View Full Version : Dinosaurs and the Arctic
Boy, how certain things have changed since I was in grade school in the 1960's. We were told that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles that thrived in a tropical environment. Now scientists are saying that some of them lived in a cold environment (at least for a time) and were insulated by feathers.
Of course, back in the 1960's/early 1970's we were told that another ice age was possibly on the way. Looks like they missed the mark on that one.
"Dinosaurs were there during the Triassic under the radar all the time," lead author Paul Olsen, a professor of biology and paleo environment at Columbia University's Columbia Climate School in New York City, said in a statement. "The key to their eventual dominance was very simple. They were fundamentally cold-adapted animals. When it got cold everywhere, they were ready, and other animals weren't."
https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/dinosaurs-took-over-the-planet-because-they-could-endure-the-cold-scientists-say/ar-AAZiGWb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=abc42cbf4ff24c3194b82994217be23b
Boy, how certain things have changed since I was in grade school in the 1960's. We were told that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles that thrived in a tropical environment. Now scientists are saying that some of them lived in a cold environment (at least for a time) and were insulated by feathers.
Of course, back in the 1960's/early 1970's we were told that another ice age was possibly on the way. Looks like they missed the mark on that one.
"Dinosaurs were there during the Triassic under the radar all the time," lead author Paul Olsen, a professor of biology and paleo environment at Columbia University's Columbia Climate School in New York City, said in a statement. "The key to their eventual dominance was very simple. They were fundamentally cold-adapted animals. When it got cold everywhere, they were ready, and other animals weren't."
https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/dinosaurs-took-over-the-planet-because-they-could-endure-the-cold-scientists-say/ar-AAZiGWb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=abc42cbf4ff24c3194b82994217be23b
Paleontologists like to spin yarns. Feathered dinosaurs were in the new Jurassic Park movie, it's the new orthodoxy.
Boy, how certain things have changed since I was in grade school in the 1960's. We were told that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles that thrived in a tropical environment. Now scientists are saying that some of them lived in a cold environment (at least for a time) and were insulated by feathers.
Of course, back in the 1960's/early 1970's we were told that another ice age was possibly on the way. Looks like they missed the mark on that one.
"Dinosaurs were there during the Triassic under the radar all the time," lead author Paul Olsen, a professor of biology and paleo environment at Columbia University's Columbia Climate School in New York City, said in a statement. "The key to their eventual dominance was very simple. They were fundamentally cold-adapted animals. When it got cold everywhere, they were ready, and other animals weren't."
https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/dinosaurs-took-over-the-planet-because-they-could-endure-the-cold-scientists-say/ar-AAZiGWb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=abc42cbf4ff24c3194b82994217be23b
Cool stuff. Pretty well accepted that modern birds came from dinosaurs as they have found several species of dinosaurs that had feathers and have found some intermediate animals that looked like dinosaur / bird creatures with feathers. That and other evidence turned much of what was assumed about dinosaurs as simply cold blooded creatures on its head.
Straight Shooter
07-08-22, 14:44
Boy, how certain things have changed since I was in grade school in the 1960's. We were told that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles that thrived in a tropical environment. Now scientists are saying that some of them lived in a cold environment (at least for a time) and were insulated by feathers.
Of course, back in the 1960's/early 1970's we were told that another ice age was possibly on the way. Looks like they missed the mark on that one.
"Dinosaurs were there during the Triassic under the radar all the time," lead author Paul Olsen, a professor of biology and paleo environment at Columbia University's Columbia Climate School in New York City, said in a statement. "The key to their eventual dominance was very simple. They were fundamentally cold-adapted animals. When it got cold everywhere, they were ready, and other animals weren't."
https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/animals/dinosaurs-took-over-the-planet-because-they-could-endure-the-cold-scientists-say/ar-AAZiGWb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=abc42cbf4ff24c3194b82994217be23b
About everything I was taught in the early 70's & 80's has been changed numerous times. Dino's..age of the Earth/Universe..what is/is not a planet, ect on & on & on.
NEVER-ending guesses, theories..which Ive now heard "theories" actually mean "we know its correct but just cant YET prove it"..and some just completely made up BULLSHIT.
