Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Methane Producing Dinosaurs May Have Changed Climate

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 264

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that huge plant-eating dinosaurs called sauropods may have produced enough greenhouse gas by breaking wind to alter the Earth's climate. Scientists believe that, just as in cows, methane-producing bacteria aided the digestion of sauropods by fermenting their plant food. 'A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,' says study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson. 'Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources — both natural and man-made — put together.' The key factor is the total mass of the animals which included some of the largest animals to walk the Earth, such as Diplodocus, which measured 150 feet and weighed up to 45 tons. Medium-sized sauropods weighed about 20 tons and lived in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer so global methane emissions from the animals would have amounted to around 472 million tons per year, the scientists calculated. Sauropods alone may have been responsible for an atmospheric methane concentration of one to two parts per million (ppm), say the scientists and studies have suggested that the Earth was up to 10C (18F) warmer in the Mesozoic Era. ''The Mesozoic trend to sauropod gigantism led to the evolution of immense microbial vats unequaled in modern land animals. Methane was probably important in Mesozoic greenhouse warming. Our simple proof-of-concept model suggests greenhouse warming by sauropod megaherbivores could have been significant in sustaining warm climates.'"

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

junk science (1, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916553)

really, do we have to get to discussing dinosaur farts for people to figure out what pseudoscience is? Could this research have had actual research papers and not just been pure speculation?

Re:junk science (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916725)

I see no problem. .
. -> Where could all those microbes have been
. -> no evidence in ocean, ground, air
. -> animals?
. -> huge populations of dinosaurs that would have needed microbes to process plants like cows?
. -> create computer model to test
. -> article says it could be possible

Re:junk science (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916737)

Perhaps those publishing to and editing scientific journals are better suited to identify "junk science" than you.

Re:junk science (1, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916769)

sauropods == Congresscritters?

Hmm...well, that might explain current claims about today's climate change issues.....

Re:junk science (4, Funny)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916821)

Actually it kind of makes sense. We see in our modern developed culture that Childhood Obesity is on the rise. The Fast Food Industry has plainly stated that foods slow to digest are not their responsibility. We are already witnessing "in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer" wondering in local Walmart Supper Stores. [google.com] Possibly a grant could be established that would allow the study of ventallation systems exhaust particles of Nordstroms and Walmarts?

Re:junk science (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917035)

Does a large grass field full of windy cows produce more methane than the same plot of land when covered with semi-tropical rain forest full of rotting vegetation?

Maybe.

Does a Jurassic swamp full of farty sauropods produce more methane than the same swamp full of uneaten rotting vegetation?

Probably not.

Junk analysis.

Fucking idiots (-1, Troll)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916559)

I'm nto going to read the article. This is just another tree hugger trying to prove global warming is caused by people by showing it has been done before. I'm fine with being modded down.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916661)

There are two ways to take that into account then I guess.

Either the tree hugger way like you assume it's intended to be taken.

Or as the "Well... the world didn't end last time and it was apparently even WORSE then! Let's keep on trucking!"

But on another note, given slashdot's accuracy ratio on summary-to-original-article, how the hell could you possibly know what it's actually about.

Link to the original article (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917325)

But on another note, given slashdot's accuracy ratio on summary-to-original-article, how the hell could you possibly know what it's actually about.

Here is a link to the original article [youtube.com] .

Re:Fucking idiots (2, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916669)

Careful citizen. At the most-recent Warming Conference a scientist proposed labeling climate-deniers as "mentally ill" and sending them to hospitals to be cured of this deficiency. She got unanamious applause.

Re:Fucking idiots (3, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916775)

Well, what do you call people who make up their own reality which can not be penetrated by facts? And lay off the persecution complex, it does not become you.

Re:Fucking idiots (-1, Troll)

smartin (942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916819)

I call them Republicans

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916899)

that's funny, i call them "Most People"

Re:Fucking idiots (0, Offtopic)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916913)

>>>>>Well, what do you call people who make up their own reality which can not be penetrated by facts?
>>
>>I call them Republicans

I call them Obama voters:
- "He has assasinated 3 americans, started two new wars w/o permission from the People (via Congress), called Bush's debt presidency to be "unpatriotic" and then added almost 5 trillion himself, signed the ACTA, asked Congress to add the indefinite jailtime w/o trial provision, et cetera."

