Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Some Heavy Biology on Climate

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    If we assume what the chaos idiots or robot warmers say is true, then climate is global and should have random features which will drive genetic differences in
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      If we assume what the chaos idiots or robot warmers say is true, then
      climate is global and should have random features which will drive
      genetic differences in a particular manner. Mostly it will be about
      surviving extremes and about genetic complexity. OTOH, if Gaia is as
      I explain it, about EMFs and cirrus and biological feedbacks
      enhancing hydrology to its benefit, then there are very peculiar
      things one would predict about the symbiotic relationships between
      the Archae, which is thought to be the closest genetically to the
      first cellular life, which can be confirmed by the genetics of these
      Archae. Archae are interesting because they are able to survive
      extremes YET they lack genetic complexity. Which is a good way of
      saying that they appear to have first EVOLVED in extreme climate BUT
      THEN didn't have to evolve anymore and their genetics indicate an
      after the chaos kind of requirement simply for reproductive
      efficiency rather than adaptability.

      All life is now presently classified under the headings of eukaryotes
      or complex creatures to include humans, bacterias, and Archae
      bacteria. W/in Archae--there are three main branches. The only intron
      found so far was in the sulfur "branch" and one scholar for this
      reason and a few others (we are talking paleo biology via genetic
      analaysis) wants to put these sulfur extremophiles in a new group.
      So, he would say there are four headings, Eukaryotes or complex
      creatures to include humans, bacterias, methane making and salt
      loving extremophiles, and the sulfur loving extremophiles. According
      to G.J. Olsen's work, the salt loving extremophiles are more related
      to the methanogens but also distant. Bacteria and complex life are
      very very distant. The very closet example to the "progenote" (least
      amount of mutations) of methanococcus I found some references to
      methane making in marches and eustury and oceans! See:


      Once methanogens evolved the electrical insulation dynamic of
      WAY OF FEEDBACKS OF DRY CONDITIONS!!!!! Therefore, salt loving Archae
      retained a symbiotic relationship with the methanogens and didn't
      have to evolve with as much complexity. OTOH, if the process of
      climate was NOT modulated, again, as suggested by chaos idiots or
      robot GHG warmers, there would be no genetic reason for the salt
      loving Archae to evolve complexity in their genetics--to be able to
      survive the whims of unmodulated chemistry. Here is the kicker.
      Highly saline bodies of water are going to have peculiar EMF
      features. Namely, while they won't make good sources of outgoing
      electrons, with the right inducting wind they can be very strong
      electron acceptors and behave much like the North Sea of Cortez is
      behaving right now.

      Sulfur loving extremophiles start to have to evolve some complexity,
      but they too have a more distant symbiotic connection. Let's see if I
      can describe it. This one goes more to tectonics and carbon cycling.
      Just like there is a difference between an age where sweet crude
      (without sulfur) and clean coal are produced, the Gaia feedbacks of
      weathering would cause modulation to be dependant on the biological
      conditions toward CO2 and H2 that the methanogens metabolize to make
      methane. This would cause a volcanic pacing from weathering rates
      (more CO2 means more carbonic acid means more weather and so forth),
      but it could be done, and here is the key, somewhat INDEPENDANT of
      sulfur emissions.

      That said, volcanic activity carries an electrical feature in that
      molten material is more conductive. Hence, weathering processes from
      tectonics can be enhanced by volcanic activity. Sulfur itself
      increases weathering by the acidity, but that impact would not be
      local. Therefore, the sulfur extremophiles required to evolve with
      complexity and could not just evolve to efficiency like the salt
      loving and methanogenic extremophiles could--but the electrical
      connection to the volcanoes has been sufficient to find genetic

      Putting this together relative to climate change it is very STRONG
      circumstantial evidence of regional modulation of cirrus by
      electrical fields and variable resistance of the hydrate fields . .

      In the wake of Crick and Watson's work on DNA, it becomes difficult
      to distinguish between life and non-life. The reason feedback loops
      are interesting in this context is that it helps to define the
      symbiotic relationship man should have with the biosphere in order to
      survive himself, as well as the evolutionary context of Gaia and how
      just looking at the relationships we see in genes with life that
      exists now we can tell a great deal about climate over the timescales
      that are meaningful.

      That is because if feedback loops overlap and are in conflict, or not
      symbiotic, then that genetic aspect will not be expressed as that
      part of the biosphere which lost out. The research by Olsen et al
      research (tree of life mapping by genes) about the archae-the
      methanogens, salt lovers--haliophiles, and sulfur loving archae has
      shown is genetic distance that indicates degree of symbiotic
      relationships that MUST exist given the MASSIVE timescales between
      life that is genetically close.

      There are fields of hydrates and areas in the ocean of biological
      activity. There are prevailing currents and places where up welling
      occurs, where a food chain starts and rots. That these fields have
      mil timescale of substantial variability. And then there is the idea
      of pH and O2 content in the "dead zone". All modulated.

      Genetic complexity has been found it has been with the methanogens
      has been over metabolic processes that guess what--always end with H2
      and CO2 forming CH4. Again, there IS complexity in the methanogens
      and enzyme activity--but related to metabolism. That metabolism is a
      basic unit of life on this planet upon which all other life is
      dependant. There IS NOT complexity to, say, cause photo synthesis.
      Because the methane producing activity is at the bottom of the
      metabolic food chain, it requires that there BE a metabolic food
      chain to exist for them to survive. But if they do not feedback the
      hydrology to the places and other createres where this chain can
      exist, with links that interconnect, then they themselves perish and
      those conditions which do not favor the food chain are less favored
      as well. ATP is H2 based. That is one example of the tie in to
      metabolism where life as a whole has evolved to match the sum of its


      I am going to bring a question and response from another bb--to try
      to bring a great level of discussion there here.

