# Salamanders "Completely Gone" Due to Global Warming?



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

wow 


Salamanders "Completely Gone" Due to Global Warming?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

man thats terrible. we really need to find fast acting ways to stop all the destruction we are doing, and find a cure for chytrid that can be applied in huge numbers or something.

i wonder how many went extinct before we could discover them?


----------



## elscotto (Mar 1, 2005)

Thanks for posting the link. Very interesting and sad study, but It's really too bad that an organization like National Geographic did such a terrible job with their headline about the PNAS paper. Looks like they really wanted to hype the story, when the story is remarkable enough as it is.

The headline should have stated "Two salamanders completely gone", for instance, instead of "Salamanders completely gone..." And they quote the paper author, David Wake, as saying ""we have no evidence that either chytrid or climate change is responsible for the declines," yet National Geographic feels compelled to put ...due to global warming?" in their headline. 

There is enough hard science supporting the very real phenomenon of global warming without putting it into every headline just to get readers. It's unfortunate, though, that chytrid is associated with a percentage of remaining salamanders. I'd put money on chytridiomycosis as the decline culprit if they publish furthur results.
-Scott



Philsuma said:


> wow
> 
> 
> Salamanders "Completely Gone" Due to Global Warming?


----------



## Ontariofrogger1973 (Oct 18, 2008)

wow i feel like these kinda sad post come up all the time. 

question: when will they stop coming?


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

RichardTexasherp said:


> wow i feel like these kinda sad post come up all the time.
> 
> question: when will they stop coming?


Richard,

Is my post off base or out of line or are you upset with the "bad news" type aspect of the linked article?

Just asking...


----------



## Ontariofrogger1973 (Oct 18, 2008)

huh? im confused. no, im just tired of amphibians going extinct. i think that its good that we post this stuff, so we can know whats going on in the world.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Philsuma said:


> Richard,
> 
> Is my post off base or out of line or are you upset with the "bad news" type aspect of the linked article?
> 
> Just asking...


it was kind of odd wording in the post. I can see why you were questioning.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

Ok....my bad.

I thought maybe I was possibly posting something that had already made the rounds or was otherwise, not "good" for lack of better words.

I tried to search and make sure I wasn't duplicating another thread.

I agree totally, of course. So sad to keep hearing about the die off due to multiple things.


----------



## Ontariofrogger1973 (Oct 18, 2008)

i wasnt questioning anyone in particular, it was more of a rehtorical question. lol


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

Hasn't this happened in the past with many species of Salamanders. I seem to remember a story a few years ago about a couple of species that they thought were extinct which seemed to be back and thriving.

I also urge people to read both sides of the Global Warming Debate. I'm not trying to start a big debate but clearly we do not understand all of the aspects that go into Global Warming or the trends associated with our Planet. I know when I was in school they were telling us the next Ice Age maybe only a few years away...


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

kyle1745 said:


> I also urge people to read both sides of the Global Warming Debate. I'm not trying to start a big debate but clearly we do not understand all of the aspects that go into Global Warming or the trends associated with our Planet. I know when I was in school they were telling us the next Ice Age maybe only a few years away...


This.

Also, as heavily as it weighs on my heart to see entire species going to ruin due to human intervention, you can't deny that extinction is part of the natural order. I'm not trying to release us from blame nowadays, but species were dying off long before **** sapiens started helping out.


----------



## elscotto (Mar 1, 2005)

Marinarawr said:


> This.
> 
> Also, as heavily as it weighs on my heart to see entire species going to ruin due to human intervention, you can't deny that extinction is part of the natural order. I'm not trying to release us from blame nowadays, but species were dying off long before **** sapiens started helping out.


Yes, you're correct that extinction is part of the natural order. But to make that statement and leave it as such would be incredibly misleading. The current rate of species loss is extraordinary. Estimates of current extinction rates indicate that organisms are being lost at ORDERS of magnitude (that is, 100 to 10,000 times) higher than historical rates of extinction. Additionally, overall biodiversity generally recovered after each previous major mass extinctions, leading to the incredible amount of diversity we see today. The difference now is that the current decrease in species diversity may become permanent due to the widespread destruction of habitat. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find peer-reviewed, journal-published, scholarly research by biologists or ecologists that would assert either that we are not: (1) facing a human-caused mass extinction event; and, (2) undergoing global climate change.
-Scott


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

I didn't want to start a discussion about how horribly humans are damaging the earth... That's why I said "I'm not releasing us from blame" . I'm sorry that I came across as being very nonchalant about the topic. It wasn't my intention.


