Prehistoric titanic-snake jungles laughed at global warming

Fossil boffins say that dense triple-canopy rainforests, home among other things to gigantic one-tonne boa constrictors, flourished millions of years ago in temperatures 3-5°C warmer than those seen today - as hot as some of the more dire global-warming projections.

The new fossil evidence comes from the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, previously the location where the remains of the gigantic 40-foot Titanoboa cerrejonensis were discovered. The snake's discoverers attracted flak from global-warming worriers at the time for saying that the cold-blooded creature would only have been able to survive in jungles a good bit hotter than Colombia's now are.

But now, according to further diggings, there is more evidence to support the idea that a proper rainforest similar to those now seen in the tropics existed at the time of the Titanoboa - despite the much hotter temperatures. This could be seen as conflicting with the idea that a rise of more than two or three degrees would kill off today's jungles with devastating consequences for the global ecosystem of which we are all part.

www.theregister.co.uk...

And before the AGWers start claiming this is made up and a lie..

The first neotropical rainforest was home of the Titanoboa
Published: Monday, October 12, 2009 - 15:09 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Smithsonian researchers working in Colombia's Cerrejón coal mine have unearthed the first megafossil evidence of a neotropical rainforest. Titanoboa, the world's biggest snake, lived in this forest 58 million years ago at temperatures 3-5 C warmer than in rainforests today, indicating that rainforests flourished during warm periods. "Modern neotropical rainforests, with their palms and spectacular flowering-plant diversity, seem to have come into existence in the Paleocene epoch, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago," said Carlos Jaramillo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Pollen evidence tells us that forests before the mass extinction were quite different from our fossil rainforest at Cerrejón. We find new plant families, large, smooth-margined leaves and a three-tiered structure of forest floor, understory shrubs and high canopy."

esciencenews.com...

Oh noooo..... rainforests, and animals were doing fine with temperatures 3-5C higher than today's?.....

Who would have thought this?......

Well, I guess ANOTHER lie of the AGWers is dead....



[edit on 12-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Actually higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would be great for the plants and trees.Making them grow faster and healthier.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Actually higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would be great for the plants and trees.Making them grow faster and healthier.

Of course it is, it is common sense, which is something the AGWers lack, as well as lacking intelligence, sense of humor, and they only use one square toilet sheet to wipe their behinds..

[edit on 12-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Not sure of the point here?

During the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Optimum) when CO2 levels were much higher than today and temperatures where much higher today and the continents were differently placed to today and there were no human civilisations reliant on 20th century climate, then there were big snakes. Wow!

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Essan]

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Actually higher co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would be great for the plants and trees.Making them grow faster and healthier.

CO2 alone doesn't make that much difference. Plants need corresponding increases in nitrogen in the soil along with other nutrients.

Nothing is ever as simple as those with agendas will suggest

reply to post by Essan

True enough, although nitrogen isn't one of the major correlary factors in photosynthesis:

There are three main factors affecting photosynthesis and several corollary factors. The three main are:

• Light irradiance and wavelength
  
• Carbon dioxide concentration
  
• Temperature.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, even if we were to agree that nitrogen was a major contributing factor, you are aware that the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, right? As compared to 0.038% CO2.

Ironically, CO2 increases do tend to raise the temperatures slightly (although not to the degree that some would have us believe) which in turn allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. So:

• Higher CO2 = higher temps.
  
• Higher temps = more water vapor.
  
• More CO2 + higher temps + more water vapor = more photosynthesis.
  
• More photosynthesis = less CO2.
  
• Less CO2 = lower temperatures.
  
• Lower temperatures = less water vapor.
  
• Lower CO2 levels + lower temps + less water vapor = less photosynthesis.
  
• Less photosynthesis = more CO2.
  
• Lather, rinse, repeat.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Essan


There weremore forests, including rainforests, which the AGWers, and environmentalists claimed would be decimated because of increased temperatures, and increased CO2.

Originally posted by Essan
CO2 alone doesn't make that much difference. Plants need corresponding increases in nitrogen in the soil along with other nutrients.

