Oxygen-rich environment + arms race against prey of ever-increasing size which has access to an abundance of food due to greenhouse atmosphere creating megaflora.
No, it can't. The earth only has a finite amount of oxygen in it, and either all of it is locked up in carbon dixoide or that carbon is buried in the crust and the oxygen can be free to be O2. Combustion engines are literally killing the entire planet.
>The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
No oxygen is related to trees alive at any given era.
https://i.imgur.com/VjKdN5d.png
>The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
That's because of giant trees or world trees.
I hate fossil fuel shills but you can't just make shit up.
Fossil fuels aren't even harvested from fossils and aren't made from dead dinosaur bodies
There is a shit ton of oxygen available at any time in earths history in the water of the oceans and other mineral deposits. And CO2 is not the only chemistry for greenhouse gasses. If the biosphere generates an excess of methane for instance, you liberate more oxygen and use that leftover hydrogen to make a more potent green house gas. Why are you like this?
Why do you deny the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real?
10 months ago
Anonymous
I dont't. But what does that have to do with the climate 90 million years ago?
10 months ago
Anonymous
You obviously do since you question the fact that there was the same amount of CO2 and O2 90 million years ago.
10 months ago
Anonymous
The amount of all the elements, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc. is essentially the same since the formation of the earth. But they can be sequestered or free in a gaseous form in different ratios for a number of different reasons. Such as being chemically bound in a solid or liquid or literally just buried underground. The composition and thickness of the atmosphere can vary wildly over the course of millions of years due to random geologic or living processes. It's not like the earth knows there has to be an exact amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and it can only swap o2 for co2 or something. Anthropogenic climate change is not caused by digging up co2, its caused by digging up just carbon. If for example humans decided to refine all the buried iron oxide into steel we would add a bunch of oxygen to the atmosphere but the climate wouldn't cool off. We would still have the same amount of co2 up there. So we would have both a hotter and more oxygen rich atmosphere.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Anthropogenic climate change is not caused by digging up co2, its caused by digging up just carbon.
Which is burned to produce... CO2. Which removes oxygen from the atmosphere and ties it up with CO2, which heats the Earth at the same time we are literally running out of air we need to breath. There is no efficient way to untangle carbon from oxygen in CO2 without massive amounts of energy that would just put more CO2 back in the atmosphere. You cannot run from this, it is basic chemistry.
10 months ago
Anonymous
You do realize that Co2 in the atmosphere had plummeted to near critical levels over the 500 or so million years of carbon based lifeforms depositing carbon into the earth right?
300 million year of shellfish extracting carbon from the cycle and depositing it into their shells, which then sink to the bottom of the sea had almost depleted carbon levels to the point where plant life could no longer be supported.
For every kg of fossil fuels there are ten tonnes of carbon rich limestone in from sea life alone, deposited deep beneath the earth. Blasting that Co2 back into the atmosphere is good for biodiversity on this planet... but because some climatejews wanting return on their renewable tech since we kept on finding new fossil fuels, morons like you are propagandized into believing that the climate ca. 1870 is the not only the best climate, but the only climate allowed.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>no sources >all oil company propaganda
Frick off.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Holy shit, no wonder the world is going to shit if toddlers like these are it's costodians.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Frick off, you're functionally moronic if you believe that nonsense. Get therapy
10 months ago
Anonymous
If it is such nonsense, you should be able to easily refute any of the points being made.
Has carbon not been lost from the system due to carbon based sea life over hundreds of millions of years?
Is it false that plants do better if the atmosphere has carbon levels 2-3 times higher than today?
Why is it true and good to claim that an arbitary point in recent history is the correct and "normal" climate levels?
Go on then, should be easy for you to dismiss my concerns off the top of your heads since it is such nonsense.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>stop asking me for sources!
shut up moron lmao, your entire personality is edgy contrarian and nothing more.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>your entire personality is edgy contrarian and nothing more
YES
What now ?
10 months ago
Anonymous
He's right. Why does only 1850 have the "correct" climate? Noone can ever answer this question.
10 months ago
Anonymous
because that climate is the one we survive best in moron
10 months ago
Anonymous
>I LOVE BEING TOLD WHAT TO BELIEVE!