----------



## elscotto (Mar 1, 2005)

Marinarawr said:


> I didn't want to start a discussion about how horribly humans are damaging the earth... That's why I said "I'm not releasing us from blame" . I'm sorry that I came across as being very nonchalant about the topic. It wasn't my intention.


Marina-
I understand, and I probably shouldn't have taken the previous posts off topic. But to clarify, my comment wasn't aimed at you or anyone else in particular (though it came across that way because I included the quote), and I didn't find your comment to be nonchalant. It's just that I've heard some people in the media use that rationale about previous extinction events over and over again, and then eventually people tend to repeat it without neccesaily understanding how misleading it is. I'll drop it now. Sorry, I didn't mean to attack, I just wanted to throw some other facts into the thread.
-Scott


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

elscotto said:


> Yes, you're correct that extinction is part of the natural order. But to make that statement and leave it as such would be incredibly misleading. The current rate of species loss is extraordinary. Estimates of current extinction rates indicate that organisms are being lost at ORDERS of magnitude (that is, 100 to 10,000 times) higher than historical rates of extinction. Additionally, overall biodiversity generally recovered after each previous major mass extinctions, leading to the incredible amount of diversity we see today. The difference now is that the current decrease in species diversity may become permanent due to the widespread destruction of habitat. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find peer-reviewed, journal-published, scholarly research by biologists or ecologists that would assert either that we are not: (1) facing a human-caused mass extinction event; and, (2) undergoing global climate change.
> -Scott


Estimates from who? Do they get money from the government? Because if they do, then the disproval of global warming puts many of them out of a job. Truth...gotta love it.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

elscotto said:


> Marina-
> It's just that I've heard some people in the media use that rationale about previous extinction events over and over again, and then eventually people tend to repeat it without neccesaily understanding how misleading it is.
> -Scott


Excuse me, but telling someone that the environments of earth are constantly changing, and that these changes affect the species that live here, sometimes with extinction, is not misleading...it's called the truth.

What hard evidence do you have other than what some grant funded "scientist" tells you? I've been watching nature for 42 years with INTENT, not listening to others...and when it comes to climate change...it's like, "Uhhh....yeah...never stops, actually." Oh...good morning, Mr Sun! Mr. Gigantic ball of flaming gas!

Folks, anything that is on fire, is 93 million miles away, and YOU CAN FEEL AND SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE...should be a major part of any debate on climate at all times. If you don't see this...well, frankly...you're just in the way.

SAVE THE HUMANS! Real jobs are overrated.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Smashtoad said:


> What hard evidence do you have other than what some grant funded "scientist" tells you?



Some comments,


1) This thread now needs to be moved to the lounge as it has been moved away from the original thread.. 

2) So you're alleging that climate change/global warming is a hoax perpetuated by grant funded scientists to remain employed? Does that sum up your position correctly? 
If it is a hoax being perpetuated by grant funded scientists then it must contain thousands of people from multiple disciplines to maintain this hoax. 

So what do the scientists that are not funded by govermental grants from the USA get from perpetuating this supposed hoax? This would elevate the hoax to a global conspiracy by scientists.... who outside of the USA are not getting grants from the USA goverment. So what do those scientists get out of helping the USA scientists perpetuate a hoax that keeps the USA scientists in a job as you allege? The scientists outside of the USA would get the same support from thier goverment if they were disproving the research.. 

The larger the number of people involved in a conspiracy the harder it is to hide it particularly when you have thousands of people involved in it so it would be interesting to hear your idea on how a global conspiracy of this magnitude was kept secret from the public and the media.... 


There isn't even a need to apply an argument of evidence or lack of evidence of climate change/global warming to this argument of a conspiracy to keep scientists employed. A simple application of Occam's Razor to the argument of a conspiracy of this magnitude should make anyone consider this with extreme skepticism.