One day, Dino's died from the cold. Next day..they ALL died on the same day from a meteor. Next day..virus. Next day...got too hot. Next day..aliens came & got them. It just chaps their asses they cant admit THEY DONT KNOW, PERIOD. Cause, they dont. All they "know" for sure is the Bible's account is BS, 100% for no doubt.
The more crap they put out, the more I KNOW they are shysters, ad the more I know I believe the Bible over ANYTHING theyll ever say.
Slater- youre a tad older than me, so you too have went thru all the BS changes in "science". One week, we are gonna freeze to death. Next..acid rain is gonna kill errbody.
WAIT- THE OZONE IS GONE..gonna die from radiation. Nope...gonna burn up now. Uh-oh..no..now its just climate "change". Hell that covers it all dont it?
COMPLETE CROCK OF SHIT..ALL OF IT. Remember those grand old Encyclopedia Britannica sets back in the day? We had a whole set I used to read voraciously. Little would be "correct" in them today. I love to let folk believe what they want- what do I care. But they dont CONvence me at all.
Cook stuff. Pretty well accepted that modern birds came from dinosaurs as they have found several species of dinosaurs that had feathers and have found some intermediate animals that looked like dinosaur / bird creatures with feathers. That and other evidence turned much of what was assumed about dinosaurs as simply cold blooded creatures on its head.
This all might be accepted in secular scientific circles, probably amongst the culture at large, but is it true? I certainly don't think so. "Accepted" and "true" are obviously different concepts.
Straight Shooter
07-08-22, 14:57
This all might be accepted in secular scientific circles, probably amongst the culture at large, but is it true? I certainly don't think so. "Accepted" and "true" are obviously different concepts.
"Accepted" by the same KOOKS who believe we are living in a "simulation". :(
You guys do understand that millions of years ago the land mass called the "arctic" was in a different location and once was a tropical environment yes? Land masses move around over millions of years, it's called plate tectonics, and they are still moving.
There were no ice dinosaurs.
Diamondback
07-08-22, 16:28
Pick up a copy of Gregory Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. The cladistics are dated, but the skeletal reconstructions still stand on their own merit decades later. It's interesting to see the significant overlap in physiology between "first bird" Archaeopteryx and Velociraptor, even down to A. lithographica having a primitive sickle-claw and a semi-opposable thumb just like the raptors.
This was actually the book that Crichton built the paleobiology science of JP around... and Stan Winston and Crash McCreery used it as their "bible" for designing the '93 and '97 movie carnivores.
There's all kinds of stuff they can't explain. I am typing this from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and literally drive by the Beaufort sea on my way to work.
When our drillers drill through the first 1500 feet or so, they are going through permafrost. Guess what's frozen in there. Bits of ferns and conifer branches. I have held one of these little scaly twigs in my own hand. They come up in the drilling mud. These remnants are NOT fossilized, they are frozen. Apparently, not that long ago this place was a temperate northern climate.
Today you won't find a tree until you get well south of the Brooks Range.
In my lifetime, like many of you, I've watched as the narratives have changed or gone full circle. There's stuff that is known (the actual observations) and there's stuff they don't know (the speculative narrative attempts to string the facts together). Unfortunately people feel the need to get dogmatic about speculation. Not sure why people are so uncomfortable with not knowing things and find it so hard to say "we don't know that yet".
Cool stuff. Pretty well accepted that modern birds came from dinosaurs as they have found several species of dinosaurs that had feathers and have found some intermediate animals that looked like dinosaur / bird creatures with feathers. That and other evidence turned much of what was assumed about dinosaurs as simply cold blooded creatures on its head.
The Cassowary comes to mind. Read something recently of a breeder that was killed by one of his.
Outlander Systems
07-08-22, 18:24
My favorite dinosaur is the one with 500 teeth.
There's all kinds of stuff they can't explain. I am typing this from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and literally drive by the Beaufort sea on my way to work.
When our drillers drill through the first 1500 feet or so, they are going through permafrost. Guess what's frozen in there. Bits of ferns and conifer branches. I have held one of these little scaly twigs in my own hand. They come up in the drilling mud. These remnants are NOT fossilized, they are frozen. Apparently, not that long ago this place was a temperate northern climate.
