a Lurker comments (was J3)
Marshall, C. W.
(12 Jan 2019 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
Evyn MacDude
(13 Jan 2019 21:38 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
shadow@xxxxxx
(18 Jan 2019 16:39 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
Richard Aiken
(24 Jan 2019 00:05 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
shadow@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2019 05:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3) Tim (25 Jan 2019 07:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
shadow@xxxxxx
(26 Jan 2019 16:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
Tim
(26 Jan 2019 23:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] a Lurker comments (was J3)
Bruce Johnson
(27 Jan 2019 19:37 UTC)
|
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:40:31PM -0800, shadow at shadowgard.com (via tml list) wrote: > Short of buildiong a "planet buster", I don't think humanity is > *capable* of affecting the deep rock bacteria ecosystem. If the surface rose to 100 C or so and stayed there, the deep rock temperature would rise enough that no known life form could survive. Granted such a high temperature seems unlikely, especially around the poles. > We'd have trouble doing much to the deep thermal vents ecosystems in > the oceans too. Yes, we'd pretty much have to poison the oceans to wipe out chemosynthetic extremophiles there. Even a surface temperature of 100 C wouldn't kill some of them, since almost all of the ocean would remain liquid and keep the deep water temperature not very much greater than the surface. Sustained surface temperatures of 140 C would likely do it, but about all I can think of to achieve that would be a runaway greenhouse effect. Such an effect could possibly happen, but is thought to be very unlikely while oceans remain. > Even our worst pollution/climate change/extinction scanarios don't > hold a candle to what the discovery of photosynthesis did to life on > earth. Yes, poisoning the entire planet with oxygen and glaciating the Earth almost certainly drove most of the previously living species to extinction. - Tim