Nothing is ever as simple as those with agendas will suggest

Really? is that why people who own greenhouses increase CO2 ONLY to up to 1,500 ppm?... The more CO2 (ONLY) that they increase the more harvests greenhouses produce...but of course Essan has to claim that saying that CO2 is plant food it means you must have an agenda....

reply to post by TheRedneck


Remember that Water Vapor increases NATURALLY during times of warming, without the help from CO2. The warmer it gets the more Water Vapor levels increase, which means a feedback loop is created by Water vapor, and not by CO2. CO2 also increases naturally but it has NEVER been demonstrated that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers and their fans. Remember that.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Actually, CO2 will cause a minor temperature fluctuation. The debate as I see it is not over this fact, but over the extent of temperature change. CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas at best, and is naturally produced (and recycled) by nature. To attribute an appreciable change in temperature to minor CO2 fluctuations alone is, to put it bluntly, unscientific and just plain silly.

But my post was intended to illustrate the self-regulation. Even if we allow that temperature swings can be caused by CO2 alone, the system would still regulate. If higher CO2 were to cause elevated temperatures, those elevated temperatures would increase the water vapor naturally (as you correctly point out). Thus, it creates an environment favorable to the only source of removing CO2 that we have available on large scale: plant life.

In other words, we are in agreement.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yes, not only that, but as i have pointed out in the past the troposphere which is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere, and the one which affects surface temperatures, contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapor and aerosols.

As far as we know in the Troposphere water vapor amounts for 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2, and the rest of the ghg account for about 2% -5% of the greenhouse effect.

Since water vapor is 99.999% natural, it is obvious why the policymakers didn't try to impose a tax on it, but even the EPA has been trying to label water vapor as a pollutant, in their ignorance.

EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

This jet condensation trail seen at sunset will gradually evaporate, increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere. Since a wide variety of human activities produce water vapor, the Earths main greenhouse gas, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to have it designated as a pollutant.

www.ecoenquirer.com...


There is also the following fact.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

We are living in a carbon based world, and in fact the Earth is STILL CO2 starved...

It is another fact that the green biomass of the Earth, and even the oceans has been increasing, and this means MORE FOOD for animals, and mankind.

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

We are having a problem with food production, and people want to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It should be obvious who are the people who have an agenda to use Climate Change not only as a political tool, and to consolidate and have more power over people, but also as an economic tool which some people don't seem to understand.

I am glad that we are in agreement.

(edited for errors and to add link with excerpt)


[edit on 17-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Excellent points all around!

I have been searching for an accurate estimate online on any increase in total biomass, but I have been unable to even find any guesses. I will attribute that to the fact that such a measurement would be extremely difficult to make with any reasonable accuracy; however I will also state my belief that should there be any real indications of the reverse happening, it would quickly become as easy to find as hookers on a Bronx street corner.

We are having a problem with food production, and people want to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Remember who we are discussing. Some years back, in the midst of rising fuel costs and public concerns over fuel economy, the EPA mandated that gasoline was to contain additives to decrease its volatility... of course, I suppose no one in the EPA realized that gasoline must vaporize before it can burn...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Good points, also remember that the hybrids which the policymakers and environmentalists are pushing for release water vapor which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, and this will mean that when millions of hybrids are out there in the streets temperatures will dramatically increase around cities all over the world. They point out that aircraft also produce water vapor, but they want to increase hybrid cars which will be in the millions?...

Looking at the photosynthetic equation:

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy ® C6H12O6 + 6O2

Take CO2 + Water add energy(sunlight in this case) and you get glucose(sugar - used for energy) + (Oxygen - released)

A 1 to 1 exchange for O2 for CO2 based on the equation. I haven't done any research to see if anyone has ever reliably synthesized it, but it seems like if someone found an efficient way to do so it could be quite useful. Plants are thus the perfect GH gas filters as they remove both water vapor and CO2. Sulfer Dioxide from Volcanoes or other sources - they cannot help with.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by Necrosis]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Er... this sort of hinges on the assumption that titanoboa would need really hot temperatures to survive.

It wouldn't.

Combining a large surface area with a lot of body mass means this critter could have sun-warmed fairly quickly, and stayed warm for a good long while, combined with the heat that would have come from prolonged digestion.

This snake would not have required hot temperatures. Just some open sun every few days and semi-regular feeding.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

While it is true that water is being scientifically mentioned as a greenhouse gas, I am not sure the full story is being given. Water absorbs heat, yes, but in the end it tends to mitigate temperature swings to a much higher degree than it does actually increase temperature. Water, like CO2, cycles throughout the ecosphere. Unlike CO2, water has severe thermal characteristics which affect climate. But do these thermal characteristics really cause overall warming, or do they mainly cause a decrease in fluctuation?