Today you won't find a tree until you get well south of the Brooks Range.
In my lifetime, like many of you, I've watched as the narratives have changed or gone full circle. There's stuff that is known (the actual observations) and there's stuff they don't know (the speculative narrative attempts to string the facts together). Unfortunately people feel the need to get dogmatic about speculation. Not sure why people are so uncomfortable with not knowing things and find it so hard to say "we don't know that yet".
I just explained it, plate tectonics. Land masses move, this is also why we have faults and earthquakes. Where you are standing, millions of years ago, it was in a tropical zone near the equator. And yes there were ferns on conifers and they weren't special snow ferns and conifers.
Of course, back in the 1960's/early 1970's we were told that another ice age was possibly on the way. Looks like they missed the mark on that one.
We're living in an interglacial period. Despite all the hand-wringing over global warming the return of an ice age is arguably a far greater threat. Not that the politicization of such things is not a racket of course.
Averageman
07-08-22, 21:58
And that's what kills me they don't know, yet will not admit they don't know. Yet they're right quick about imposing a "Carbon Tax" to fix what they don't know.
The kicker for me was a former VP coming out and scaring the heck out of millions of his true believers that we had 15-20 years before the wheels fell off and the world ended.
Like 35 years ago?
Straight Shooter
07-08-22, 22:05
And that's what kills me they don't know, yet will not admit they don't know. Yet they're right quick about imposing a "Carbon Tax" to fix what they don't know.
The kicker for me was a former VP coming out and scaring the heck out of millions of his true believers that we had 15-20 years before the wheels fell off and the world ended.
Like 35 years ago?
"They" were screaming the EXACT SAME CRAP in the early 70's. Probably back in the 60's. Damned liars all of them.
We're living in an interglacial period. Despite all the hand-wringing over global warming the return of an ice age is arguably a far greater threat. Not that the politicization of such things is not a racket of course.
THANK YOU for knowing.
And in geological timelines we are definitely overdue. However that could mean 100 years, 1,000 years or a gradual shift over the course of 500 years in 2,000 years. The Earth doesn't have an alarm clock with a snooze alarm.
And although we are a bit overdue for an ice age, one that could be historically mild or severe depending upon dozens and dozens of factors, hairspray isn't going to make it happen faster and eliminating fossil fuels isn't going to prevent it from happening.
Btw, the two largest greenhouse gases are water vapor (which we actually really need) and carbon monoxide (produced by mammals). So if every Republican would plant a tree and every Democrat would simply stop exhaling we'd be just fine. And yes it has to be Democrats because globally they outnumber us, especially if we count them by other names like communists.
Paleontologists like to spin yarns. Feathered dinosaurs were in the new Jurassic Park movie, it's the new orthodoxy.
Yep. Overly feathered dinosaurs have been a staple for a while now, with them now becoming the norm even on dinos that we have zero evidence of them having feathers. (or even evidence against them having feathers) Gotta push the narrative.
Side note, it is interesting to note that back when I was a kid (and thus, into dinosaurs) "what happened to the dinosaurs?" was the big question, and "killed by an asteroid" was just the most popular theory among many. These days, that's about the first, last, and only theory anyone talks about, only losing ground to "climate change" for obvious political reasons.
Yep. Overly feathered dinosaurs have been a staple for a while now, with them now becoming the norm even on dinos that we have zero evidence of them having feathers. (or even evidence against them having feathers) Gotta push the narrative.
Side note, it is interesting to note that back when I was a kid (and thus, into dinosaurs) "what happened to the dinosaurs?" was the big question, and "killed by an asteroid" was just the most popular theory among many. These days, that's about the first, last, and only theory anyone talks about, only losing ground to "climate change" for obvious political reasons.
So we have found fossil evidence of what really looks like a few feathered dinosaurs, but "pop" science has picked up that ball and ran it all the way down the field. We are talking about a life form that was here for about 165 million years. Anyone who thinks they were "all like this" or "all like that" needs to have their heads examines. Most depictions of dinosaurs are ridiculous, starting with Velociraptor which probably did have feathers and were only about 2 feet tall.
