The GOBE, the GOE, the Great Dying - geologists sure like describing things as “Great!” Thank you for making learning about these events so fascinating! Your videos are really gr… terrific!
Good idea to note that gradual change (vs rapid change or no change) increases biodiversity. Rapid change kills off species who can't adapt quickly enough (which is most species), no change allows a few species to become so successful they drive other species to extinction. Gradual change allows existing species to survive through reasonably paced adaptation, while preventing any single species from getting out of hand.
@@gmw3083you mean stabilization of climate and sudden explosion of human population? we already figured out reasons for glaciations happening you won't see any earth sourced cataclysm anymore only something external or if humans start manipulating earth without thinking so as usual they do
Please explain why. As far as we know every green plant inside any greenhouse adapt in a matter of days when the farmer adds tons of co2 inside the greenhouse. Plants grow faster, stronger and healthier when co2 is suddenly added. Please... Follow the evidence wherever it leads!
@@josemariatrueba4568 Increasing the amount of CO2 inside a greenhouse probably doesn't lead to an increase in temperature (or does it? I don't know). Greenhouses don't have oceans that become more acidic. And a large number of other consequences. A greenhouse is not a good model for a planetary ecosystem. The likelihood of a change causing extinction depends on both the size of the change, and the rate of the change. Also, plants growing faster, stronger and healthier, says nothing about things that aren't plants, and they might grow faster, stronger and healthier in the short term, but not the long term.
@mliittsc63 The only problem of my greenhouse example is that it doesn't fit the official narrative. Co2 is what causes the chlorophyll function that plants need and produces oxygen for animals to breathe. Co2 now is 400ppm but used to be 3000 when temperature was much higher and our planet was full of vegetation that dinosaurs ate.
YES the Ordovician is my favorite period because there's a fossilized Ordovician reef right near my house!. Recently my son (8) and I collected: 2 sizes of trilobites, worm burrows, snails, 2 brachiopod types, coral, and many shapes of bryozoans. I took him to the university to meet a paleontologist and he got to see his research (sea star osteoderms under stereomicroscope) and show a few of his exciting fossils to learn more about them . He said you'd be surprised how many people bring in stuff that's definitely not a fossil. What do you think of this video idea: Genuine Fossils vs Things That Arent Fossils (that category includes cool textured/ shaped rocks, concretions, recent shells that arent fossilized, fake fossils made by people to sell, pieces of statue, an old shoe). I love your videos, because I 've learned a lot from them.
Omg that is a wonderful video idea, thank you!! Also, that is so awesome that your son is into collecting fossils, that is such a fun and educational hobby! :D Thanks for the comment, I am writing down that topic idea right now ;)
Thank you! Fascinating video! I'd definitely love to learn more about the Ordovician overall. The rate of biodiversity growth during that time is matched by another time - from the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event onward to today (with one or two hiccups). From the Tr-J to today, we've had about 10 to 12 times the biodiversity growth. It's really good to hear about the times when life is doing well!
@@GEOGIRL The recently discovered Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event, based on an improved biodiversity calibration from the original Sepkoski curve by Fan et. al. 2020 and Shi et. al. 2021, would be worth a video as well.
Ta again. Its good to learn about the factors influencing diversification of life. And importantly,the timescales involved. When i try to talk to people about the effects of climate change on wildlife one of the commonest responses i get is that temperatures were higher in the past and life survived. Most people don't get that the rate of change is whats important.Not the change itself .This isnt helped by phrases such as "Cambrian explosion" or even "rapid diversification". Both of which imply, to non biologists / geologists something that happened overnight. It's really hard for people ( including me ) to get their heads round the sheer vastness of geological timeframes. The concept that our entire species has only been around for a blink of an eye is just so far outside of our everyday understanding of the passage of time that its hard to get across the fact that 1000yrs means practically nothing . We can but try however, and your videos do far more than most. Ta again.
I can only recommend the podcast, Palaeocast. They do say G O B E, and have loads of interviews with really fascinating topics. I actually found you, while researching on something I'd heard there. You make everything paleontological a bit easier and give me a broader overview of all I love about the past. It's not always easy to have English as a second language. 😊
Your videos make me so happy. Last geology and biology class I had was in 3rd and 9th grade respectively. Over 20 years ago. With so much negativity in the world your videos bring me back to happy memories in my childhood. Thanks for making this. Looking forward to seeing your next videos.
Having once done quite a bit of work on ichnofossils in the field and subsurface, I feel they often tend to be overlooked when making grand evolutionary interpretations regarding periods of extinction or diversification. Ichnologic evidence may be essential to evaluate how the interactions between organisms and substrate responded to these two major evolutionary events (CE and GOBE). Also, because trace fossils essentially represent a continuous record of soft-bodied organisms, ichnologic information may provide an independent line of evidence to that of “shelly fossils”, therefore helping to better calibrate and understand the two evolutionary radiations. Anyway….just a thought and, perhaps, it has already been evaluated in depth. Nicely done Rachel. Having listened to all your videos I feel I must be deserving of another degree in geology…one that surpasses the almost medieval one I first received 48 years ago!
