Stupid question, but there have been a number of high profile fossil forgeries in China over the last few years and my understanding is that these are largely done by destroying other fossils of the type to fool tests that rely on the chemical composition being wrong. Is that easier or harder to get away with things like this that have few close parallels?
I think it's kind of hard to destroy unremarkable fossils so they not only 1) appear as unknown taxa 2) and are well-preserved, but also 3) create a complete Lagerstätte where palaeontologists can just go and dig up more of them.
It was part of the ocean. The Eurasian landmass was not yet established and in large parts submerged. The bulk of the landmass of what is now central/eastern Asia developed during the late carboniferous / early permian era, due to colliding tectonic plates that would form the continent of pangaea.
An interesting fact is that the Cambiran was one of the most prosperous periods for biodiversity on Earth. Yet, global warming opponents would want you to believe the higher temperatures of that time period are actually a bad thing.
What I never understood is why suddenly higher temperatures are such a disaster while all evidence points to a warmer climate being a good thing for the biosphere.
All of the Cambrian biodiversity was underwater, with nothing larger than bacteria on land. Would you consider it a good thing if the world suddenly flooded?
(In case the point isn't clear: even if we exactly reverted to Cambrian conditions, that would be Bad for humans (there were no humans in the Cambrian) - but that wouldn't happen anyway, what would actually happen is everything would die from the sudden shock.)
I hope you aren't just trying to be cute but here is what I think:
They are a disaster because we have found some equilibrium with the current state. When temperatures change there will probably have to be mass migrations of people from areas that became inhabitable to places that became habitable. I believe in the long run we'll be fine but in the short run you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant.
They’re a disaster when you consider the human suffering and impact on the biodiversity of the species currently living. It doesn’t matter if biodiversity ends up great over the next millennia if large portions (or all) of humanity die off and suffer during an adjustment period. People are concerned about the earth and environment but they’re also worried about humans because they’re humans too.
You’ve built a straw man and can’t understand why it burns so brightly.
Go look up the PT or KT extinction events. The PT was particularly traumatic and involved significant runaway warming, including possibly the firing of the "clathrate gun".
In general the point is, dramatic changes in the climate may be good for future evolved life forms, but they will suck for existing ones.
Stupid question, but there have been a number of high profile fossil forgeries in China over the last few years and my understanding is that these are largely done by destroying other fossils of the type to fool tests that rely on the chemical composition being wrong. Is that easier or harder to get away with things like this that have few close parallels?
I think it's kind of hard to destroy unremarkable fossils so they not only 1) appear as unknown taxa 2) and are well-preserved, but also 3) create a complete Lagerstätte where palaeontologists can just go and dig up more of them.
Does this mean that this area was a sea (or a lake) in the Cambrian where these creatures lived?
It was part of the ocean. The Eurasian landmass was not yet established and in large parts submerged. The bulk of the landmass of what is now central/eastern Asia developed during the late carboniferous / early permian era, due to colliding tectonic plates that would form the continent of pangaea.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswmqx - More here from 07:40. Amazing stuff
I'm impressed by the jellyfish fossil.
I'm amazed at how recognizable so many of these critters are, half a billion years on.
An interesting fact is that the Cambiran was one of the most prosperous periods for biodiversity on Earth. Yet, global warming opponents would want you to believe the higher temperatures of that time period are actually a bad thing.
I don't think "opponents of global warming" are concerned about the higher temperatures of that time period.
What I never understood is why suddenly higher temperatures are such a disaster while all evidence points to a warmer climate being a good thing for the biosphere.
All of the Cambrian biodiversity was underwater, with nothing larger than bacteria on land. Would you consider it a good thing if the world suddenly flooded?
(In case the point isn't clear: even if we exactly reverted to Cambrian conditions, that would be Bad for humans (there were no humans in the Cambrian) - but that wouldn't happen anyway, what would actually happen is everything would die from the sudden shock.)
I hope you aren't just trying to be cute but here is what I think:
They are a disaster because we have found some equilibrium with the current state. When temperatures change there will probably have to be mass migrations of people from areas that became inhabitable to places that became habitable. I believe in the long run we'll be fine but in the short run you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant.
> you will see a lot of conflict and war to fight for resources. This won't be pleasant.
So in other words, like all of human history?
They’re a disaster when you consider the human suffering and impact on the biodiversity of the species currently living. It doesn’t matter if biodiversity ends up great over the next millennia if large portions (or all) of humanity die off and suffer during an adjustment period. People are concerned about the earth and environment but they’re also worried about humans because they’re humans too.
You’ve built a straw man and can’t understand why it burns so brightly.
Go look up the PT or KT extinction events. The PT was particularly traumatic and involved significant runaway warming, including possibly the firing of the "clathrate gun".
In general the point is, dramatic changes in the climate may be good for future evolved life forms, but they will suck for existing ones.
Did you mean to say "clathrate gun"?
Yes, a thousand curses on the creators of autocorrect.
One reason it is bad is that the temperature rise is happening at least two orders of magnitude faster than in the past, so evolution can't keep up.
Another is that maybe a billion people live in areas that would become uninhabitable.