Methane Producing Dinosaurs May Have Changed Climate 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.'"
Misconstrued Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misconstrued Article (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Fucking idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Nice try but cows and dinos aren't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fucking idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Who (name) said what (quote) where (place) when (date)?
But at least the people who modded you "+5 Informative") demonstrated what passes as facts in climate deniers camp. And since advanced enough self-deception is indistinguishable from genuine mental illness, perhaps we should forgive any real of imaginary person who confuses the two.
Re:junk science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:junk science (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't know for sure how fast a sauropod's metabolism was compared to an elephant's. If their metabolisms were similar to those of modern reptiles, then it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that they could survive on an order of magnitude less food. From WP [wikipedia.org]: "A crocodile needs from a tenth to a fifth of the food necessary for a lion of the same weight and can live half a year without eating." During the Jurassic and Cretaceous, the climate was very warm and humid, there were no polar ice caps, and a much higher proportion of the world's surface area was covered with rainforest compared to today. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about productivity of the ancient forests, but this paper [gsapubs.org] says that in the Cretaceous it was probably double that of today. Believe it or not, the scientist who did this work may not have been a complete idiot. In fact, he may know more about his subject than you do, and may have made his estimates based on knowledge of his field. In fact, his publication list [ljmu.ac.uk] contains papers with titles like "The energetics of low browsing in sauropods."