Wow that is so cool and a great point! Ichnofacies seem like such good indicators, I wish they were cited more (or maybe they are and I just missed it haha). Anyway, if I could could grant you another degree, I would ;) You always add so much knowledge and value in the comments of my videos, so thank you! :)
Absolutely! I mean biodiversity is increasing all the time as shown by the first biodiversity over time graph I showed, but drastic jumps and increases have happened since this event, and can certainly happen again, but I am not sure when and how it may happen in the future. That is a very intriguing idea! :)
Thanks for this delightful video! I've long wanted to hear a presentation of some more "standard" or endogenous geological explanations for the GOBE. I've heard "astronomical" speculations (e.g. dust in the plane of the solar system from an asteroid breakup that also caused the Ordovician Meteor Event; gamma rays seeding clouds as the sun passed through a star-forming region), but not the geological ones. "Gradual cooling caused by weathering from the Taconic Orogeny with resulting C burial" is the sort of explanation I was looking for!
I find your channel a short while ago; have been merrily binging on your existing videos and this is the first new video that dropped since I started. Usual detailed information (which I've been looking for). You're an excellent presenter with the ability to make the driest material lively and interesting. You should have an increasingly successful channel. I do have one (slight) criticism. You seem a little parochial. There are regions of the world outside North America/Laurentia. You might want to describe the orogenies and other geological events happening in the rest of the planet occasionally! (Suggestion: a series of videos each covering the history of a different continent?)
Hi there, thanks so much for the kind words and input! I also wish I could talk more about things other than Laurentia, but unfortunately, that is the landmass that the earth history textbook I use seems to focus on. I hope to get more resources in the future that go into more detail about the other continents! I am not sure whether it is because the book was made in the U.S. and the authors wanted to appeal to U.S. based students or if it is because Laurentia and the North American craton is more studied than other regions. I will look into the others in the future for sure and hopefully find enough detail to make new videos about the other orogenies! :)
Absolutely, that is largely related to the cooling scenario I mentioned which would've drove ocean mixing, circulation, and oxygenation. This effect was also likely in large part responsible for the increased spread and diversification of the plankton at the time which drove further diversification of animals and everything else above plankton in the food chain. :)
I dont know if its just me or what but Your videos only today started showing up in my suggestions after what seems like 3 months and I had no notifications either even though ive long since subscribed and watched as many vids as I could...I thought you took a hideous from making videos actually...Just letting you know in case view count is down...One good thing is I have a lot of great content to catch up on..hahaa
Oh wow, that is a great question but it has many different answers haha. It depends on where and when you are talking about in terms of the rock record. With regards the this ordovician biodiversification event, there are many rock formations that preserve biological and chemical signatures from this period and most of these rocks have been studied extensively by multiple groups of scientists using different methods. Thus, we have enough cross over of different groups and methods to double, triple and quadruple check our interpretations of the conditions at this time and most of them are extremely well founded. However, it depends on the condition haha. For example, temperature is sometimes easier reconstruct than other parameters, such as pH or productivity levels, ocean chemistry, etc. Most of the physical, chemical, and biological reconstructions of the ordovician are well backed up, but the potential role of the meteor shower in affecting biodiversity, for example, is harder to back up because even though we might be able to prove that it happened, it is hard to quantify its impact on all these parameters, especially when other factors are continuously affecting these parameters as well. So overall the rock record of the ordovician (and pretty much anything from the cambrian to today) is abundant and studied enough to make our reconstructions quite robust. However, our reconstructions of Precambrian conditions are another story. Most precambrian (>550 million yr old) rocks are either altered or buried so it is much harder to study that time. There are certain periods in the precambrian that have more available rocks than others, so we try to reconstruct those times and then fill in the gaps. Anyway, this could be a whole video lol so I'll stop here but the short answer is it depends ;) haha
@@GEOGIRL Great answer!!! I did not mean to make you spend an hour or four on your reply. But I am well informed now. Still lots of study potential for BS, MS and PhD students to study for many decades to come. Your presentations are filling in many gaps and shoring up previous understandings. Thank you and don't stop. I now consider myself to be one of your students.
Your content is so sick - just subscribed!! Would you be able to do a video on different degrees/career paths for geoscience students? I’m applying for a bachelors in earth and environmental science and want to think about how I can move forward in the future to meet my career goals!! Hope that makes sense :)
Oh sorry I was just searching my comments for video ideas and found this one I must have missed! Anyway, I would like to point you to my video about geoscience careers I did a year or so ago: ruclips.net/video/d22wgbrwmzA/видео.htmlsi=EYUjbB13ta0F9nfh which should be helpful based on your comment, but don't worry, if you watch that and still want more info, I am actually planning to do another geoscience career video soon! :D Best of luck in your program! Keep me updated ;D
@GEO GIRL I'm learning a lot from your channel! It's a lot to learn, but I'm absorbing some. It's super interesting, and I hope I'm speaking for everyone when I say I'm very thankful for your videos. They are very well done and enjoyable. Thanks, GEO GIRL! 🌐👩🔬
Considering gradual change is what fuels biodiversification, which scenario do you think benefits life more and which one would you prefer us to take personally? Reducing human greenhouse gas emissions by like 75%, and putting Earth on a gradual warming trend (instead of the rapid warming trend we are on now), or reaching net zero and use all forms of carbon sequestration so that we go back to the gradual cooling trend we were on preindustrial?
