time in the history of our planet came 250 million years ago, when the Permian Period ended and the Triassic Period began. “Everyone would agree that it’s the biggest mass extinction of all time,” says Benton. Estimates vary, but it looks as if 80 to 90 percent of all species vanished.

Entire orders were wiped out, snuffing out major lineages in an exceptionally short period of time. The ecological devastation was on a mind-boggling scale. “There are no forests or coral reefs for twenty to thirty million years,” says Benton.

Most experts now agree that these extinctions were probably triggered by a colossal belch of lava in Siberia that occurred at the end of the Permian Period. It was not the explosive volcanic eruption we’re most familiar with, but instead a steady flow of molten rock rising out of the ground for thousands of years. These flood basalts, as they’re known, eventually spread out across a region of Siberia three times as big as Texas.

The flood basalts released huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As the hot lava spread out over limestone and coal deposits, it may have baked them, releasing methane, which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas. “I think that a lot of the greenhouse gases come from the baking and not the lavas themselves,” says Lee Kump, a geochemist at Pennsylvania State University.

With so much carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, temperatures rose drastically, and many scientists suspect that the changing climate alone probably had a devastating effect on biodiversity. Many species just couldn’t adapt to the rapid changes. But heat was only one of several plagues visited on the Earth by the Siberian flood basalts. When carbon dioxide dissolves into sea water, it becomes acidic. In an acidic ocean coral reefs probably couldn’t build their skeletons, and clams and other animals couldn’t build their shells.

The oceans changed in other ways, according to Kump. As it grew warmer, it held less oxygen. The deep ocean suffered the biggest loss, because it was so far from the atmosphere. As the deep ocean lost its oxygen, a new series of chemical and ecological changes took place. Animals and microbes that depended on oxygen struggled to survive. And microbes that could not survive in oxygen-rich water began to thrive.

Some of those microbes, known as sulfate-reducers, are still around today in some places where oxygen is low. “Any time you scoop your hand into some mud on the shore and smell that horrible rotten egg smell, you’ve grabbed billions of sulfate-reducing bacteria,” says Kump.

That horrible smell comes from hydrogen sulfide, a nasty gas the microbes produce as they break down sulfur-bearing compounds. Sometimes know as sewer gas, it’s harmless at low levels. But as the concentration increases, sewer gas can cause headaches and interfere with the nervous system. At higher concentrations, it can kill a person in five minutes. Kump’s research indicates that as sulfate-reducers exploded in the deep ocean, they would have generated enormous amounts of hydrogen sulfide. Together, these two changes to the ocean may have driven many more species extinct.

Recent studies on fossils from 250 million years ago offer some support for this hypothesis. The first species to become extinct lived in the deep ocean, followed by relatives in shallower regions. That’s what you’d expect from an expanding pool of deadly water starved of oxygen and flush with sewer gas.

Eventually the sewer gas would have also reached the atmosphere, although Kump and other researchers have yet to pin down how much would have ended up there. At the moment, Kump doesn’t think there was enough to kill animals or plants directly. But computer models produced by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research indicate that even modest levels of sewer gas would combine with methane to attack the ozone layer. Normally the ozone layer protects life below from dangerous radiation from space. If the sewer gas and methane were potent enough to destroy much of the ozone, the effects could have been devastating.

There’s some evidence to suggest that such devastating effects did in fact take place. For example, some scientists have observed that many fern spore fossils from 250 million years took on freakish shapes. They argue that radiation coming through a weakened ozone layer could have triggered widespread mutations.

The new IPCC report does not delve into any of this research. The projected rates of extinctions they offer are based mostly on studies of a single effect of global warming: how an increase in temperatures will shift the ranges of species. In some cases, computer models suggest, the ranges will expand. In others they will shrink. Species forced into smaller ranges may shrink in population, and thus become more vulnerable to inbreeding, diseases, and various catastrophes. Any extinctions caused by low oxygen in the ocean or a disappearing ozone layer would come on top of extinctions from shifting ranges.

Kump and other experts on past mass extinctions are not ready to start making projections of their own. But they do have a sober piece of news about the current bout of global warming. We are injecting greenhouse gases at a rate, says Kump, “that rivals or exceed anything we’ve seen in the geological record.” If the geological record tells us anything, it’s that such sudden rises of greenhouse gases can trigger huge effects.

But don’t expect to hear a forecast today for clouds of sewer gas to come in off the ocean in the morning. “It’s not something that would happen overnight,” says Kump. It would take thousands of years at the least for significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide to build up. It’s also possible that the chemistry of the ocean today is different in some critical ways compared to 250 million years ago, and will therefore keep sulfate-reducing bacteria in check. “It would be facile to say, ‘This is what’s going to happen,’” says Benton.

Nevertheless, the parallels between then and now are very unsettling for experts on mass extinction. “It’s too horrible to think about,” says Peter Ward, a paleontologist at the University of Washington. It’s also difficult to imagine, because it would not come in our lifetime, or even the lifetime of our great-grandchildren. But that hardly means we can ignore it.