And their reply: No he didn't. Obama's doing the best job he can. It's all Bush's fault and you're just racist. (Yes this is an actual quote from my facebook.) Perfect example of a person who can't wake-up to reality.

To be honest I hope Obama DOES win re-election. I want the next four years to destroy anything left of his legacy.

Re:Fucking idiots (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917089)

To be honest I hope Obama DOES win re-election. I want the next four years to destroy anything left of his legacy.

This is the problem with Americans today. Instead of desiring a bright, hopeful, prosperous future, we instead want one where the people we dislike bring us into ruin just so we can say "I told you so."

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917131)

He's pretty much in line with his Republican pals here. Making "letting Obama fail" your sole stated political goal is borderline treasonous. Well, I watch it from a distance, but it is sad to see such a promising, yet shortlived experiment like the US fail.

Re:Fucking idiots (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917315)

Hoping Obama fails is no different than hoping Mussolini fails back in 1930. (Unfortunately he didn't fail, and very successfully turned Italy into a corporation-run state.... just like Obama is doing now.)

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917233)

Wish I had Mod points, +5 in my book.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916945)

More of this global warming fairy tale stuff that boils down to name calling when smart people wont fall for it eh? All you have to do is read the literature to know its a fairytale.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916991)

I call them "religious people". Oh, and sometimes deniers of AGW.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917005)

What percentage of people that believe in Global Warming do you really think hold that belief because of facts? Given the very low percentage, there is a very good chance that you are not one of them.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916823)

And your palls at the Heartland Institute have been putting up billboards comparing scientists who are researching AGW to the Unibomber.

So what?

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

Xiaran (836924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916877)

Seriously? The unibomber was (in his mentally ill way) against science... he was sending bombs to scientists and engineers.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916835)

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-forcibly-tattoo-man-made-climate-change-deniers.html

“Let’s start keeping track of them -- let’s make them pay”

It isn't funny, Citizen. These hate filled people worry me far more than DHS types.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917067)

I think you missed this one [adweek.com] It compares those who believe in climate change to terrorists.

Re:Fucking idiots (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916947)

She's way out of line there. Climate deniers are stupid, not crazy, and you can't cure stupid.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917103)

You probably are right - Hanlon's razor pretty much dictates that it is based on an inability to examine facts and evaluated sources rather than on some pathology. And the propaganda put out by Heartland, Watts and the like is so much more simple and palatable, so hey, why not gobble it up.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916961)

"You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthropogenic global warming."

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917031)

Thats called 'preaching to the choir'

Re:Fucking idiots (2)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917087)

Yeah, yeah, and Ted Nugent got unanimous applause for insinuating that he or someone else would assassinate the President. Hyperbole often tends to cross lines of appropriate discussion, sometimes causing actual offense, but let's not give credence to it by pretending it's more than it is.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917303)

The fact that you had to explain that should say a lot. But it won't.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917107)

(Please read the entire post before calling it flamebait...)

That's interesting, because at the most recent Sex-aholics Conference, I proposed labeling people opposed to blowjobs as "mentally ill" and sending them to hospitals to be cured of this deficiency. And I too got unanimous applause. From your mom, since she was the only attendant to the "Sex-aholics Conference" that I held in her bedroom.

What is the point of the above drivel you might ask? My point is simply that, just because a bunch of people get together and call it a "conference", doesn't mean the opinions they spout reflect upon anyone other than themselves. And you have not given us any reason to believe that your "Warming Conference" extended outside your mother's basement.

Not saying you're wrong, only that you've not given us a reason to believe you.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917183)

Oh great! Next thing you know someone will get attacked in public restaurant by a Global Warming activist for eating frijoles!

I can udnerstand her (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917245)

Having had discussion with climate denier, they make pretty as much sense as evolution denier. They always bring up retarded point already debunked 10000 time.