Ed


----------



## frogparty (Dec 27, 2007)

I like your style, Ed.
Some people prefer the term "global climate change" as some areas cool and others heat up. There is also the issue of the redistribution of percipitation and the desertification of land. The sahara gets bigger every year. My summers are getting hotter, but my winters are getting worse


----------



## basshummper (Jan 13, 2008)

i know my last years temps for my hometown was +1* higher then the average. i know there’s a lot of bad associated with global warming, but the one nice thing is i'm burning less wood in the winter.


----------



## jpg (Jan 3, 2009)

> RichardTexasherp
> Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008
> Posts: 98
> 
> ...


They wont stop coming until Humans are extinct .


----------



## basshummper (Jan 13, 2008)

Oh my God... I'm back. I'm home. All the time it was... we finally really did it. YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! OH, DAMN YOU! GODDAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-planet of the apes ^_^


----------



## Estrato (Jan 6, 2009)

jpg said:


> They wont stop coming until Humans are extinct .


Like people have been saying, species were going extinct long before we were here and they will be going extinct long after were gone. I just refuse to believe humans are causing some great global meltdown when volcanic emissions and decaying plant material release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we do. I dont deny a global climate change, Im just saying its a bit funny to me to think were responsible for it when its been shown were on the tail end of a mini ice age.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Estrato said:


> Like people have been saying, species were going extinct long before we were here and they will be going extinct long after were gone. I just refuse to believe humans are causing some great global meltdown when volcanic emissions and decaying plant material release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we do. I dont deny a global climate change, Im just saying its a bit funny to me to think were responsible for it when its been shown were on the tail end of a mini ice age.


It`s called balancing the equation. Before we were here there were a lot more stores for the carbon we have been emitting. Now we`re pulling up ancient carbon and harvesting fields yearly to feed ourselves. We`ve tilted the balance of the equation too heavily toward causing more carbon to enter the atmosphere and we`re taking away a lot of ways to take it out. It`s also the rate of extinction. We`ve accelerated it tremendously beyond "normal". I`m not saying we aren`t exacerbating or speeding up what MIGHT have been happening but you can`t say, w/ our ubiquity on this planet, we aren`t having a profound affect.


----------



## jehitch (Jun 8, 2007)

Philsuma said:


> wow
> 
> 
> Salamanders "Completely Gone" Due to Global Warming?





> Species that could be seen 10 to 15 times an hour in the 1970s were "completely gone."


Completely anecdotal experience: a couple years ago I was out hunting in the Michigan woods, and seeing no birds, decided to do what I used to do in the 1970s - turn over logs and rocks and look for salamanders. I remember finding dozens of them per day as a kid, and this time I spent all morning looking without finding any.

I'm no scientist, but either I've lost my knack for herping, or there's fewer of them out there.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

And no offense, but, we have been saying we couldn`t destroy our oceans, we couldn`t drive species to extinction, we couldn`t put a hole in our ozone, we couldn`t pollute water enough to have it start on fire, these lawn chemicals couldn`t have synergistic effects and kill our kids, ddt is so safe we can spray it all over people in a pool and they won`t be harmed, etc.etc.etc. When does it get to be the reverse of the boy who cried wolf and we start erring on the side of caution? You realize this is a big one people, if we get it wrong.
And I personally worked on the ongoing study in the adirondacks at moss lake on salamander population study. Acidification of the dacks caused the # of salamanders found to reduce from 60+ found when flipping over 50 logs in the 70`s to none found from 90-93. Temperature data wasn`t as profound as acidification for this area. But the coal burning power plants, which conflict w/ carbon emission rates, is the same root cause.


----------



## Estrato (Jan 6, 2009)

frogfarm said:


> And no offense, but, we have been saying we couldn`t destroy our oceans, we couldn`t drive species to extinction, we couldn`t put a hole in our ozone, we couldn`t pollute water enough to have it start on fire, these lawn chemicals couldn`t have synergistic effects and kill our kids, ddt is so safe we can spray it all over people in a pool and they won`t be harmed, etc.etc.etc. When does it get to be the reverse of the boy who cried wolf and we start erring on the side of caution? You realize this is a big one people, if we get it wrong.