Carl Zimmer writes about science for The New York Times and a number of magazines. A 2007 winner of the National Academies of Science Communication Award, Zimmer is the author of six books, including Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life. He also writes an award-winning blog about science called The Loom.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


I am a geologist and have been wondering for some time now why no one discusses the single largest 800 pound gorilla in the climate change room. I am speaking of the only thing in all of geology that remotely resembles a clock. Since the Mid Pleistocene Transition 800,000 years ago, we have had 7 major ice ages and 6 interglacials, on a 100,000 year Swiss movement. The swings in sea level are 400 feet, or about 200 times what the IPCC says we should experience this century. The highest highstand has been measured at Grand Cayman, a vertically stable island in the Atlantic, at 95 feet above present (after Termination IV), with the lowest and most recent at about 25 feet (after termination I, the Wisconsin ice age).

If we are going to reverse the effects of AGW (stopping that 2 foot rise), I am curious what we will do about all those 400 footers.

Interestingly, each glacial/interglacial couple since the MPT is composed of about 90-95k years of deep freeze and about 5-10k years of natural global warming (those 400 foot rises in sea level accompany these). The present interglacial, the Holocene, is thought to be 11,500 years old, and may be the longest lived one since the MPT. Even more interesting is that all of human civilization has occurred during the Holocene. Just some food for thought.
Posted by Bill McClenney on 14 Jun 2008

Umm... Your piece indicates that mass extinctions are dangerous. And so they are!

What it does NOT indicate is that human CO2 is at all likely to be responsible for such a catastrophe. Why do you pretend that the small effect man is having on the planet is in any way comparable to the vast swings that nature provides from time to time?
Posted by Dodgy Geezer on 14 Jun 2008

I must have missed the part where, in addition to writing about science, you list your degrees and work in climate science.
Posted by LA Grant on 14 Jun 2008

You have said nothing of value. An article rife with maybes, possibles, and "many scientists" speaks volumes for those many other scientists who disagree with what you write.
Posted by Ray Reynolds on 15 Jun 2008

The extinction process now going on is thought to have started with the advent of agriculture 8000 yrs. ago. The latest part of the process of AGW, is created by the industrial revolution. The gases released in the last 200 yrs. are equal to the amount released by agriculture in the last 8000 but the "6th Great Extinction" started with human culture 8000 yrs. ago with the killing off the mastadon pop. by human hunters.
Posted by Gary S on 16 Jun 2008

How unfortunate they didn't have thousands of climate scientists with unverifiable computer models, who have prostituted their science for government funding to warn them of the ensuing danger!
Posted by David Colquitt on 16 Jun 2008

Overall, this entry is a good summary. I would add that we are already causing biodiversity loss through other anthropogenic effects on ecosystems-- invasive species, habitat loss, overfishing, land use change, and habitat fragmentation, among others. And so not only will changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature have direct and indirect effects on species, there will also be interactions with other anthropogenic effects. Biologists have known for a few decades now that we are in the midst of a mass extinction event that our own growing population has caused. That's before before climate change is even factored in. There are no longer pristine ecosystems-- human impacts are now apparent in even remote places. So yes, IPCC was estimating conservatively, and their estimates focused mostly on the shift in species ranges. But it's up to the larger scientific community to make more complex predictions based on multiple factors.
Posted by Jen on 18 Jun 2008

I am living India, we are suffering from climate change horribly. There are lots of reason for climate change in India.
Over population, diminishing forest, unscientfic industrialization, complte uncare of people are main reason of climate change.
Government and common public are neglecting to care for the future effect. We Indians all completely depend on our fate -- let God do what he wants. This all arises from our philosophy. If Indians do not throw away their philosophy even God also not save them
Posted by Ramesh Raghuvanshi on 19 Jun 2008

The IPCC report refers to 20-70 percent of
"species *assessed*" (my emphasis). Carl Zimmer
refers to "between 20 and 70 percent of species".
These are not the same thing.
Posted by dkj on 19 Jun 2008

If warmer = less biodiversity and cooler = more biodiversity, why aren't antarctica and the northern tundras teeming with millions of species, while the equatorial regions remain barren and sterile? Wouldn't it be a strong argument if you could show, across the present planet, how biodiversity decreases as you move from cooler to warmer climate zones?
Posted by Jules Levin on 22 Jun 2008

The answer to the previous post is basic common sense... just try to be inside a greenhouse during summer time, with more than 100 degrees,without water and with no more choices but staying inside.... unless you're very tough or very fast to adapt I think you'd be "decreased".
Posted by Giancarlo Raschio on 23 Jun 2008

Apparently theory trumps reality. The previous comment misses the main point, that on this planet, as a general rule warmer means more biodiversity, colder means less. There are more species per square mile in equatorial regions than in arctic regions. And where do you get the "without water"? Rest assured that with the poles melted, this will be a more humid, not a more arid planet. Maybe it will be less pleasant for Homo sapiens, but it is a political, not a scientific argument, that the biosphere will be diminished.
Posted by Jules Levin on 23 Jun 2008