That's a great question! The tricky thing here is that reducing or even eliminating all of our current and future emissions now isn't going to erase the carbon that we have already emitted into the atmosphere, so even stopping all emissions at this very moment would not bring us back to a cooling trend because that carbon will stay in the atmosphere warming the Earth for thousands to millions of years to come. We would need to stop all emissions AND sequester CO2 from the atmosphere (by inducing mineral weathering, restoring the sequestration abilities of soils, planting more trees, etc.) if we want to reverse the trend, but even that might not be enough because these sequestration techniques take a long time to kick in (compared to the immediate effects of CO2 and CH4 release). Moreover, stopping ALL emissions is just not feasible. Even 75% at the moment seems nearly impossible given our current lifestyles and regulations. It is also a global issue and getting global cooperation to do something that, up front, may hurt the economy, is a huge challenge in itself. So, this is a really difficult question to answer. I think the more realistic goal we should have moving forward is to research and develop more rapidly acting (but controllable) carbon sequestration techniques, implement more renewable energy usage (solar, hydro, wind, etc.), and work toward a global consensus and cooperation regarding plans to mitigate the effects of climate change, so that we can begin to lower our global emissions without getting too unrealistic with our goals and projections. Even this is optimistic though haha ;)
@@GEOGIRLInteresting. From this I can see you’re in the gradual cooling trend side. Me personally I’d prefer the gradual warming trend, since biodiversity always seemed to be a bit higher in greenhouse periods, and a glacial period would be more harmful to us than a planet with less ice. The only problem with global warming is the speed at which it’s going, if we reduce it to manageable levels then that’d be perfect. Basically I would like for us to extend this interglacial period and slowly transition to a greenhouse period. I think that would be more favorable to life in general. If the Cambrian explosion, the GOBE, and the Mesozoic Marine Revolution all happened in greenhouse periods, then maybe this gradual warming path might make it easier for there to be another great biodiversification event in the far future.
Your channel deserves a million subscribers your channel is only that explains Geology and Paleontology very well and in detail wish I had seen this channel way back in school I could have scored better marks hahaha
Thanks so much! haha That is a major reason why I do this because I used to be the student and I wanted a resource like this but could never find one :)
Although it's well after the Devonian, Rachel, one of the extinct genuses of tetrapod fishes that fascinate me and I'd love to see around today are the Eusthenopteron.
On the slide titled "What Caused The GOBE?" and the discussion about dispersed continents: 1) Wasn't the Ordovician a time where nearly all land mass consolidated into the super continent Gondwanaland? 2) Aside from the consolidation towards the South Pole, the Baltics moved North. So, isn't the map shown indicative of the late Ordovician?
Great questions! Yes and no, Gondwana was not the only landmass at the time, there was Laurentia, Baltica, SIberia, and other small landmass as well which were more dispersed throughout most of the period, it was later in the Ordovician that Gondwana centered over the south pole to cause the ice age that contributed to the mass extinction at that time. So yes, that image shown is of the late Ordovician, but the continents were still relatively dispersed compared to in the Silurian and earlier when Gondwana and the other continents were closer together and Gondwana itself was more clumped up into a rounder shape than spread over the south pole, if that makes sense. All in all, it wasn't a super drastic dispersion of continents during the Ordovician, but the general movement of the plates was likely the more significant factor on that slide as that drove volcanism, weathering, and nutrient delivery. :)
The Cambrian Explosion wasn't that unique, it was preceded by the "Avalonian Explosion" and then came the GOBE, that the discoverers didn't dare to call an Explosion, because then the Cambrian Nerds would claim that the Ordovician Nerds are copycats.
and speaking of other planets, it seems photosynthesis and increased oxygen was a major driver of the gobe era, which may limit any possible life on ocean world moons to microbial. so while its great to see an explosion of life diversity on earth its also maybe sad to see it would be limited on ocean moons. iow no space whales. 😢
hi doc geo - could you take a look for news of new info from the nasa insight mission rise data re the interior of mars? i am kind of into interior geology and planet formation lately and hoping you can do a mars video for us sometime. gracias!
Here's the link to the image: 2.bp.blogspot.com/-dmGLZ6K5L8E/V_TmOy6P2-I/AAAAAAAABU8/Pv_BQaKRoVoxK-LwJFC8fde-Mk35p8m8QCLcB/s1600/sepkoski.png I am not sure if it's the original source for this version of the graph, but I found it on this paleocast website: www.palaeocast.com/episode-64-when-life-nearly-died/067-marine_extinctions-sepkoski/
Is it that conditions favor diversification, or is it that something which is particularly adapted to the existing conditions happens to be what survives and subsequently diversifies? Additionally, there seems to be a mechanical relationship between biodiversification and extinction. Obviously, you cannot have a great number of species die off without there being a bunch of different species to begin with. Once a bunch of them are gone, those that survive have room to spread and speciate, precipitating another diversification event. Life - as a monolith - respires. Conceptually, ideographs and other representative information appear to work the same way. There are occasional explosions of ideas, many of which are then extinguished. Do the ideas that persist do so because they are adapted to the psychological landscape, or is the landscape determined by the ideas that survive out of purely good furtune?