And 30 years ago we were supposed to have a great global freeze instead of a global warming. Weve been wrong about as many things as weve been right, and more than likely more wrong than right. But I'm saying whatever temperature changes the world is going through right now would still be happening whether or not man reached this industrial era. Now things like chemical dumping, deforestation, hunting to species to the point of extinction etc. definitely do have a negative impact and I'm not sure theres anybody who would argue otherwise, but I dont think were responsible for warming our planet up. I just read an article where some think our temperature fluctuation is due to cycles of the sun, which I think is safe to say has a bigger impact on our climate than anything else.


----------



## jehitch (Jun 8, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> And I personally worked on the ongoing study in the adirondacks at moss lake on salamander population study. Acidification of the dacks caused the # of salamanders found to reduce from 60+ found when flipping over 50 logs in the 70`s to none found from 90-93. Temperature data wasn`t as profound as acidification for this area. But the coal burning power plants, which conflict w/ carbon emission rates, is the same root cause.


So we have two scientific studies, and my anecdotal evidence in at least two separate biomes (maybe three, I was hunting in lowland temperate forest; would that part of the dacks be considered montane?) showing a decrease in salamanders. A quick google of "salamander population decrease" salamander population decrease - Google Search produces more than 50,000 hits. That sounds like a trend.

While I agree that the article that started this doesn't support the headline written for it (this comes from someone who once wrote the headline "Magic fills the air in Colon" for a magic festival in - you guessed it, Colon, Mich.) we have to start figuring out what is causing the decline. 

It seems that some biological version of the law of inertia would indicate that something would have to be affecting salamander populations, or they would remain constant. Much as a doctor would start by looking at the most obvious (and easily treatable) cause for symptoms, shouldn't we take the same route and guess it might be humans causing the change - unless some other evidence trumps this hypothesis? 

The next logical step would be to test the hypothesis: Change the behaviors that we believe are causing the population declines. One of two things should result: populations rebound, or they continue to decline. In either case, we end up with a less polluted world in which to live, which seems a positive result.

No offense to those who disagree with it, but simply arguing against human-caused climate change achieves no result at all.
___
Jim


----------



## Ontariofrogger1973 (Oct 18, 2008)

i definetly feel like we have caused alot of problems for animals/amphibians

habitat loss is one big reason why amphibians are declining( on top of everything else). and you cant say thats not our fault.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Estrato said:


> And 30 years ago we were supposed to have a great global freeze instead of a global warming. Weve been wrong about as many things as weve been right, and more than likely more wrong than right.


This statement requires at least a comment... The problem with trying to link this with the current discussion about the climate is that we have made significant progress not only with the understanding of climate effects but with the tools we use to make those models and predictions. To make a comparision....this would be similar to comparing the DNA testing available in the late 1970s to the PCR technology today or cancer treatments from the same time frame to the treatments available today. The differences are so significant that it has effectively become an apples and oranges comparision. 

As a further comment, a look into the real climate literature of the time shows that the supposed global cooling of the 1970s never had a real scientific consensus but instead was popularized in the media and in populist literature (such as the now famous 1975 Newsweek article....). In reality the consensus was that more data was needed.... 



Estrato said:


> But I'm saying whatever temperature changes the world is going through right now would still be happening whether or not man reached this industrial era.


Unfortunately in the real literature, this is very much the minority opinion. It is however very much a populist position in a number of non-peer reviewed scientific literatures that propose that it is a natural cycle. The problem with this assumption, is that if we look at the fossil records, whenever there has been a signficiant increase in the greenhouse gases, it meant real problem for the biosphere and in a number of occasions has resulted in massive extinctions on land and the ocean. 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

So I have a few comments.

First, Smashtoad, we can look through the fossil record and approximate what the "natural" rate of extinction over time. We then look at the rate of extinction we see today. That rate is far more than any rate of extinction we've seen (with maybe one exception of the Permian extinction where 95% of all life went extinct, but that said, there are scientists who think that we are now in the age of the largest extinction event this earth has seen). It has nothing to do with global warming or not, just looking at records.

