Slashdot Mirror


More Antarctic Dinosaurs

RockDoctor writes "The highly respected palaeontology journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica has published its December number for free access on the Web, with the headline paper concerning new discoveries of dinosaurs from Antarctica. (Paper here, PDF.) The first major part of these discoveries was made in 1991, when isolated bones of a sauropod (a relative of the Apatosaurus, formerly known as Brontosaurus) were found associated with a theropod (ancestor or cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex). The sauropod has been named Glacialisaurus hammeri (the reason for the genus name is obvious, and Professor Hammer led the field expeditions under 'extremely difficult conditions'). The herbivore was some 25 ft. long and weighed 4 to 6 tons; at the time of life, the area was between 55 and 65 degrees south, suggesting a climate similar to the Falkland Islands or Tierra del Fuego."

167 comments

  1. Antarctica? by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    So that's where Jesus hid them all!

    I'm ready to be modded down, now.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Antarctica? by eviloverlordx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So that's where Jesus hid them all!

      I think you meant the Old Ones.

      --
      'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
    2. Re:Antarctica? by oahazmatt · · Score: 0

      I think you meant the Old Ones.
      In hindsight, probably a better choice. Nobody seems to appreciate Creationist-inspired comedy anymore. Oh well.
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:Antarctica? by Embedded2004 · · Score: 1

      How is that "joke" Creationist-inspired ?

    4. Re:Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent modded "Insightful"? When did Cthulu get mod points?

    5. Re:Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Great Cthulhu not have mod points?

    6. Re:Antarctica? by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

      Well well well,
      I guess this kind of puts an end to the argument that the world climate was unchanged until the 20th century since dinosaurs lived in that area. Lets hear some brainmush from the global warming sky-is-falling idiots now, about how the earth was NEVER as warm as it is now.

      It amazes me that new facts like this come out every week, sometimes even every day and it never penetrates the thickness of global warming idiots. Public education's moment to shine.

      Eye suport publick skools!!!

    7. Re:Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It amazes me that new facts like this come out every week, sometimes even every day and it never penetrates the thickness of global warming idiots. Public education's moment to shine.

      This is not a new fact. If you weren't a home schooled ignoramus, you'd know that every climate researcher is aware that the earth has been dozens of degrees hotter in the past, and has also probably been so cold that it was frozen over in a thick sheet of ice even at the equator. The wee little problem is that human civilization would not survive either case. If you'd received any inkling of a proper education, you'd also know about continental drift, so you'd realize that Antarctica wasn't anywhere near the south pole at the time these animals were alive.

    8. Re:Antarctica? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Probably because that's the second time today the first comment was some inane religion bashing post that was neither funny nor on topic. Sorry, but it's pretty old, and it gets the trolls going.

    9. Re:Antarctica? by polar+red · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that such climate changes were never as abrupt as what we will encounter if we are not a bit carefull.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    10. Re:Antarctica? by axisK · · Score: 1

      Bill Hicks "Man, they're still wearing crosses. **** it, I'm not goin, dad. No, they totally missed the point. When they start wearing fishes I might show up again, but... Let me bury fossil heads with you Dad, **** em - Let's **** with them! They're ****** with me now, lets get em. Give me that brontosaurus head, Dad."

    11. Re:Antarctica? by morcego · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me get this straight. You are saying that a creationist joke is a "religion bashing" post ? Humm, since when creationism is a religion ? You could stretch it and say it is a philosophy, at most. And unless you have lived in a cave for the past decade or so, you should be able to spot in 2 seconds or less what was the target of that joke.

      Creationist is NOT endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church. Can we even find a single Archbishop or Cardinal that subscribes to creationist ?

      But hey, maybe you thinking making a Jim Jones joke is also "religion bashing". After all, wasn't he the leader of a "religion" ? [Whatever-deity-you-believe-in] save us from Scientology joke too.

      I'm sorry, but I have to wonder what your reaction would be upon hearing a catholic priest making a religion joke, which I have heard, more than once.

      --
      morcego
    12. Re:Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Global Warming must have killed those dinosaurs! Al Gore was right millions of years ago and he's right now!!!!!!