      [i]Mike - a question specifically about the archae that appear almost
      instantly wherever hydrogen sulfide vents occur - are these colonies
      started by "floaters" in the ocean, or do the come up from the deep?

      From an evolutionary point of view, some have argued that the very
      reason we are the emerging species is we have evolved our brain power
      in response to the harsh realities of climate. This, however, is a
      response of complexity, not modulation (at least not really yet).

      If you look at the Archae, they likewise had evolved a sort of
      complexity--in that their cells were able to handle what we would now
      consider extreme ecologies--and evolved the cell physiologies to do
      just that. Volcano vents, ocean sediments, salt pools . . . may seem
      extreme, but perhaps to a pre-cellular world from which these cells
      evolved, their response of survival by adaption and complex evolution
      fits a unmodulated climate. That's because in the context of an
      unmodulated climate places that are thought of as 'extreme' now were
      more stable chemically and thermally then.

      Once the modulation started, either by survival or not of the Archae,
      then the Archae didn't have to evolve--just propagate when required.
      Hence, over billions of years they have lost any comparitive ability
      to evolve with substantial complexity. If you can ignore the typos,
      my interest in the Archae stems from a Micro course at UCLA--and I
      typed in (if you can stand the typos) the text from my coursebook to
      this link:


      I here have discussed genetic complexity. The Archae really lack
      ability to evolve with complexity--they rather have evolved to
      reproduce quickly--the loss of the Intron is a good example. This is
      counter to what Edith is discussing, in that climate causes
      evolutionary stress -- which calls on complexity in the genetic
      mechanisms for adaption and survival. An intron, for instance, is
      meaningless genetic material from a functioning standpoint, but from
      a genetic standpoint it causes, mathematically, for more genetic
      diversity to be expressed. It slows the reproduction process, but
      adds variability, is another way of stating it.

      What I am saying is because Gaia via these base microbes modulates
      climate, these creatures haven't had to substantially evolve--for if
      they did evolve it would be the end of everything! Certainly in
      regions were they did become less active there is some selective
      pressure, but this may get to your question . . .

      The sulfur loving Archae are hardy and can take near boiling
      temperatures, but to think they can survive magma doesn't hold. I am
      not sure how deep they can exist in the ocean soil, but I do know
      that studies of methanogens have their populations dropping as you go
      deeper into the sediments. I linked that study by the Japanese here
      several times over the past four years. All the Archae have similar
      cell structures that allow them to survive more "extremes".

      I would suggest what is being seen with the vents and the appearances
      of the sulfur loving Archae is what is unseen is huge populations of
      them in the sediments and even floating, as you suggest, in the
      oceans, such that in every meter of soil they can be found--and what
      is noticed is their appearance visually--which tends to show more
      their ability to grow explosively. Again, it isn't complex--just

      I hadn't recently checked on the McKenzie river research on the
      Methanogens which did exactly that--coring several thousand feet down
      where methanogens were found. Interestingly, some of these microbes
      have the ability to slow their metabolism down and only have cell
      division on hundred year time scales. In the link there is mentioned
      the metablism potential to go the other way out of site. Even in the
      past year scientific discovery has brought us this concept that also
      mentioned in the link that this ocean microbrial biosphere is as at
      least equal to the terrosphere boggles the mind. The link below is


      ><TT>"This deep biosphere must play a fundamental role in global
      biogeochemical cycles over both short and longer time scales because
      its mass is approximately comparable to that of the surface biosphere
      (Whiteman et al., 1998; Pedersen, 2000).</tt>

      ><TT>The presence of viable methanogens within subsurface sediments
      points to the potential for in situ generation of microbial gas
      (Colwell et al., 1999). The investigated core revealed a gradient in
      the isotopic composition of the included gas from its top to base
      with several transitions zones (Lorenson et al., 1999). The upper
      section above the base of ice-bonded permafrost (600 m) was mainly
      dominated by biogenic gas, whereas this gas was thought to be diluted
      by thermogenic gas with increasing depth. A distinct transition zone
      at the lower part of the permafrost area indicates that the ice-
      bonded permafrost may have acted as a partial seal, impeding gas
      migration and the mixing of microbially generated gas from above and
      the flux of thermal gas from below. Below the permafrost boundary,
      both gas wetness and isotopic composition suggest a mixing of
      microbial and thermogenic gas, but with a distinct dominance of the
      latter. Nevertheless the still observable in-situ microbial gas
      production points to the existence of a deep microbial community of
      methanogenic bacteria. The highest gas yield can be observed from ca
      900 m to 1110 m in the zone of gas hydrate stability. The Mallik gas
      hydrate zone seems to trap mainly thermogenic gas and with that to
      act as a partial barrier to gas migration from below. The existence
      of bacterial populations (Colwell et al., 1999), biogenic methane and
      a gas hydrate zone (Lorenson et al., 1999) in deeper parts of the
      Mallik sites bears a promising opportunity that anaerobic processes
      like methanogenesis or AOM are important metabolic pathways in a deep
      biosphere community especially near the gas hydrate zone, which can
      be utilized as a carbon source." </tt>

      We think we have biosphere, climate, fossil fuel issues now--wait til
      man, in his infinite stupidity, begins to mess with this part of the
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.