There would have been the same kind of species variation as has existed in ocean life over the space of millions of years.
Diamondback
07-09-22, 15:17
Yup, V. mongoliensis is about the size of a wolf. Spielberg Movieraptors are closer to a bastardization of Deinonychus and Achillobator, sized somewhere between them and Utahraptor.
Beyond that, details get hazy... my particular niche is tyrannosauria and T. rex in particular, but I know a few pro diggers including one studying under current "king of tyrannosaurs" Thomas Carr, so if anyone has questions you want answers to I'll pass 'em along and see if I can get you some.
So we have found fossil evidence of what really looks like a few feathered dinosaurs, but "pop" science has picked up that ball and ran it all the way down the field. We are talking about a life form that was here for about 165 million years. Anyone who thinks they were "all like this" or "all like that" needs to have their heads examines. Most depictions of dinosaurs are ridiculous, starting with Velociraptor which probably did have feathers and were only about 2 feet tall.
There would have been the same kind of species variation as has existed in ocean life over the space of millions of years.
It's not pop science however but very well supported that some of them had feathers:
https://adventuredinosaurs.com/2021/08/05/how-do-we-know-dinosaurs-had-feathers-key-evidence/
Likely developed to help to allow them to survive/exists in colder areas and cooling climates.
I just explained it, plate tectonics. Land masses move, this is also why we have faults and earthquakes. Where you are standing, millions of years ago, it was in a tropical zone near the equator. And yes there were ferns on conifers and they weren't special snow ferns and conifers.
No. I should have explained the observation better. I also should have mentioned that I work for an oil company. I get the geology. The shallow material we are drilling through is likely on the order of 10's of thousands to maybe a few hundred thousand years old max. Unconsolidated gravel and sand for the most part. Not sedimentary rock, not rock at all other than for the fact that it was deposited by river systems and glacial action (mostly). The plates move on the order of sub inch to maybe 1.5" per year. The math for that hypothesis doesn't work. At an inch a year a million years is 15.8 miles.
Plus the organic material is intact and frozen. Not fossilized. It's "recent" in geologic terms. So for whatever reason, it was significantly warmer here not that long ago. I suspect the earth just went through a warm period, and dinosaurs could have thrived here during that period.
Whenever it froze, it happened pretty fast because the organic stuff is preserved. And no, to my knowledge we haven't drilled through a frozen dinosaur! (like we would even know).
No. I should have explained the observation better. I also should have mentioned that I work for an oil company. I get the geology. The shallow material we are drilling through is likely on the order of 10's of thousands to maybe a few hundred thousand years old max. Unconsolidated gravel and sand for the most part. Not sedimentary rock, not rock at all other than for the fact that it was deposited by river systems and glacial action (mostly). The plates move on the order of sub inch to maybe 1.5" per year. The math for that hypothesis doesn't work. At an inch a year a million years is 15.8 miles.
Plus the organic material is intact and frozen. Not fossilized. It's "recent" in geologic terms. So for whatever reason, it was significantly warmer here not that long ago. I suspect the earth just went through a warm period, and dinosaurs could have thrived here during that period.
Whenever it froze, it happened pretty fast because the organic stuff is preserved. And no, to my knowledge we haven't drilled through a frozen dinosaur! (like we would even know).
And at 60, 80, 100+ million years? Plate movement does not explain all, but is very clear is the planet was much warmer for a long time and and animals etc lived a lot farther north and south in larger numbers at one time, including dinosaurs. Also:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hot-hotter-hot-climate-seesawed-during-dinosaur-age
Will, my original response had to do with the topic of dogmatism around speculation in stringing the story together, not longer term planetary/geological history. Again, perhaps I was too cryptic.
My only point is that there is SOOOOOO much we don't know but people can't stand not knowing, so they get dogmatic about speculations. And I think we can all agree it is stupid to assume the climate has always been, or will always be like it is now.
I rub elbows with geologists all the time, trust me I can do the math on millions of years.
My observation proves that northern climes (at least at 70 deg latitude north) were warmer quite recently (in geological terms), when this particular hunk of dirt was in the far north. Can't tell you why, just that the evidence indicates it.