Why are all the right-wingers so hateful when it comes to acknowledging global warming? It's like a glacier attacked their childhood pet or something. I'd guess less toxic gases spewed out of that Siberian volcano, but that too would just be an unproven hypothesis, so forget I said anything.
Posted by Jon on 01 Jul 2008

I suggest everyone who finds this article even vaguely interesting read Peter Ward's "Under a Green Sky", printed in 2007. It is a radically more thorough investigation of the science presented here. My personal comments are that I am terrified by the future we are creating - we do not understand who we are, how destructively powerful we have become, or how our planet functions. I am also terrified by the ignorance and arrogance displayed in many of the comments here, and understand that they are representative of the general population. I have followed climate change research and reality now for 20 years, and events are transpiring much more quickly than even the most "pessimistic" scientific predictions of that time. I expect the same of today's predictions. Major tipping points may have already been passed. May we awaken, if there is still time.
Posted by Dave Muffly on 07 Jul 2008

Impacts of climate change are appearing as substantial changes in Earth’s biodiversity, the polar ice caps and glaciers, tundra, rain forests, grasslands, forestlands, ocean phytoplankton, etc. Biodiversity is important because it provides fundamental support for all life forms, including us; it is as our essential buffer against diseases, famine, compet-ing species, adverse climatic conditions, and the rapid changes to which we must, but may not always be able to adjust. More and more it appears that we have exceeded and therefore strained our planet’s capability to maintain that support, to tolerate change within our necessity for stable living conditions.
During the past three centuries of growth and maturation of the Industrial Revolution the climate has been quite affable, favorable to humankind’s dramatic increase in numbers, to our waste and alteration of precious natural resources, and our throw-away life style. We have unknowingly relied on Earth’s ability to absorb changes that impact our very existence. First and foremost is the nearly 40 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that increases Earth’s capacity to retain heat energy, evident in the dramatic in-creases in severity and occurrence of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, and fire. This increase in intensity and frequency of storms is a perfectly logical consequence of global warming. More heat in the atmosphere increases the opportunity for clashing air masses with greater differences in temperatures, pressures, and moisture content, three factors of weather. Simply, there is now more energy in the atmosphere, so weather events become more frequent and more violent.
All the foregoing stress is, of course, augmented by the exponential growth of the hu-man population to 6.6 billion, straining our natural resource base to the point where the world’s arable land is barely sufficient to provide food for all. Arable land, energy re-sources, and biodiversity are all severely strained by the dangerous impacts of burning fossil fuels.
It is extremely important, therefore, that we do not further jeopardize the ability of Earth’s biodiversity resource base (support systems) to even run the risk of destroying our ability to survive. Human sustainability is directly dependent upon reducing our de-pendence on oil, not reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Humankind cannot afford further assault on Earth’s biodiversity. It is the principal reason for not drilling for oil in the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It has more important things to do for all of us.

Posted by Peter E. Black on 13 Jul 2008

@ LA Grant:

I must have missed the part where, in addition to writing about science, you list your degrees and work in climate science.

I'm not sure if you realize how journalism works, but you do know that when a journalist writes about the presidential election, for example, it's not considered necessary that they enter the race themselves. Don't you?

You see, when a science journalist writes about climate change, the don't have to do the climate research from scratch. What they do is summarize other people's research in a readable and interesting way. As Mr Zimmer has done here. The experts summarized are quoted liberally throughout the article.
Posted by Anthony Judd on 19 Jul 2008

Climate scientists probably cannot make very accurate predictions of future conditions. But I fail
to see how that changes the fact that it is a good idea to reduce the impact we have on the natural world. Right now we have no idea what changes are beneficial to biodiversity, what are harmful, and what risk throwing everything completely out of wack. I think it's a good idea to wait till the sciences are advanced enough that we can confidently predict what affects our actions will have on the planet before we do anything we regret.

Posted by Mike on 28 Feb 2010



The Legacy of the Man Who Changed Our View of Nature
The 19th-century German scientist Alexander von Humboldt popularized the concept that the natural world is interconnected. In a Yale e360 interview, biographer Andrea Wulf explains how Humboldt’s vision helped create modern environmentalism.

How Warming Is ThreateningThe Genetic Diversity of Species
Research on stoneflies in Glacier National Park indicates that global warming is reducing the genetic diversity of some species, compromising their ability to evolve as conditions change. These findings have major implications for how biodiversity will be affected by climate change.

The Moth Snowstorm: Finding True Value in Nature’s Riches
Journalist Michael McCarthy has chronicled the loss of wildlife in his native Britain and globally. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about why he believes a new defense of the natural world is needed – one based on the joy and spiritual connection it provides for humans.

In New Ozone Alert, A Warning Of Harm to Plants and to People
Scientists are still trying to unravel the damaging effects of ground-level ozone on life on earth. But as the world warms, their concerns about the impact of this highly toxic, pollution-caused gas are growing.

Chocolate in the Jungle: Racing To Save a Disappearing Forest
A runner-up in the 2016 Yale Environment 360 Video Contest tells the story of a small group of Ecuadorians working to preserve remnants of South America’s ecologically rich Chocó Rainforest by sustainably farming cacao.


Donate to Yale Environment 360