10 months ago
Anonymous
You refuse to engage, you've been trained to disagree and hate those who stray from the narrative, that you are good to believe in it and those that don't are bad and you're not only allowed, but a virtious person to dislike them.
You have been propagandized into, well an NPC. If you harbor a singular independant thought and your world view is indeed correct, you should be able to dispell my points off hand.
10 months ago
Anonymous
He's right. Why does only 1850 have the "correct" climate? Noone can ever answer this question.
10 months ago
Anonymous
When do the seas boil?
because that climate is the one we survive best in moron
This isn't even correct. Humans are tropical primates and survive best in tropical climates. So does most of the rest of life on Earth. Imagine wrecking the entire fricking world for polar bears and capitalism. God damn, moderns are sickening subhumans.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Humans are tropical primates and survive best in tropical climates.
Not really. Humans really do best in grasslands, savanna, and tundra. "Tropical" would imply something more heavily forested, which Humans do not dislike but will actively destroy in order to create its preferred biome.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>grasslands, savanna >these can't be tropical
Why is every redditard so low information?
10 months ago
Anonymous
>"Tropical" would imply something more heavily forested
READ, homie, READ
And "tropical" would also imply we thrive in only warm climates, when we ALSO thrive in cold ones. The one uniting factor between savanna and tundra? GRASSLAND.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>tropical means "forest"
Black person, nobody "thrives" in cold climates except Euphausia and the whales that eat them.
>During the Cretaceous period some 100 million years ago, Earth was a greenhouse. There were no ice caps and sea level was up to 200 m higher than it is now, flooding large portions of continents and creating inland lakes and seas. >Rising carbon dioxide resulted in a significant increase in the greenhouse effect, leading to elevated global temperatures. >The Cretaceous Thermal Maximum was one of the most extreme disruptions of the carbon cycle in the past 100 million years. >It represented one of the most prominent peaks in the global temperature record of the Phanerozoic eon (last 538,000,000 years).
I'm guessing they use that bulk to push rivals around. While allosaurids have strong forelimbs that they can use to "grapple" like komodos, T. rex just opted for weight.
I think they got fat as they get older, and as sub-adults they're more agile.
I'm guessing they use that bulk to push rivals around. While allosaurids have strong forelimbs that they can use to "grapple" like komodos, T. rex just opted for weight.
I think they got fat as they get older, and as sub-adults they're more agile.
I'm an American Dinosaur, so I’d just absorb it with my fat and muscle density caused by carrying all of my fat. Slowly, I would waddle towards you, my mutt genes desensitizing me to pain as you furiously flail your underfed claws into a gut rendered impervious as Ankylosaurus hide by a steady diet of Papa Jobaria’s and Argentinosaurus. With a roar to my Velociraptor, Spinosaur, and Nigersaurus ancestors I would turn my swollen neck skyward, and spread my hand nubs wide, the wall hitting your back as you shriek in sudden fear and realization before I grab you in the patented ‘Lagarto De Las Americanos Hug’ and stuff you headfirst into my drooling maw, biting down on your thin neck and shaking my head like a small mammal to end your suffering-filled existence. Then I would bread you, fry you, and consume you like a family sized bucket of tasty Kentucky Fried Cearadactylus.
>go to google >type in "nesmly t-rex art" >first result
https://www.creativefabrica.com/de/product/t-rex-4th-of-july-3/
Yes, it's AI, but the signature is real.
Because T. rex was literally a spin off of a primitive bird and they get like that sometimes
Or more accurately, birds a small theropod dinosaur, and the term "bird" being its own thing is an artifact of a primitive culture without an understanding of phylogenetics (like calling dolphins fish).
I genuinely LOVE how hard you try to derail dino threads. Not even one mention was made about birds and here you are trying to stir up shit with "UhM Tee Racks wuz actually a bird!!!! ". Anyways, here's your free (You) since you're so hungry for it.
Birds ARE therapods though btw <3
Dinosaur really peaked in the late Cretaceous
Too bad about the asteroids
Oxygen-rich environment + arms race against prey of ever-increasing size which has access to an abundance of food due to greenhouse atmosphere creating megaflora.