Mind you scientist bringing and investigating element falsifying climate change/AGW theory do not belong to that category. In that "denialist" category I put every single people which have no clue whatsoever about the climatologist model, or data, but just jump on the denialism bandwagon. Which is pretty much everybody you can see online denying AGW with a fair degree of certainty. You can recognize them easily, first they were denying there could be a warming, then they were denying there is a warming, recentely they switched to accuse a bunch of other phenomenon and move the goalpost every time. Now they are denying that the impact will be big.

Real scientist having a go at falsifying the theory ? Good. Bunch of idiot denying what real scientist found out because it is inconvennient to them ? In the same bag as holocaust or evolution denialism.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917291)

Say, aren't you that overly obvious troll who poses as a conservative?

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917371)

Say, aren't you that overly obvious troll who poses as a conservative?

Yeah - the dead giveaway is that an actual conservative is far more obnoxious.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916733)

Being fine with being modded down - and stating it preemptively - might be construed as a problem with dogmatism. I hear there's a twelve-step program for that.

Re:Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916767)

No, it's a book, Critical Thinking for Dummies.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916749)

Another one ignoring logical processes to come up with a possible solution.
please reason us through why this cannot be possible, and use known scientific facts to do so please.

Re:Fucking idiots (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916751)

I'm nto going to read the article. This is just another tree hugger trying to prove global warming is caused by people by showing it has been done before. I'm fine with being modded down.

For a guy who picks a nickname of 'SensitiveMale', you really like getting kicked in the balls, huh.

Re:Fucking idiots (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916825)

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Dino" hugger.

On the other hand...human (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916567)

...we produce more radioactive fallout than all other animals put together... Hmmmm...

O RLY? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916681)

So you're claiming that humans themselves produce radioactive fallout in a fashion comparable to how ruminants produce methane? I hope not, because that would make you appear a bigger idiot than, say, Glenn Beck or Rick Santorum, and nobody wants that, not least being Beck or Santorum themselves for stealing their limelight.

Re:O RLY? (0)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917085)

Yes, only we use more abstraction layers to hide it, responsibility of it. You using electricity generated from a nuclear reactor or in the military using dirty bombs?
Maybe you don't fart radioactivity, or maybe you do.

Re:O RLY? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917309)

Show me a house with 100ppm radon gas and I'll show you a radioactive fart. Say, Glenn Beck is a fart and he's also pretty radioactive. He munches on thorium trail mix.

Re:On the other hand...human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917177)

...we produce more radioactive fallout than all other animals put together... Hmmmm...

Are you trying to say that dinosaurs DIDN'T have nukes?

Just when a great mental image arrives, someone has to pull the rug out.

Big Deal (1, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916573)

We've got politicians doing the same thing. Tell me something new.

Re:Big Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916691)

Aw, you beat me to it :( I was going to say something along the same lines.
Does that mean we can clasify politicians as sauropods now?

Re:Big Deal (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916729)

We've got politicians doing the same thing. Tell me something new.

Wrong hole.

Re:Big Deal (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917029)

Are you sure? Most politicians seem to be talking out their ass all of the time.

interesting (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916589)

In addition to being 18 degrees warmer, scientists also concluded the climate was 43% more stinky

Wasn't this an episode of South Park? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916603)

So to fight global warming, everyone holds in their farts, until we get spontaneous human combustion?

Re:Wasn't this an episode of South Park? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916677)

So to fight global warming, everyone holds in their farts, until we get spontaneous human combustion?

Holding them in won't help. Lighting them is the answer.

Science community is getting desperate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916613)

Using the tedious evidence of dinosaurs existence as a basis for an even more unlikely Global warming phenomenon. Pitiful

It Was Clathrate Methane (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916631)

Chek out the video's here http://greencheck.nl/index.php?/archives/971-Statoil-Rosneft,-Het-Doek-Valt-Voor-De-Mensheid.html

Misconstrued Article (5, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916633)

The world today is very different than the world millions of years ago. There were a lot more trees back then, which provided more shade for the ground and more oxygen in the air. It's not Methane alone that is affecting the planet, it's ALL of the ABOVE!