Example: water evaporates into the atmosphere by absorbing kinetic energy from its surroundings, cooling those surroundings (this is why you feel cold when wet). Water vapor then rises into the atmosphere, where it begins absorbing heat energy through the process you mention. It does not only absorb this energy during the day; it also releases it during the night, effectively making the day feel cooler and the night warmer. When it cools sufficiently, it will condense around airborne particles to form raindrops, releasing energy equal to the heat of vaporization (the same heat that it absorbed when it evaporated). It then falls to the earth as rain and repeats the process.

Photosynthesis affects this process as well, since the water released released from the leaves as a byproduct of the process results in a general cooling as it evaporates. The water released is also cooler since ther conversion of COO2 into O2 is an endothermic process, requiring energy (heat) to operate. This is why forests are typically cooler than deserts during the day.

I am not saying water vapor does not contribute to any greenhouse effect; I am simply stating that even it cannot be simplified to the extent it has, without bringing into play questions of accuracy.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The point is that even if temperatures increase like the IPCC, the policymakers, and those environmentalists who think it will, rainforests and animal life, not to mention mankind will survive just fine.

There are other reasons why so many species are dying, from the fact that the magnetic field of Earth has been fluctuating and getting weaker since 1840, which means more radiation is making it's way to the surface of the Earth, not to mention that it has been discovered that there have been occurring large breaches in the magnetic field, and more radiation means more mutations in dna, not to mention that many animals, like birds, bees (which is an insect but anyways) etc need a constant magnetic field to guide themselves.

Yes, there is also the fact that some activities of mankind have interrupted the habitat of some species, but the world is not going to be devoid of life, and there won't be mass extinctions EVEN IF temperatures increase as the AGWers claim.

There are other REAL problems happening right now. From the magnetic field weakening, to the space radiation having increased, to the fact that interstellar dust, as well as space radiation will continue to increase exponentially until at least 2012, if the Sun's activity does return to normal. There is also the fact that the Earth's magmatic, and seismic events have been increasing in frequency also.

As for environmental problems, we have got islands of plastic, which sorry to say to the people in third world countries, is happening mainly because of them, because they are less environmental minded than ANY American, or even Canadian...

These people are fighting for their lives, hence they are ignorant of what they are doing, yet policymakers, and third world nations want the U.S. and other western countries to pay for the mess the third world nations created themselves, and they are not going to stop no matter how much money is given to them, because this money wil only reach the rich elite who will use any excuse to implement more taxes on people to get richer.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You're kind of stacking up straw men here, man. None of us think that the earth will be rendered devoid of life. Hell, anyone who's put any research into historical climate will know that the earth has been through much worse - Just take a look at the Permian ice age transforming into the Triassic global desert. Sure, Lystrosaurus was the dominant life form across the world for most of that time, but it was still life.

But we're not just looking at temperature fluctuations. We're looking at a one-two punch of adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere while simultaneously cutting away and poisoning the planet's main ways of dealing with the stuff. The result is a hastened shift towards warming that is going to mess up a lot of earth's habitats.

You mention water as a greenhouse gas. Well, ambient humidity does trap heat. However, an increase in water vapor turns into an increase in cloud cover. Higher humidity in frost climates creates, well, frost, snow, ice, etc. Clouds and frozen water are white and reflective - their presence deflects sunlight back into space, resulting in a net cooling. The water eventually condenses and falls as rain, snow, fog, whatever, and is rapidly absorbed into soil, organisms, and bodies of water. The planet is more than capable of handling extra water (though floods and mudslides are a real pain for humans)

Bees aren't dying due to the magnetic field. They're dying due to a fungal infection spread by use of commercial bee pollination services.

The pacific gyre is the fault of third world nations? Hell, anything to deny any iota of responsibility for anything, huh?

The fact that a snake that lived millions of years ago could survive means that animals that live now can survive?

You do realize that we have different species alive now that are not adapted to live in the warmer temps?

reply to post by GovernmentAgent

While that is true, you do realize that mankind is actually adapted better to warm temperatures than cold, right?

Warmth can be dissipated by perspiration, breathing, or moving to cooler locations (such as shaded areas). Against cold, our only natural defense is shivering and shunting of blood toward the core, the latter of which can contribute to frostbite.

Many more people die each year from exposure to cold than from exposure to heat.

TheRedneck