    13. Re:Antarctica? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      The changes from the more cataclysmic cooling events, whether by giant volcano eruptions or impact events, can and would probably be far more rapid. Historically observed eruptions have only given significant effects (rather than just a small semi-permanent change in atmospheric content) the first year, but even for a larger one with decade-long effects, the most significant changes would come within a year.

  2. brontosaurus by icebones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.

    --
    Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
    1. Re:brontosaurus by eviloverlordx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Apatosaurus was described first. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the first name has priority. There are occasional exceptions to the rules (Boa constrictor comes to mind), but for the vast majority of cases, the ICZN is 'The Rule Book'.

      --
      'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
    2. Re:brontosaurus by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to wikipedia, the apatosaurus had been known well before the brontosaurus ever came around. When the paleontologist who discovered the brontosaurus assembled it, he concluded that it was different from the apatosaurus and named it accordingly. Upon further study, they discovered that they were the same type of dinosaur, and since the apatosaurus was already established when the brontosaurus came around, they decided to use that name and just make "brontosaurus" a synonym.

    3. Re:brontosaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      'Brontosaurus' is someone's intellectual property. In fact, someone will be along shortly to kick in our doors and arrest us.

    4. Re:brontosaurus by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.

      C & D letter. It was too close to Brontesaurus, a collection of references to the works of Charlotte Bronte, which though never actually published, might be some day and in the spirit of things as they are these days, they had to give it up rather than fight a long, costly legal battle with Bronte's heirs.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:brontosaurus by JustOK · · Score: 1

      I thought it was because of the Brontethesaurus, where all the words mean the same as what Charlotte wrote.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:brontosaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict you will change your sig next year.

    7. Re:brontosaurus by xENoLocO · · Score: 4, Funny

      If no one else is using it, can I?

      Bow before me. I am Brontosaurus. Frickin' sweet!

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    8. Re:brontosaurus by AzraelW3X · · Score: 1

      The "Brontosaurus" was actually a fake/incorrectly constructed dinosaur - I believe the scientist who put together the original skeleton put the wrong head (one from a Camarasaurus) on the skeleton he found. Since the Apatosaurus was discovered and described independently and, more importantly, correctly, the name Apatosaurus is the accepted one.

    9. Re:brontosaurus by owlnation · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, the apatosaurus had been known well before the brontosaurus ever came around.
      Yes, but that wikipedia article doesn't cite sources. So quoting it is worthless.
    10. Re:brontosaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually misheard, and the name stuck:

      rather than fight a long, costly legal battle with Bronte's heiress.

      They said she was a mean mutha'

    11. Re:brontosaurus by Samah · · Score: 1

      Why did they change the name of the brontosaurus? I liked that name better.
      Political correctness. Apparently it was offensive to Charles Bronson.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    12. Re:brontosaurus by mattmatt · · Score: 1

      So quoting it is worthless.
      [Citation needed]

    13. Re:brontosaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a load of crap - there are at least three sources linked on that article that explain it.
      Now whether or not _those_ sources are any good is an entirely separate question.

    14. Re:brontosaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:brontosaurus by nephridium · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically Brontosaurus was an Apatosaurus with a Camarasaurus skull wrongly assigned to it. Camarasaurus has a relatively short neck with a round skull; Apatosaurus has a long neck with a flat skull. So whenever you see a picture of a sauropod with a really long neck and round skull it's probably an old reconstruction of a Brontosaurus which never existed. It was a cool name though, it means "thunder lizard".

      Btw what's with all these obsessing about sources (at least with topics such as these); I don't have any sources handy right now either, but I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find adequate sources for this within minutes in a public library. Or even google.

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    16. Re:brontosaurus by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      This is a slashdot thread, not a masters thesis.

    17. Re:brontosaurus by RockDoctor · · Score: 0

      If no one else is using it, can I?

      Bow before me. I am Brontosaurus. Frickin' sweet!