>Oxygen-rich environment
>greenhouse atmosphere
choose only one
Both can exist at the same time anon
No, it can't. The earth only has a finite amount of oxygen in it, and either all of it is locked up in carbon dixoide or that carbon is buried in the crust and the oxygen can be free to be O2. Combustion engines are literally killing the entire planet.
>The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
I don't give a shit what a bunch of oil company stooges say.
I hate fossil fuel shills but you can't just make shit up.
Nice concern troll, but basic chemistry renders your little "study" moot.
No oxygen is related to trees alive at any given era.
That's because of giant trees or world trees.
Fossil fuels aren't even harvested from fossils and aren't made from dead dinosaur bodies
>le devil's tower troother here to tell you about abiotic oil
There is a shit ton of oxygen available at any time in earths history in the water of the oceans and other mineral deposits. And CO2 is not the only chemistry for greenhouse gasses. If the biosphere generates an excess of methane for instance, you liberate more oxygen and use that leftover hydrogen to make a more potent green house gas. Why are you like this?
Why do you deny the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real?
I dont't. But what does that have to do with the climate 90 million years ago?
You obviously do since you question the fact that there was the same amount of CO2 and O2 90 million years ago.
The amount of all the elements, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc. is essentially the same since the formation of the earth. But they can be sequestered or free in a gaseous form in different ratios for a number of different reasons. Such as being chemically bound in a solid or liquid or literally just buried underground. The composition and thickness of the atmosphere can vary wildly over the course of millions of years due to random geologic or living processes. It's not like the earth knows there has to be an exact amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and it can only swap o2 for co2 or something. Anthropogenic climate change is not caused by digging up co2, its caused by digging up just carbon. If for example humans decided to refine all the buried iron oxide into steel we would add a bunch of oxygen to the atmosphere but the climate wouldn't cool off. We would still have the same amount of co2 up there. So we would have both a hotter and more oxygen rich atmosphere.
>Anthropogenic climate change is not caused by digging up co2, its caused by digging up just carbon.
Which is burned to produce... CO2. Which removes oxygen from the atmosphere and ties it up with CO2, which heats the Earth at the same time we are literally running out of air we need to breath. There is no efficient way to untangle carbon from oxygen in CO2 without massive amounts of energy that would just put more CO2 back in the atmosphere. You cannot run from this, it is basic chemistry.
You do realize that Co2 in the atmosphere had plummeted to near critical levels over the 500 or so million years of carbon based lifeforms depositing carbon into the earth right?
300 million year of shellfish extracting carbon from the cycle and depositing it into their shells, which then sink to the bottom of the sea had almost depleted carbon levels to the point where plant life could no longer be supported.
For every kg of fossil fuels there are ten tonnes of carbon rich limestone in from sea life alone, deposited deep beneath the earth. Blasting that Co2 back into the atmosphere is good for biodiversity on this planet... but because some climatejews wanting return on their renewable tech since we kept on finding new fossil fuels, morons like you are propagandized into believing that the climate ca. 1870 is the not only the best climate, but the only climate allowed.
>no sources
>all oil company propaganda
Frick off.
Holy shit, no wonder the world is going to shit if toddlers like these are it's costodians.
Frick off, you're functionally moronic if you believe that nonsense. Get therapy
If it is such nonsense, you should be able to easily refute any of the points being made.
Has carbon not been lost from the system due to carbon based sea life over hundreds of millions of years?
Is it false that plants do better if the atmosphere has carbon levels 2-3 times higher than today?
Why is it true and good to claim that an arbitary point in recent history is the correct and "normal" climate levels?
Go on then, should be easy for you to dismiss my concerns off the top of your heads since it is such nonsense.
>stop asking me for sources!
shut up moron lmao, your entire personality is edgy contrarian and nothing more.
>your entire personality is edgy contrarian and nothing more
YES
What now ?
He's right. Why does only 1850 have the "correct" climate? Noone can ever answer this question.
because that climate is the one we survive best in moron
>I LOVE BEING TOLD WHAT TO BELIEVE!
You refuse to engage, you've been trained to disagree and hate those who stray from the narrative, that you are good to believe in it and those that don't are bad and you're not only allowed, but a virtious person to dislike them.
You have been propagandized into, well an NPC. If you harbor a singular independant thought and your world view is indeed correct, you should be able to dispell my points off hand.
When do the seas boil?