Re:Misconstrued Article (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916879)

The world today is very different than the world millions of years ago. There were a lot more trees back then, which provided more shade for the ground and more oxygen in the air. It's not Methane alone that is affecting the planet, it's ALL of the ABOVE!

The same can be said for any particular point in this planet's history. The author's contention is not that methane was the sole reason for global warming during that era, only that it was the dominant one. Please read the articles more carefully in the future and use common sense.

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

JLDohm (741501) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917211)

Please read the articles more carefully in the future and use common sense.

You must be new here...

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

JLDohm (741501) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917219)

Or an ingenious troll.

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916895)

And why it was very different is one of the most interesting problems in climate research, and the article suggests a possible solution to that.

Re:Misconstrued Article (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916903)

Legitimate question: 65 million years ago, were trees/plants as efficient at converting carbon dioxide to Oxygen? I assume trees have evolved since then to become better at what they do.

Re:Misconstrued Article (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917099)

Legitimate question: 65 million years ago, were trees/plants as efficient at converting carbon dioxide to Oxygen? I assume trees have evolved since then to become better at what they do.

Once you had 'trees' you have modern photosynthesis. There might have been some qualitative differences with more surface area, etc, but the higher temps and just plain more organic matter would have likely trumped any later 'efficiencies'. Basically, once photosynthesis jumped out of the cyanobacteria (about 3+ billion years ago), the molecular mechanism has been highly conserved.

Re:Misconstrued Article (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917299)

Thanks for the reply! Reignites my faith in Slashdot's readership. Can't say the same for the thread above. I came here looking for cute jokes about dinosaur farts and instead stumbled into an ideological clusterfuck.

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917195)

Your understanding of evolution is off. Crocodiles have been evolutionary stagnant for millions of years. Evolution is the process of genetic mutations creating subtle variations in lifeforms. In extremely rare cases a subject has the right mutation to affect his entire species and an evolutionary change occurs. While optimization does occur, its doesnt do so in the direct manner you suggest.

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917367)

Legitimate question: 65 million years ago, were trees/plants as efficient at converting carbon dioxide to Oxygen? I assume trees have evolved since then to become better at what they do.

They must have, because there is much less CO2 in the atmosphere today than it was the case in the Mesozoic. They must work harder at extracting it today than they did back then.

Re:Misconstrued Article (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916949)

What of buzz kill. I'm sitting here chuckling, then someone introduces facts.

Also, due to the ability to facter out the Dimension of Time in Newtonian Phyisics, it would be more accurate to avoid "millions of years ago", and state, "in a previous configuration."

I wish for general audiences, science reporters .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916635)

I wish for general audiences, science reporters would give the "whole" picture - meaning along with this story, also mention that other sources of methane and greenhouse gases.

Sauropods alone may have been responsible for an atmospheric methane concentration of one to two parts per million (ppm), said the scientists.

AND ...

''Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources - both natural and man-made - put together.''

- notice the word "suggests".

Now, we're going to start hearing that the dinosaurs did more to harm the atmosphere and caused more global warming than we ever did.

Manmade Global Warming is a Hoax! they'll say.

Then again, maybe this is a lesson to us. We see the output of these creatures and what they did to themselves and we'll come to the conclusion that maybe we should learn from them and take care.

N'ah. We'll all ignore everything. And if Global Climate change does get bad enough where it starts affecting the Western World - namely us in the US - then we'll just put the blame on others, bury our heads in the sand, continue life as usual, say "See China isn't doing anything!", and fuck the rest of the World.

Re:I wish for general audiences, science reporters (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916833)

OK! OK! OK! Enough with bashing conservatives at every opportunity.
I'm conservative (most of us over 40 are), yet I agree global warming is a problem and it can be attributed to human activity.
However, "cute" articles like this ("Oh look little Tommy - dinosaurs, and it's about Global Warming, so I can feel good about myself reading it) are nothing more than fluff pieces that make self-righteous Eurotrash feel informed, and your post is just more inane karma whoring.
Seriously, if China and India get to exempt themselves from the Kyoto protocol, then yes, fuck them.