This video talks about weathering increasing minerals in the ocean that results in carbon sequestration. But today we have CO2 dissolving in the oceans that results in acidification. So instead of producing more life, we are killing off life, resulting in reduced sequestration. Am I correct? Are we doomed? *weak smile*
Hahahaha.... yes. lol I'm kidding but not really. So, yes, CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans currently and that is going to have major consequences if that trend continues, especially because the most affected by this are the reefs made by calcium carbonate material that will become less and less stable and these reefs maintain major marine ecosystems which will suffer if the reefs suffer. However, the current global warming trend is actually also promoting more rain, acid rain, and thus more chemical weathering of minerals which will transport more ions to the ocean and promote carbon sequestration to offset the harmful effects of carbon in the ocean. BUT this weathering effect takes much longer timescales to make a global difference in carbon sequestration than ocean acidification. This is why there are currently efforts going on to increase the rate of mineral weathering and I actually donate to some mineral weathering and other carbon sequestration projects through Wren (I highly recommend checking out Wren, even if you cannot donate, they have a ton of free information about carbon sequestration on their website). Anyway, I don't want to continue rambling, but the short answer to 'are we doomed?' is: we aren't entirely sure, but probably yes if nothing is done. The reason we aren't entirely sure is because these two mechanisms (CO2-caused ocean acidification and weathering/carbon sequestration) are only two processes of many many more that are currently affecting the movement of carbon through Earth systems, so in reality it's much more complicated. I do have a video about carbon sequestration if you are interested- ruclips.net/video/fVZRlleb5yA/видео.html ;)
The opposite of extinction shouldn't be de-extinction ? so bringing back to life extincted species, well diversification is a separate process , and if in the end brings to more species and a new ecosystem that doesn't mean the opposite of extinction, but only a trend that works in the opposite direction.
Geo Girl this must have been when the earth had a lot of carbon in the air then plants started to grow on earth and form dinosaurs more plants grew more and made more oxygen which killed the dinosaurs. You know I have to be wright you do not hear which came first dinosaurs or the egg.
The stages you summarize are accurate but your continuous unterlining conclusion " they evolved", " nature was figuring itself out" is very false assumption and not true. Life was build up gradually over millions of years in sudden burts of new species but we have no proof any of these species evolved, meaning slowly developed from precursors. There is no evidence for that so its wrong to conclude "they evolved". Just for your information: the cambrian explosion lasted about 10-30 million years but its still an explosion as all new life forms appeared suddenly at the very beginning of this period and for the whole duration nothing happened until the next explosion of life forms. Life appeared in sudden bursts and never slowly..... check on dinosaurs or bats. Bats are extremely interested as they have no precursors but appeared suddenly all around the world about 54 Ma years ago. Dinosaurs appear very suddenly too and we see no slow development to them!!!!!! To imply life "evolved" means development gradually and species slowly changed but thats not what the fossil records show....
I can't imagine how many exotic and weird organisms that existed during those time😮 imagine if they didn't went extinct they would have evolved into human like Intelligent Species😂
From what we've seen in fossils from the time, I'd venture to guess that there were animals alive back then that would absolutely blow our minds if we saw them today and I'd even guess that there are some animals from back then that have absolutely no equivalent to today's animals and no descendants and we'd struggle to figure out exactly what they were, even with them sitting alive in our hands(if we were there). We have a few like that in the fossil records that we've found so far, but can you imagine what else there was at the time that didn't fossilize that would just blow our minds!?!?!?! I know I surely can't! 🤯
@@BackYardScience2000look up hallucigenia sometime. We iterally couldn't tell which way was up on it for a very long time. A lot of precambrian and Cambrian life was very strange compared to anything we have today.
Awesome video👏👏🥇🔝
Very nice video Geo girl'❤❤
The GOBE, the GOE, the Great Dying - geologists sure like describing things as “Great!” Thank you for making learning about these events so fascinating! Your videos are really gr… terrific!
How about the Fabulous Dying Event?
Hahaha omg you are right, that is hilarious. Thank so much! ;)
Ever since I hear about the long ago English language's "great vowel shift" in linguistics classes, I've wondered what was so great about it.
Thanks!
Thanks so much! :D
Good idea to note that gradual change (vs rapid change or no change) increases biodiversity. Rapid change kills off species who can't adapt quickly enough (which is most species), no change allows a few species to become so successful they drive other species to extinction. Gradual change allows existing species to survive through reasonably paced adaptation, while preventing any single species from getting out of hand.
Another one of these sorts of events is happening now. Hurry up and wait.
@@gmw3083you mean stabilization of climate and sudden explosion of human population?
we already figured out reasons for glaciations happening
you won't see any earth sourced cataclysm anymore
only something external
or if humans start manipulating earth without thinking so as usual they do
Please explain why.
As far as we know every green plant inside any greenhouse adapt in a matter of days when the farmer adds tons of co2 inside the greenhouse.
Plants grow faster, stronger and healthier when co2 is suddenly added.
Please...
Follow the evidence wherever it leads!
@@josemariatrueba4568 Increasing the amount of CO2 inside a greenhouse probably doesn't lead to an increase in temperature (or does it? I don't know). Greenhouses don't have oceans that become more acidic. And a large number of other consequences. A greenhouse is not a good model for a planetary ecosystem. The likelihood of a change causing extinction depends on both the size of the change, and the rate of the change.
Also, plants growing faster, stronger and healthier, says nothing about things that aren't plants, and they might grow faster, stronger and healthier in the short term, but not the long term.