This isn't even correct. Humans are tropical primates and survive best in tropical climates. So does most of the rest of life on Earth. Imagine wrecking the entire fricking world for polar bears and capitalism. God damn, moderns are sickening subhumans.
>Humans are tropical primates and survive best in tropical climates.
Not really. Humans really do best in grasslands, savanna, and tundra. "Tropical" would imply something more heavily forested, which Humans do not dislike but will actively destroy in order to create its preferred biome.
>grasslands, savanna
>these can't be tropical
Why is every redditard so low information?
>"Tropical" would imply something more heavily forested
READ, homie, READ
And "tropical" would also imply we thrive in only warm climates, when we ALSO thrive in cold ones. The one uniting factor between savanna and tundra? GRASSLAND.
>tropical means "forest"
Black person, nobody "thrives" in cold climates except Euphausia and the whales that eat them.
What is photosynthesis
>During the Cretaceous period some 100 million years ago, Earth was a greenhouse. There were no ice caps and sea level was up to 200 m higher than it is now, flooding large portions of continents and creating inland lakes and seas.
>Rising carbon dioxide resulted in a significant increase in the greenhouse effect, leading to elevated global temperatures.
>The Cretaceous Thermal Maximum was one of the most extreme disruptions of the carbon cycle in the past 100 million years.
>It represented one of the most prominent peaks in the global temperature record of the Phanerozoic eon (last 538,000,000 years).
GOD created them that way. Read the Bible and be saved by CHRIST.
But what were his intentions when he did it?
Mentally ill morons not welcome
Go spend your welfare check on more schizo ads for me to block
Short guys don't get pussy. Be big to breed.
uuuu
I'm guessing they use that bulk to push rivals around. While allosaurids have strong forelimbs that they can use to "grapple" like komodos, T. rex just opted for weight.
I think they got fat as they get older, and as sub-adults they're more agile.
>I think they got fat as they get older, and as sub-adults they're more agile.
Isn't this an actually known fact?
What does it look like?
Well it didn't look upside down, that's for sure.
>2 different human skeletons
Umm, sweaty, that's not very progressive of you
american dinosaur
This. Ate all the other dinosaurs, causing the end Cretaceous extinction.
I'm an American Dinosaur, so I’d just absorb it with my fat and muscle density caused by carrying all of my fat. Slowly, I would waddle towards you, my mutt genes desensitizing me to pain as you furiously flail your underfed claws into a gut rendered impervious as Ankylosaurus hide by a steady diet of Papa Jobaria’s and Argentinosaurus. With a roar to my Velociraptor, Spinosaur, and Nigersaurus ancestors I would turn my swollen neck skyward, and spread my hand nubs wide, the wall hitting your back as you shriek in sudden fear and realization before I grab you in the patented ‘Lagarto De Las Americanos Hug’ and stuff you headfirst into my drooling maw, biting down on your thin neck and shaking my head like a small mammal to end your suffering-filled existence. Then I would bread you, fry you, and consume you like a family sized bucket of tasty Kentucky Fried Cearadactylus.
Is this AI? What the frick is going on with those hands?
It's obviously AI because the hands are fricked up and you can see the incomprehensible remains of a signature
>go to google
>type in "nesmly t-rex art"
>first result
https://www.creativefabrica.com/de/product/t-rex-4th-of-july-3/
Yes, it's AI, but the signature is real.
>unironically signing AI pictures
Because T. rex was literally a spin off of a primitive bird and they get like that sometimes
Or more accurately, birds a small theropod dinosaur, and the term "bird" being its own thing is an artifact of a primitive culture without an understanding of phylogenetics (like calling dolphins fish).
I genuinely LOVE how hard you try to derail dino threads. Not even one mention was made about birds and here you are trying to stir up shit with "UhM Tee Racks wuz actually a bird!!!! ". Anyways, here's your free (You) since you're so hungry for it.
Birds ARE therapods though btw <3
my mans that is a chocobo
for you
Why does he wear the feathers ?
If i pluck these off will you die
It would be extremely painful
Was getting extinct part of your plan?
Of course!
You're a big bird
(F)il(o)plume and b(r)istle feathers (you)
they come from a SLAMMED blood line
trianglemaxxing for sauropod hunting
That is significantly exaggerated.
big lad