I'm sick of it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916657)

I'm sick and tired of everyone blaming the Democrats for Climate change...

Huh? Oh, those Dinosaurs - sorry.

Funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916675)

I made a reference to dinosaur farts changing climate several stories ago in an anti-human-induced-climate-change post. I believe it was the story about wind turbines affecting climate. Point is still valid: Anything on this planet is going to affect the climate in some way. The current climate is what is "natural" to Earth for the current moment. Humans affect climate the same as dinosaur farts. The planet will self-correct when necessary.

Climate change zealots need to find a new hobby. News flash here is that the climate is going to change no matter what you do, so your religion is baseless.

These large dinosaurs are pretty incredible... (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916697)

when you think about it. The largest living terrestrial animal African bush elephant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_organisms [wikipedia.org] only weighs about 7 t (15,000 lb). The fact that these sauropods can weigh up to 45 tons is mind blowing. I couldn't fathom trying to move 45 tons on land let alone in the water.

Link to the manuscript at Current Biology (4, Informative)

jestill (656510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916705)

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00329-6 [cell.com] in which the authors thank Lynn Margulis and say that she would 'savoured" fart jokes. "We thank the late Lynn Margulis for infecting us with her microbial enthusiasm — she would have savoured the notion of sauropods as walking methanogen vats.

Climate change and slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916711)

It would be nice if we could go one day without an article about (or related to) climate change.

Farts could be our end!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916735)

No point reducing fossil fuels,etc
1st we must all take steps to contain and eliminate farts
I propose a tube attached to a bag on one end and the other end up the ass
You pay taxes as per the amount of farts produced by you

Re:Farts could be our end!!! (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916891)

After the farts are done the tube can be used to supply content to foxnews.

Aliens may be changing the climate right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916743)

Or maybe not. Seems pretty much any post with *may* in the title could or could not have happened. Take your pick. So what is point, then, of these postings? Can anyone stand here and tell me what really happened millions and millions of years ago? Of course not. It is all just conjecture. Probably wild guesses at best. These posts are useless fluff.

Pebbles may cause rashes.
Snakes may cure cancer.
The color blue may cure baldness in small men.

I'm sure you can come up with examples that are even more ridiculous. Best thing about using *may* is that nobody can dispute you. Great to be a scientist, isn't it!

Randy Marsh's break Wind Theory was correct! (1)

elbonia (2452474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916801)

So farts really are deadly! Well I, for one, refuse to fart any more.

Re:Randy Marsh's break Wind Theory was correct! (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917335)

So farts really are deadly! Well I, for one, refuse to fart any more.

Only the silent ones... So if you fart, make sure it's loud and proud.

this article sure isnt bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916827)

It's dinodoo and yet another agenda 21 global warming propaganda piece. Unless there was a 3000 ft layer of continously setcating dinosaurs of course, you never know what even more insane bullshit the climate fearmongeprs come up with.

Won't someone think of the humans (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916849)

The problem of dinosaurs causing climate change has been around for 150 million years and we haven't fixed it yet?

Re:Won't someone think of the humans (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917145)

The problem of dinosaurs causing climate change has been around for 150 million years and we haven't fixed it yet?

Maybe somebody already did. Think about this:

TIme travel is invented.

First thing they do is send back a thermite grenade.

Poof, the entire atmosphere blows up. No more big dinos.

Problem solved until the Industrial Revolution. Now, you have to worry about:

Somebody set us up the bomb?

Did farts kill the dinosaurs? (2)

da007 (242994) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916861)

This research stinks.

So much for that Time Machine (1)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916907)

If I ever get that Time Machine i've been working on to work properly, I know what era im not bothering to visit now.

freelancer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916935)

like Denise explained I'm impressed that someone able to profit $8653 in one month on the internet. have you seen this web link http://www.makecash16.com

population density (1)

voot545 (2633797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916959)

"Medium-sized sauropods weighed about 20 tons and lived in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer so global methane emissions from the animals would have amounted to around 472 million tons per year, the scientists calculated." How could they possibly know the population density? not to be an ass, just asking honestly

Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39916973)

The ridiculous theory assumes that dinosaurs actually existed.