@mliittsc63 The only problem of my greenhouse example is that it doesn't fit the official narrative.
Co2 is what causes the chlorophyll function that plants need and produces oxygen for animals to breathe.
Co2 now is 400ppm but used to be 3000 when temperature was much higher and our planet was full of vegetation that dinosaurs ate.
Really fascinating
YES the Ordovician is my favorite period because there's a fossilized Ordovician reef right near my house!. Recently my son (8) and I collected: 2 sizes of trilobites, worm burrows, snails, 2 brachiopod types, coral, and many shapes of bryozoans. I took him to the university to meet a paleontologist and he got to see his research (sea star osteoderms under stereomicroscope) and show a few of his exciting fossils to learn more about them . He said you'd be surprised how many people bring in stuff that's definitely not a fossil.
What do you think of this video idea: Genuine Fossils vs Things That Arent Fossils (that category includes cool textured/ shaped rocks, concretions, recent shells that arent fossilized, fake fossils made by people to sell, pieces of statue, an old shoe).
I love your videos, because I 've learned a lot from them.
Omg that is a wonderful video idea, thank you!! Also, that is so awesome that your son is into collecting fossils, that is such a fun and educational hobby! :D Thanks for the comment, I am writing down that topic idea right now ;)
Where is this fossilized reef located?
Thank you! Fascinating video! I'd definitely love to learn more about the Ordovician overall. The rate of biodiversity growth during that time is matched by another time - from the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event onward to today (with one or two hiccups). From the Tr-J to today, we've had about 10 to 12 times the biodiversity growth. It's really good to hear about the times when life is doing well!
Haha yea, I felt as though I talked too much about extinctions and death and needed a more uplifting earth history video to throw into the mix ;)
@@GEOGIRL The recently discovered Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event, based on an improved biodiversity calibration from the original Sepkoski curve by Fan et. al. 2020 and Shi et. al. 2021, would be worth a video as well.
@@altanativeftw2625 Thanks! I am on it ;D
Ta again. Its good to learn about the factors influencing diversification of life. And importantly,the timescales involved. When i try to talk to people about the effects of climate change on wildlife one of the commonest responses i get is that temperatures were higher in the past and life survived. Most people don't get that the rate of change is whats important.Not the change itself .This isnt helped by phrases such as "Cambrian explosion" or even "rapid diversification". Both of which imply, to non biologists / geologists something that happened overnight. It's really hard for people ( including me ) to get their heads round the sheer vastness of geological timeframes. The concept that our entire species has only been around for a blink of an eye is just so far outside of our everyday understanding of the passage of time that its hard to get across the fact that 1000yrs means practically nothing . We can but try however, and your videos do far more than most. Ta again.
Well done as always!
Thanks Steven! :)
As always, more to think about and more tools to think with. Thank you!
Lovely perspective 😊
@@barbaradurfee645 yes awesome way to put it! 🎉
I can only recommend the podcast, Palaeocast. They do say G O B E, and have loads of interviews with really fascinating topics. I actually found you, while researching on something I'd heard there. You make everything paleontological a bit easier and give me a broader overview of all I love about the past. It's not always easy to have English as a second language. 😊
Your videos make me so happy. Last geology and biology class I had was in 3rd and 9th grade respectively. Over 20 years ago. With so much negativity in the world your videos bring me back to happy memories in my childhood. Thanks for making this. Looking forward to seeing your next videos.
That means so much, thank you! I am so glad to hear that ;)
Having once done quite a bit of work on ichnofossils in the field and subsurface, I feel they often tend to be overlooked when making grand evolutionary interpretations regarding periods of extinction or diversification. Ichnologic evidence may be essential to evaluate how the interactions between organisms and substrate responded to these two major evolutionary events (CE and GOBE). Also, because trace fossils essentially represent a continuous record of soft-bodied organisms, ichnologic information may provide an independent line of evidence to that of “shelly fossils”, therefore helping to better calibrate and understand the two evolutionary radiations. Anyway….just a thought and, perhaps, it has already been evaluated in depth. Nicely done Rachel. Having listened to all your videos I feel I must be deserving of another degree in geology…one that surpasses the almost medieval one I first received 48 years ago!
Wow that is so cool and a great point! Ichnofacies seem like such good indicators, I wish they were cited more (or maybe they are and I just missed it haha). Anyway, if I could could grant you another degree, I would ;) You always add so much knowledge and value in the comments of my videos, so thank you! :)
Radek Mikuláš, a lifetime friend of mine, hopefully, would agree, I'm quite sure ;-)
Thank you geo girl excellent
yes, thoroughly enjoyed
I wonder if such an event could happen again.
Absolutely! I mean biodiversity is increasing all the time as shown by the first biodiversity over time graph I showed, but drastic jumps and increases have happened since this event, and can certainly happen again, but I am not sure when and how it may happen in the future. That is a very intriguing idea! :)
Thank you!
Nice video 👍👍
Thank you, a lot of work must go into preparing these videos.
Excellent
Thank you!
These have been amazingly helpful, thank you greatly!!