Second, in regards to humans influencing global warming or not. I doubt that anyone would argue Newton's Third Law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Do you people who don't think that humans are influencing honestly think that our actions of putting CO2 into the atmosphere (increasing it from ~280ppm in the late 1800s to over 380ppm today) has no effect on the climate?

Third, just as a hypothetical situation. For those of you skeptical that don't believe that humans are influencing global warming, suspend your beliefs for this situation. Say that global warming not only is happening, but we're influencing it and it's increasing at a rate far faster than normal. Just take a moment and think of what this means for the environment. Temperatures increase and what does that mean for humidity, moisture, and clouds? As temperatures increase, areas will dry more quickly. Humidity will drop, and there will be less cloud cover. Now, what animals would be most affected by such changes? Amphibians, specifically, amphibians that are not restricted to water, which happen to be most salamanders, especially many plethodontids. Frogs will be affected, too, of course, but they won't be as severely affected because they're constantly around water (by and large). Salamanders, by and large, are not. We have many accounts of salamanders disappearing (and to stem ideas that chytrid is causing this, there is little on the study of effects on chytrid, but more importantly, there have been some studies that found that some salamanders have peptides in their skin that seems to prevent chytrid infection). I'll add my accounts of salamanders disappearing. I remember about 10 years ago, I found many tiger salamanders on our property. I haven't seen one since. I haven't seen a salamander, including a Red-Backed Salamander which were very common, on our property in years.

With all of that said, we're seeing these changes as far as the climate goes (less cloud cover, drier conditions, etc). We would unfortunately expect to see these things happening. Loss of salamanders is just the beginning of the effects we'd expect from Global Warming.

All of these are logical conclusions to be made, so I am rather baffled as to why there is such a discussion on it.


----------



## bstorm83 (Jul 16, 2007)

I agree we should do something if we can to help these salamanders but why is everyone so quick to say oh it's definitely "Global Warming" and at that "Man made Global Warming." Why can't it be just an earth cycle and this is just something that is happening.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bstorm83 said:


> I agree we should do something if we can to help these salamanders but why is everyone so quick to say oh it's definitely "Global Warming" and at that "Man made Global Warming." Why can't it be just an earth cycle and this is just something that is happening.


Because the gases that increase the rate at which the earth holds heat are increasing much faster due to human activity then due to any activity at any time outside of major disasters such as massive volcanic eruptions. 
It is something that just happens provided that something is removing the sequestered carbon and liberating it into the atmosphere. A huge majority of the processes that are liberating ssequestered carbon are due to human activity in one way or another.. burning of land to convert to crops, burning of fossil fuels, plowing grassland and converting it to farmland (causes deep root of grasses to decompose and release sequestered carbon), increased numbers of ruminents on land converted from forest to pasture in high densities, use of farm land in a non-sustainable method which results in carbon liberation (manufactured fertilizers are a energy intensive process), 
The carbon is being liberated faster than it can be retaken up and sequestered by natural processes which is a big part of the problem. 

The real literature is pretty conclusive that human activity is having an effect on global warming. The jury is still out on how fast and how much but even a relatively moderate effect is going to be a potential disaster for a lot of people. 

And there can be effects that are interesting. I don't have time to tease out the real paper but this pbs piece sums it up well.. look at the effect contrails have.... NOVA | Dimming the Sun | The Contrail Effect | PBS


----------



## bstorm83 (Jul 16, 2007)

Ed said:


> Because the gases that increase the rate at which the earth holds heat are increasing much faster due to human activity then due to any activity at any time outside of major disasters such as massive volcanic eruptions.
> It is something that just happens provided that something is removing the sequestered carbon and liberating it into the atmosphere. A huge majority of the processes that are liberating ssequestered carbon are due to human activity in one way or another.. burning of land to convert to crops, burning of fossil fuels, plowing grassland and converting it to farmland (causes deep root of grasses to decompose and release sequestered carbon), increased numbers of ruminents on land converted from forest to pasture in high densities, use of farm land in a non-sustainable method which results in carbon liberation (manufactured fertilizers are a energy intensive process),
> The carbon is being liberated faster than it can be retaken up and sequestered by natural processes which is a big part of the problem.
> 
> ...