Will, I really am a poor communicator. Went back and re-read my post. When I said "dinosaurs could have thrived here during that period" what I was trying to communicate was that fairly recently it was warm enough here for plausable dinosaur habitat. Not that they were here then. I can see why you took it that way.
Will, my original response had to do with the topic of dogmatism around speculation in stringing the story together, not longer term planetary/geological history. Again, perhaps I was too cryptic.
My only point is that there is SOOOOOO much we don't know but people can't stand not knowing, so they get dogmatic about speculations. And I think we can all agree it is stupid to assume the climate has always been, or will always be like it is now.
I rub elbows with geologists all the time, trust me I can do the math on millions of years.
My observation proves that northern climes (at least at 70 deg latitude north) were warmer quite recently (in geological terms), when this particular hunk of dirt was in the far north. Can't tell you why, just that the evidence indicates it.
That's human nature and to a large extent why we are our own worst enemy. Science is never dogmatic, scientists on the other hand, can a real PITA that way. Medical docs often a lot worse, but it's the norm in any profession due hubris and ego.
No. I should have explained the observation better. I also should have mentioned that I work for an oil company. I get the geology. The shallow material we are drilling through is likely on the order of 10's of thousands to maybe a few hundred thousand years old max. Unconsolidated gravel and sand for the most part. Not sedimentary rock, not rock at all other than for the fact that it was deposited by river systems and glacial action (mostly). The plates move on the order of sub inch to maybe 1.5" per year. The math for that hypothesis doesn't work. At an inch a year a million years is 15.8 miles.
Plus the organic material is intact and frozen. Not fossilized. It's "recent" in geologic terms. So for whatever reason, it was significantly warmer here not that long ago. I suspect the earth just went through a warm period, and dinosaurs could have thrived here during that period.
Whenever it froze, it happened pretty fast because the organic stuff is preserved. And no, to my knowledge we haven't drilled through a frozen dinosaur! (like we would even know).
That does change things a bit. However we have learned that not everything fossilizes. We have even found dinosaur tissue in non fossilized bones, obviously no viable DNA but organic matter can exist for a lot longer than we once thought, especially if it is preserved in temps like the arctic.
We have a few general possibilities.
1. You guys were actually at a much older strata than believed at a time when the ground was in a more tropical location.
2. You have found a genus of conifers and ferns that can survive arctic temperatures but for some reason don't still exist.
It is also possible that we experienced a much warmer interglaciation period than generally thought possible but I don't think the earth would have survived complete loss of the polar ice caps any more than it would have come back from a complete snowball ice age (although there are some who believe it has and think the evidence exists to prove it did).
The problem is the planet is not a clock and these things don't happen at exact intervals and the rate of plate tectonics over the years is an estimate that isn't necessarily established beyond doubt. As a result lots of stuff is possible.
To even attempt to arrive at a correct answer you'd need a specific, qualified expedition to examine the evidence.
Some folks believe in millions/billions of years and some don't.
Some folks believe in millions/billions of years and some don't.
Some folks believe we never went to the moon.
I don't want to challenge your beliefs, because it's a fools errand for many reasons, but if a star is 500 million light years away...and we can see it...what do you think that means?
Some folks believe we never went to the moon.
I don't want to challenge your beliefs, because it's a fools errand for many reasons, but if a star is 500 million light years away...and we can see it...what do you think that means?
It doesn't mean what you think it means, but then I wasn't on a fools errand myself.
WillieThom
07-09-22, 20:37
Some folks believe in millions/billions of years and some don't.
How old do you believe the Earth is? Honest question. I am not looking to debate. Just curious.
How old do you believe the Earth is? Honest question. I am not looking to debate. Just curious.
You say it's not a trap.....but....oh well.
About 6,000 years. I'm a young earth creationist. It's what the church at large has basically believed for 2,000 years. I agree.
WillieThom
07-10-22, 02:50
You say it's not a trap.....but....oh well.
About 6,000 years. I'm a young earth creationist. It's what the church at large has basically believed for 2,000 years. I agree.
Cool. Thanks for answering.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.