Thanks for this delightful video! I've long wanted to hear a presentation of some more "standard" or endogenous geological explanations for the GOBE. I've heard "astronomical" speculations (e.g. dust in the plane of the solar system from an asteroid breakup that also caused the Ordovician Meteor Event; gamma rays seeding clouds as the sun passed through a star-forming region), but not the geological ones. "Gradual cooling caused by weathering from the Taconic Orogeny with resulting C burial" is the sort of explanation I was looking for!
let's see here; life tripled in the Ordovician because . . . a mass extinction happened before it!
Another great video. More fun than Disney!
Wow that is saying a lot! haha thank you ;)
I find your channel a short while ago; have been merrily binging on your existing videos and this is the first new video that dropped since I started. Usual detailed information (which I've been looking for). You're an excellent presenter with the ability to make the driest material lively and interesting. You should have an increasingly successful channel.
I do have one (slight) criticism. You seem a little parochial. There are regions of the world outside North America/Laurentia. You might want to describe the orogenies and other geological events happening in the rest of the planet occasionally! (Suggestion: a series of videos each covering the history of a different continent?)
Hi there, thanks so much for the kind words and input! I also wish I could talk more about things other than Laurentia, but unfortunately, that is the landmass that the earth history textbook I use seems to focus on. I hope to get more resources in the future that go into more detail about the other continents! I am not sure whether it is because the book was made in the U.S. and the authors wanted to appeal to U.S. based students or if it is because Laurentia and the North American craton is more studied than other regions. I will look into the others in the future for sure and hopefully find enough detail to make new videos about the other orogenies! :)
great review !! I didn't know that the Ordovician era was as interesting as the Cambrian era !!
new video thanks :D
Great video
Thank you! ;D
Wait, who edits editing Rachel?
How about the effect of ocean currents?
Absolutely, that is largely related to the cooling scenario I mentioned which would've drove ocean mixing, circulation, and oxygenation. This effect was also likely in large part responsible for the increased spread and diversification of the plankton at the time which drove further diversification of animals and everything else above plankton in the food chain. :)
Specialization with greater ecological complexity is a great point.
Thanks for an overview of a subject I had heard of, but was not familiar with.
After not sleeping properly for two nights in a row I was looking like Aegirocassis
I dont know if its just me or what but Your videos only today started showing up in my suggestions after what seems like 3 months and I had no notifications either even though ive long since subscribed and watched as many vids as I could...I thought you took a hideous from making videos actually...Just letting you know in case view count is down...One good thing is I have a lot of great content to catch up on..hahaa
Excellent presentation -- how robust is the rock record data and how accessible/widespread
to geologists are the rock formations containing this data?
Oh wow, that is a great question but it has many different answers haha. It depends on where and when you are talking about in terms of the rock record. With regards the this ordovician biodiversification event, there are many rock formations that preserve biological and chemical signatures from this period and most of these rocks have been studied extensively by multiple groups of scientists using different methods. Thus, we have enough cross over of different groups and methods to double, triple and quadruple check our interpretations of the conditions at this time and most of them are extremely well founded. However, it depends on the condition haha. For example, temperature is sometimes easier reconstruct than other parameters, such as pH or productivity levels, ocean chemistry, etc. Most of the physical, chemical, and biological reconstructions of the ordovician are well backed up, but the potential role of the meteor shower in affecting biodiversity, for example, is harder to back up because even though we might be able to prove that it happened, it is hard to quantify its impact on all these parameters, especially when other factors are continuously affecting these parameters as well. So overall the rock record of the ordovician (and pretty much anything from the cambrian to today) is abundant and studied enough to make our reconstructions quite robust. However, our reconstructions of Precambrian conditions are another story. Most precambrian (>550 million yr old) rocks are either altered or buried so it is much harder to study that time. There are certain periods in the precambrian that have more available rocks than others, so we try to reconstruct those times and then fill in the gaps. Anyway, this could be a whole video lol so I'll stop here but the short answer is it depends ;) haha
@@GEOGIRL Great answer!!! I did not mean to make you spend an hour or four on your reply. But I am well informed now. Still lots of study potential for BS, MS and PhD students to study for many decades to come. Your presentations are filling in many gaps and shoring up previous understandings. Thank you and don't stop. I now consider myself to be one of your students.
Your content is so sick - just subscribed!! Would you be able to do a video on different degrees/career paths for geoscience students? I’m applying for a bachelors in earth and environmental science and want to think about how I can move forward in the future to meet my career goals!! Hope that makes sense :)
Oh sorry I was just searching my comments for video ideas and found this one I must have missed! Anyway, I would like to point you to my video about geoscience careers I did a year or so ago: ruclips.net/video/d22wgbrwmzA/видео.htmlsi=EYUjbB13ta0F9nfh which should be helpful based on your comment, but don't worry, if you watch that and still want more info, I am actually planning to do another geoscience career video soon! :D Best of luck in your program! Keep me updated ;D
Editing Rachel has amazing eyes.
🎉🎉 G.O.B.E. 🎉🎉 ❤😊❤ Go Ordovician! 🌊🐚🪼🦐🪸🦑🌊
omg! I wish everybody was as excited about geology as you right now lol! ;)
@@GEOGIRL Yay !!!!