See I disagree. Of course humans are putting more carbon in the air but the can handle what we are putting out. I don't remember the number but when a volcano erupts it puts out a lot more gases then we could in i think 100 years....i can't remember. But I do believe our earth is going towards a global warming but it is no way man made. We are still in an ice age, well coming out of one. This is all just the normal cycle of things. I am not saying what we are doing is good because anything you can do to help out the earth is good. But what i am saying is the Earth has handled it in the past and it's handling it now.

I know this has to due with weather and not climate but back in my home state for the 2nd year in the row the Global warming conference was canceled due to extreme cold or snow.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

bstorm83 said:


> See I disagree. Of course humans are putting more carbon in the air but the can handle what we are putting out. I don't remember the number but when a volcano erupts it puts out a lot more gases then we could in i think 100 years....i can't remember. But I do believe our earth is going towards a global warming but it is no way man made. We are still in an ice age, well coming out of one. This is all just the normal cycle of things. I am not saying what we are doing is good because anything you can do to help out the earth is good. But what i am saying is the Earth has handled it in the past and it's handling it now.
> 
> I know this has to due with weather and not climate but back in my home state for the 2nd year in the row the Global warming conference was canceled due to extreme cold or snow.


First, I'm going to emphasize "major volcanic eruptions" that Ed had talked about.

Now, that said, we have seen an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280ppm in the late 1800s to over 380ppm today. I do not know of any major volcanic eruptions that have happened in the last 100 years that could have caused that. And I highly doubt that volcanoes have been more active in the last 100 years. It's about Occam's Razor. The only real difference on the planet in the last 100 years has been humans and the industrial age. That is the simplest answer for why the CO2 is increasing. Not that for some unknown reason, volcanoes are being more active in the last 100 years (more active than they've been in the last 400,000 years since we're seeing the highest CO2 levels in that time).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bstorm83 said:


> See I disagree. Of course humans are putting more carbon in the air but the can handle what we are putting out..


see Europe's Terrestrial Biosphere Absorbs 7 to 12% of European Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions -- Janssens et al. 300 (5625): 1538 -- Science for one reference. 




bstorm83 said:


> I don't remember the number but when a volcano erupts it puts out a lot more gases then we could in i think 100 years....i can't remember..


These really are not comparable as the volcanic inputs are not totally consistant, are not consistantly increasing over time and are made up from recycled sedimentary rocks. This is very different than the mining and usage of fossil fuels as well as the releases from other anthropogenic sources. (for a discussion on volcanos see Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies) in general vulcanism (with exceptions like super volcanos) are not considered to be major sources of atmospheric carbon as the source is materials that have been bound up for millions of years.... 
One of the major carbon sinks for this form of carbon emission is oceanic plankton but we are disrupting the natural plankton cycles through pollution, over fishing and other sources (such as warming see Climate Impact on Plankton Ecosystems in the Northeast Atlantic -- Richardson and Schoeman 305 (5690): 1609 -- Science). With the disruption if the major sinks, there is less removal of carbon from the atmosphere. 




bstorm83 said:


> We are still in an ice age, well coming out of one. This is all just the normal cycle of things..


I'm not sure that we are really still coming out of a full ice age (see 'Little Ice Age' summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends -- Bradley and Jonest 3 (4): 367 -- The Holocene). If you are referring to the little ice age.. the results have been over for quite a while and the last real ice age was a sinficant period of time ago (I think but don't quote me, 15,000 years or so ago). If you are referring to the predictions cited in the 1970s I alredy addressed that issue. 



bstorm83 said:


> I am not saying what we are doing is good because anything you can do to help out the earth is good. But what i am saying is the Earth has handled it in the past and it's handling it now.
> .


If you consider mass extinctions handling it.. then sure. (see Massive release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere during intervals of oceanic anoxia -- Kump et al. 33 (5): 397 -- Geology ) The problem is that the normal methods of sequestering the carbon are being throughly disrupted to the point that they cannot keep up with the emission of carbon into the atmosphere (see the first reference I posted) which is why anthropogenic carbon sources are having such an effect. If the methods of sequestering could keep up with the input of carbon (from sources that were safely sequestered) then we would not be seeing the problems that are being documented. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------

