Tiny fossils unlock clues to Earth's climate half a billion years ago

An international collaboration of scientists, led by the University of Leicester, has investigated Earth's climate over half a billion years ago by combining climate models and chemical analyses of fossil shells about 1mm long.

The research, published in Science Advances, suggests that early animals diversified within a climate similar to that in which the dinosaurs lived.

This interval in time is known for the 'Cambrian explosion', the time during which representatives of most of the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record. These include the first animals to produce shells, and it is these shelly fossils that the scientists used.

This is an interested way of obtaining proxy climate data for this very interesting period in Earth history. The "Cambrian explosion" era is well known for the rapid proliferation of varied lifeforms all over the planet.

Data from the tiny fossil shells, and data from new climate model runs, show that high latitude (~65 °S) sea temperatures were in excess of 20 °C. This seems very hot, but it is similar to more recent, better understood, greenhouse climates like that of the Late Cretaceous Period.

Source: Tiny fossils unlock clues to Earth's climate half a billion years ago

So, the climate during the period of wildly explosive lifeforms appearing all over the globe was a very hot "greenhouse" period. This seems to indicate the period in which man has evolved may have been a cooler time that typical of the planet over its vast lifespan.

I ask, could the recent climate change temperature increase be the Earth returning to a more common level of temperature equilibrium. One in which a new era of the expansion of life planet-wide awaits us? By attempting to stop this temperature increase, are we as a species artificially delaying the opportunity for other lifeforms to evolve and thrive, just to save our own species?

An interesting turn of events, and a question for those that claim to want to "save the planet" and its life. When actual data seems to prove a warmer planet will increase the diversity of life. Are these movements merely a selfish attempt to save our own skins from future liferoms that may take over this planet at our expense?

The climate change snake oil sales people won't like this.

star and flag

Diversification of species occurs when the populations are stressed due to lack of resources. Essential DNA stabilisation and repair systems are switched off, thus allowing mutations to occur at a greater rate. Perhaps a warmer climate allows for more unstable boom and bust cycles of population growth (like the foxes vs rabbits simulation).

I was reading of a study on a similar dating saying it was over 500 million years ago.

originally posted by: Plotus
I was reading of a study on a similar dating saying it was over 500 million years ago.

Over 500 million = over 1/2 billion.

They are the same thing.

Dang i love these interesting threads.

Until they pull the earth is x amount of yrs ole argument.

Lot's of good info gets squandered away in peoples minds cause they hear a bunch of guessing bout ages when if the scientist would just pass on the info without all the age speculation then widespread understanding of such would be greater.

To put it simply the guess of how old things are is a real turn off...

Touche't, a keen mind indeed.... a reply to: Krakatoa

a reply to: howtonhawky

I never assume complete accuracy with these types of studies. If figure if they are within 10% (in this case, 50 mil yrs), that close enough for the point they are making.

If ppl are in the "biblical" young earth camp, they are going to dismiss the information out of hand anyway.

Wish the 'Source' link was operational, I can't get in.

By attempting to stop this temperature increase, are we as a species artificially delaying the opportunity for other lifeforms to evolve and thrive, just to save our own species?


They say that Australian Aboriginies are 60,000 years old aprox, were a blistering vapor in the scheme of things, not even a break in stride.

Those amounts of time are inconceivable. Lots of room for error.

originally posted by: Plotus
Wish the 'Source' link was operational, I can't get in.

By attempting to stop this temperature increase, are we as a species artificially delaying the opportunity for other lifeforms to evolve and thrive, just to save our own species?

It is operational.
Perhaps it is your browser or being blocked locally?

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: howtonhawky

I never assume complete accuracy with these types of studies. If figure if they are within 10% (in this case, 50 mil yrs), that close enough for the point they are making.

If ppl are in the "biblical" young earth camp, they are going to dismiss the information out of hand anyway.

I do not think you are right about people dismissing the info if it is presented in a manner acceptable to all.

The dating is the most speculative and unnecessary part of the entire op,article and research yet it is the one major factor that always splits the two camps. It dragsus all down.

It makes me wonder if during these times of 'molusks' , shell creatures depositing their shells in mass would form limestone sedimentation and in turn have a much different surface plant life at the time.... ie. cooler or warmer that facilitated rapid plant growth and the fauna that would come with it. So much of the earth is limestone, it must be testament to a time of less top soil and far different life species.

Wooooops, sorry

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: howtonhawky

I never assume complete accuracy with these types of studies. If figure if they are within 10% (in this case, 50 mil yrs), that close enough for the point they are making.

If ppl are in the "biblical" young earth camp, they are going to dismiss the information out of hand anyway.

I do not think you are right about people dismissing the info if it is presented in a manner acceptable to all.

The dating is the most speculative and unnecessary part of the entire op,article and research yet it is the one major factor that always splits the two camps. It dragsus all down.

You do realize that the dating was a large part if their conclusion as it relates to the Cambrian explosion?

How else do you establish a correlation between historical events, besides dating?

Pretty interesting how the researchers have decided that these creatures are the product of clay,heat and pressure combining to form amino acids that keep mutating depending on environment.

With every new compound formed and decay often would bring about changes.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: howtonhawky

I never assume complete accuracy with these types of studies. If figure if they are within 10% (in this case, 50 mil yrs), that close enough for the point they are making.

If ppl are in the "biblical" young earth camp, they are going to dismiss the information out of hand anyway.

I do not think you are right about people dismissing the info if it is presented in a manner acceptable to all.

The dating is the most speculative and unnecessary part of the entire op,article and research yet it is the one major factor that always splits the two camps. It dragsus all down.

You do realize that the dating was a large part if their conclusion as it relates to the Cambrian explosion?

How else do you establish a correlation between historical events, besides dating?

you can have order without fake numbers.

i do realize that dating in it's current form is the greatest downfall of science.

you do realize that they change the dates on a whim.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Dates are changed as new information becomes available. What possible reason would someone have to change the dates of something that happened a hundred million years ago?

If you believe that the earth is only ten thousand years old, you are being deluded by someone with an agenda other than science.

You started by saying how interesting things like this are, but you obviously don't really believe what the study is saying.

As far as dating goes, it is in no way perfect. Assumptions are definitely made in the process, but they are not off by hundreds of million years.

a reply to: Mach2

All i am saying is that when info is presented while quoting some unknown amount of yrs. it really turns many people off from getting to the juicy details.

Your attempts to delve into my beliefs and education are beside the point.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Mach2

All i am saying is that when info is presented while quoting some unknown amount of yrs. it really turns many people off from getting to the juicy details.

Your attempts to delve into my beliefs and education are beside the point.

Your beliefs are quite apparent without delving, which has nothing to do with education. For all I know you could have a doctorate, and an IQ of 170.

I think the dating, as flawed as it sometimes, is necessary to put things into context. Simply putting things in order would not allow for the building upon the work of others. Besides that, the person doing the "ordering" would, by definition, be applying a time frame reference. I guess you just want the dates hidden.

a reply to: Mach2

again i am only saying that the dating makes the info less palatable to the masses.

i am not questioning the needs that got us to the point we are at but i know in my heart that the same info minus the dates does not contradict with other beliefs systems as much.

therefore more people would respond to much more scientific findings without the dates.

Many people believe in the processes highlighted but at the same time they believe in things like time dilation and other factors that confuse dating methods.

I guess you just want the dates hidden.

I have no idea what i want or what would be better. I just been reflecting on the turn offs of science and the major factors that divide us.

For the record.
the dates are BS
the rest is often verifiable and beyond speculation.