@GEO GIRL I'm learning a lot from your channel! It's a lot to learn, but I'm absorbing some. It's super interesting, and I hope I'm speaking for everyone when I say I'm very thankful for your videos. They are very well done and enjoyable. Thanks, GEO GIRL! 🌐👩🔬
@@ericbrown2336 Thank you so much! That is so kind and encouraging ;D
Considering gradual change is what fuels biodiversification, which scenario do you think benefits life more and which one would you prefer us to take personally? Reducing human greenhouse gas emissions by like 75%, and putting Earth on a gradual warming trend (instead of the rapid warming trend we are on now), or reaching net zero and use all forms of carbon sequestration so that we go back to the gradual cooling trend we were on preindustrial?
That's a great question! The tricky thing here is that reducing or even eliminating all of our current and future emissions now isn't going to erase the carbon that we have already emitted into the atmosphere, so even stopping all emissions at this very moment would not bring us back to a cooling trend because that carbon will stay in the atmosphere warming the Earth for thousands to millions of years to come.
We would need to stop all emissions AND sequester CO2 from the atmosphere (by inducing mineral weathering, restoring the sequestration abilities of soils, planting more trees, etc.) if we want to reverse the trend, but even that might not be enough because these sequestration techniques take a long time to kick in (compared to the immediate effects of CO2 and CH4 release). Moreover, stopping ALL emissions is just not feasible. Even 75% at the moment seems nearly impossible given our current lifestyles and regulations. It is also a global issue and getting global cooperation to do something that, up front, may hurt the economy, is a huge challenge in itself. So, this is a really difficult question to answer.
I think the more realistic goal we should have moving forward is to research and develop more rapidly acting (but controllable) carbon sequestration techniques, implement more renewable energy usage (solar, hydro, wind, etc.), and work toward a global consensus and cooperation regarding plans to mitigate the effects of climate change, so that we can begin to lower our global emissions without getting too unrealistic with our goals and projections. Even this is optimistic though haha ;)
@@GEOGIRLInteresting. From this I can see you’re in the gradual cooling trend side. Me personally I’d prefer the gradual warming trend, since biodiversity always seemed to be a bit higher in greenhouse periods, and a glacial period would be more harmful to us than a planet with less ice. The only problem with global warming is the speed at which it’s going, if we reduce it to manageable levels then that’d be perfect.
Basically I would like for us to extend this interglacial period and slowly transition to a greenhouse period. I think that would be more favorable to life in general. If the Cambrian explosion, the GOBE, and the Mesozoic Marine Revolution all happened in greenhouse periods, then maybe this gradual warming path might make it easier for there to be another great biodiversification event in the far future.
That was really good. I finally understand it
Your channel deserves a million subscribers your channel is only that explains Geology and Paleontology very well and in detail wish I had seen this channel way back in school I could have scored better marks hahaha
Thanks so much! haha That is a major reason why I do this because I used to be the student and I wanted a resource like this but could never find one :)
Although it's well after the Devonian, Rachel, one of the extinct genuses of tetrapod fishes that fascinate me and I'd love to see around today are the Eusthenopteron.
On the slide titled "What Caused The GOBE?" and the discussion about dispersed continents:
1) Wasn't the Ordovician a time where nearly all land mass consolidated into the super continent Gondwanaland?
2) Aside from the consolidation towards the South Pole, the Baltics moved North. So, isn't the map shown indicative of the late Ordovician?
Great questions! Yes and no, Gondwana was not the only landmass at the time, there was Laurentia, Baltica, SIberia, and other small landmass as well which were more dispersed throughout most of the period, it was later in the Ordovician that Gondwana centered over the south pole to cause the ice age that contributed to the mass extinction at that time. So yes, that image shown is of the late Ordovician, but the continents were still relatively dispersed compared to in the Silurian and earlier when Gondwana and the other continents were closer together and Gondwana itself was more clumped up into a rounder shape than spread over the south pole, if that makes sense. All in all, it wasn't a super drastic dispersion of continents during the Ordovician, but the general movement of the plates was likely the more significant factor on that slide as that drove volcanism, weathering, and nutrient delivery. :)
@@GEOGIRL Thank you! I find your explanations fascinating.
wooooooooooo!!!!
YESSS! ;D
The Cambrian Explosion wasn't that unique, it was preceded by the "Avalonian Explosion" and then came the GOBE, that the discoverers didn't dare to call an Explosion, because then the Cambrian Nerds would claim that the Ordovician Nerds are copycats.
:)
The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event 😱😱🤯🤯🤯
Hahaha I love the excitement! ;)
Красивая и умная девушка. Тебя очень интересно слушать! Привет из долекого города Санкт-Петербург:)
Thank you and greetings! ;)
and speaking of other planets, it seems photosynthesis and increased oxygen was a major driver of the gobe era, which may limit any possible life on ocean world moons to microbial. so while its great to see an explosion of life diversity on earth its also maybe sad to see it would be limited on ocean moons. iow no space whales. 😢
The Ediacaran was multicellular life’s Articles of Confederation
Because everyone on the planet understands the world through USA-centic civics classes?
hi doc geo - could you take a look for news of new info from the nasa insight mission rise data re the interior of mars? i am kind of into interior geology and planet formation lately and hoping you can do a mars video for us sometime. gracias!
What was your source for the 1st figure showing diversification and extinction? I would like to use that in my class if possible.