That's not all... (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39916997)

Some say that the mass extinction which was allegedly caused by the meteorite that hit Central America was in fact the result of a global conflagration caused by a group of teenaged stegosaurs on a camping trip who thought it would be funny to light one off...

Easy to Debunk (2)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917001)

How's this:
Since the dinosaurs never existed, because God put the bones in the ground for us to find and remind us we will one day die and go to heaven, it's easier than ever to say that climate change doesn't, and never did, exist.

Am I doing it right?

Climate debate is always fun to observe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917013)

Basically, what you have is a bunch of children debating something in a hostile manner - calling names and pointing out who is dumb or stupid for believing what they believe.

I posit that less than 1% of you will actually try to discuss this in a manner that is intended to illuminate the nay-sayer that you are confronting.

I further posit that the reason for such a low percentage is that most of you lack the understanding to articulate what the real reasons for climate change are and have only taken the position to be on the "winning side" of the argument so that you look smarter than you actually are.

Get your units straight! (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917037)

You start using feet then proceed to tons (metric or US), then proceed to square kilometers...

If you don't want to use the standard measurement system for all the measures, at least be consistent! Don't use standard units mixed up with US units. It just makes a mess.

The vast majority of people in the world has no fucking idea how much 150 feet is!

Fart change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917043)

Give me a fart please, it just ridiculous.

Go and observe sun!

how many sauropods would it take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917047)

It's nonsense, while individually sauropods are huge. The total biomass of sauropods is unlikely to be anywhere near that of cattle. There is zero evidence to support claims, because there is no evidence that supports sauropod populations that high.

I hadn't reakized ... (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917049)

the history of the MAFIAA extended so far back in history. Maybe they are the root cause of the current climate changes. A hypothesis as believable as many of the alternate hypothesis bruited by the alarmists.

No problems then (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917113)

So the dinosaurs caused their own global warming and everything worked out well for them. Why is everyone up in such a bunch of it now?

Not a new concept/not only tied to climate change (1)

Shaiku (1045292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917155)

I first heard about this idea over a decade ago as a possible hypothesis for dinosaur extinction. I believe a paper was written up by someone at UC Santa Barbara and I learned of it on college geology field trips.

It was not discussed in the context of "global warming" at that time--it was just stated that the methane gas could have affected the climate enough to have directly or indirectly prompted a mass extinction. We tended to favor the impact theory (as evidenced by the KT boundary) as a more likely explanation, but the idea of dinosaur farts affecting climate has been around for a long time.

Huge Americans known as Gastropods... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917199)

Huge Americans known as Gastropods may be emitting enough methane out of their asses to alter the Earth's climate.

Global Dutch Oven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917225)

Nevermind global warming.

I think scientists can sell the threat better by claiming the world will die in a method of dino-farting under cloud covers

cows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39917239)

I live near many dairy farms. Should I be worried?

Nice try but cows and dinos aren't the problem (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917283)

The problem with climate change is the rate. The dinosaurs, were here for 160 MILLION years. The amount of time it took for the type of climate change the research is suggesting (due to excrement) is hard to agree with. There could have been a lot of other naturally contributing factors in that timescale.

The amount of climate change brought about in the past 100 years, however, is largely due to anthropogenic emissions. People consuming resources, driving, industry, cows (yes meat production and transportation as well as dairy farm methane), depletion of natural carbon sinks, irresponsible land use and the list goes on.

So stop trying to push climate change off as a totally natural occurrence that we have nothing to worry about. The earth's climate has never remained the same for long, and yes it's had plenty of warm and cold spells in the past but never, ever have we been able to find that rate of change occurring over the course of a measly 100 years. This is the worrisome part. People need to accept that we have changed the course of climate on this planet at a rate never seen before and the earth will continue to warm unless we start changing the way we live. And soon.

Is Climate a Non-Linear Dynamical System? (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39917293)

If it is, it doesn't matter if the estimated methane output 150 million years ago is 100% correct. Its effect on the climate would still be unpredictable.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>