Here's the link to the image: 2.bp.blogspot.com/-dmGLZ6K5L8E/V_TmOy6P2-I/AAAAAAAABU8/Pv_BQaKRoVoxK-LwJFC8fde-Mk35p8m8QCLcB/s1600/sepkoski.png
I am not sure if it's the original source for this version of the graph, but I found it on this paleocast website: www.palaeocast.com/episode-64-when-life-nearly-died/067-marine_extinctions-sepkoski/
Is it that conditions favor diversification, or is it that something which is particularly adapted to the existing conditions happens to be what survives and subsequently diversifies?
Additionally, there seems to be a mechanical relationship between biodiversification and extinction. Obviously, you cannot have a great number of species die off without there being a bunch of different species to begin with. Once a bunch of them are gone, those that survive have room to spread and speciate, precipitating another diversification event. Life - as a monolith - respires.
Conceptually, ideographs and other representative information appear to work the same way. There are occasional explosions of ideas, many of which are then extinguished. Do the ideas that persist do so because they are adapted to the psychological landscape, or is the landscape determined by the ideas that survive out of purely good furtune?
There's the GABI so I see I don't see why there can't be the GOBE too!
Could another GOBE type event happen in the foreseeable future?
😎
😀 My ancestors were paleozoic! Some of them were benthic!
Sooo many hours of content down. Soo many more to go XD
Yea graphs! Well illustrated and loquaciously presented with read along verbose text.
If you could provide subtitles in Portuguese for this video, I would appreciate it.
😀😀
This video talks about weathering increasing minerals in the ocean that results in carbon sequestration. But today we have CO2 dissolving in the oceans that results in acidification. So instead of producing more life, we are killing off life, resulting in reduced sequestration. Am I correct? Are we doomed? *weak smile*
Hahahaha.... yes. lol I'm kidding but not really. So, yes, CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans currently and that is going to have major consequences if that trend continues, especially because the most affected by this are the reefs made by calcium carbonate material that will become less and less stable and these reefs maintain major marine ecosystems which will suffer if the reefs suffer. However, the current global warming trend is actually also promoting more rain, acid rain, and thus more chemical weathering of minerals which will transport more ions to the ocean and promote carbon sequestration to offset the harmful effects of carbon in the ocean. BUT this weathering effect takes much longer timescales to make a global difference in carbon sequestration than ocean acidification. This is why there are currently efforts going on to increase the rate of mineral weathering and I actually donate to some mineral weathering and other carbon sequestration projects through Wren (I highly recommend checking out Wren, even if you cannot donate, they have a ton of free information about carbon sequestration on their website). Anyway, I don't want to continue rambling, but the short answer to 'are we doomed?' is: we aren't entirely sure, but probably yes if nothing is done. The reason we aren't entirely sure is because these two mechanisms (CO2-caused ocean acidification and weathering/carbon sequestration) are only two processes of many many more that are currently affecting the movement of carbon through Earth systems, so in reality it's much more complicated. I do have a video about carbon sequestration if you are interested- ruclips.net/video/fVZRlleb5yA/видео.html ;)
The opposite of extinction shouldn't be de-extinction ? so bringing back to life extincted species, well diversification is a separate process , and if in the end brings to more species and a new ecosystem that doesn't mean the opposite of extinction, but only a trend that works in the opposite direction.
so high co2 was good..? why is it bad today?
She explains that at the 9:30 mark.
Geo Girl this must have been when the earth had a lot of carbon in the air then plants started to grow on earth and form dinosaurs more plants grew more and made more oxygen which killed the dinosaurs. You know I have to be wright you do not hear which came first dinosaurs or the egg.
The stages you summarize are accurate but your continuous unterlining conclusion " they evolved", " nature was figuring itself out" is very false assumption and not true. Life was build up gradually over millions of years in sudden burts of new species but we have no proof any of these species evolved, meaning slowly developed from precursors. There is no evidence for that so its wrong to conclude "they evolved". Just for your information: the cambrian explosion lasted about 10-30 million years but its still an explosion as all new life forms appeared suddenly at the very beginning of this period and for the whole duration nothing happened until the next explosion of life forms. Life appeared in sudden bursts and never slowly..... check on dinosaurs or bats. Bats are extremely interested as they have no precursors but appeared suddenly all around the world about 54 Ma years ago. Dinosaurs appear very suddenly too and we see no slow development to them!!!!!!
To imply life "evolved" means development gradually and species slowly changed but thats not what the fossil records show....
I can't imagine how many exotic and weird organisms that existed during those time😮 imagine if they didn't went extinct they would have evolved into human like Intelligent Species😂
From what we've seen in fossils from the time, I'd venture to guess that there were animals alive back then that would absolutely blow our minds if we saw them today and I'd even guess that there are some animals from back then that have absolutely no equivalent to today's animals and no descendants and we'd struggle to figure out exactly what they were, even with them sitting alive in our hands(if we were there). We have a few like that in the fossil records that we've found so far, but can you imagine what else there was at the time that didn't fossilize that would just blow our minds!?!?!?! I know I surely can't! 🤯
@@BackYardScience2000look up hallucigenia sometime. We iterally couldn't tell which way was up on it for a very long time. A lot of precambrian and Cambrian life was very strange compared to anything we have today.
@@jameshall1300 that's the thing that turns you into the founding Titan if you let it interface with your spine.
@@talesofgore9424 that's actually exactly what it looks like 🤣 never thought of that before