      You can call yourself Brontosaurus if you want ; you can call yourself "late for lunch" if you want. Your choice of name is not constrained by the rules of the ICZN, and probably not by anyone else (though I think that France and possibly New Zealand will refuse to register the birth of a child under a wildly silly or unpronounceable name ; although given some Maori names I've heard, I don't see that the NZ rules would be too restrictive).
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:brontosaurus by RockDoctor · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are occasional exceptions to the rules (Boa constrictor comes to mind), but for the vast majority of cases, the ICZN is 'The Rule Book'.

      FYI, there is another "grand renaming" in the pipeline, due to the description and naming of a partial leg in about 1880. Tyrannosaurus appears to have been described (partially) from a handful of bones over 20 years before Barnum Brown found, described and named the iconic near-complete skeleton.

      ICZN does have rules to cover this situation now - if the taxon with the invalid name (in this case, Tyrannosaurus) haas been used in more than 50 publications over a period of more than 25 years prior to the recognition of synonymy, then the original name may be suppressed and the seemingly invalid junior synonym remain as the recognised synonym. In short, if it'll cause too much disruption to the literature then there's no need to accept the change. So it seems that the name Tyrannosaurus is safe, unless something else turns up out of the nomenclatural woodwork.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:brontosaurus by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Thank Bog it wasn't a Norrisaurus!

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    20. Re:brontosaurus by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Btw what's with all these obsessing about sources (at least with topics such as these)

      Because otherwise you end up with people spreading misinformation that is generally believed to be true, like the old urban legend about how if you cover your entire body in paint, you will suffocate because your skin can't "breathe".

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    21. Re:brontosaurus by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      So what is this new (old) name for Tyrannosaurus?

    22. Re:brontosaurus by phonicsmonkey · · Score: 1

      The name wasn't changed, it was retired. There's no such thing as a Brontosaurus. The scientist who named it mistakenly put the head of a Brachiosaurus on the body of an Apatosaurus and thought he had a new species.

    23. Re:brontosaurus by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      So what is this new (old) name for Tyrannosaurus?

      Urrrgh, you got me. I saw the description of the problem go by, and thought to my self "I'd better remember that name, because some one is bound to ask me." and I didn't remember it. I didn't even write it down. I didn't even make the attempt.

      Excuse me, I'll just go off and commit hara kiri with the blunt edge of this keyboard.

      Sorry.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:brontosaurus by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, I'll just go off and commit hara kiri with the blunt edge of this keyboard. No need for that. Wikipedia to the rescue; it would have been called Manospondylus gigas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Manospondylus_controversy/
    25. Re:brontosaurus by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      No disrespect to eviloverlordx, but the brontosaurus didn't exist. It was a mistake (I must admit, I thought this was revealed years ago, I'm surprised so many people here didn't know).

      My understanding was that the brontosaurus was the body of the apatosaurus, and the skull of a diplodocus. Not really a name change, more of an "oops".

  3. Formerly Brontosaurus?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When & why did we stop calling a brontosaurus a brontosaurus?

    Next thing you'll tell me we only have 8 planets!

    1. Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Brontosaurus had a dispute with his record company, and the name change was his "first step toward the ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains that bound" him to that record label, since the label owned all the trademarks to the name. After first changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol, he later changed it to "the Artist Formerly Known as Brontosaurus" before finally settling on "Apatosaurus".

      Honestly, didn't they teach you anything in school?

    2. Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was changed by a group of jobsworths who decided sometime after we left school that all these things needed changing.
      Incidentally one of their former classmates invented the gibibyte.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus

      "though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hang on there, don't post half a sentence..

      The species Brontosaurus excelsus was named by its discoverer Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1879 and the designation persisted as an official term in the general public's literature until at least 1974, though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903..

      which backs up what I just said (though I was born in 1975 so in England we must have been slow to change books).

      We shall both be right :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Formerly Brontosaurus?? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and don't bold the wrong part.

      "The species Brontosaurus excelsus was named by its discoverer Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1879 and the designation persisted as an official term in the general public's literature until at least 1974, though it was recognized as a species of a previously-named genus, Apatosaurus, in 1903.."

      So yes, we both learned the wrong name from poor school literature.

      however, I had a brief flirtation with paleontology so I had learned the proper name in high school and I should have recognized that I was pretty unique in that matter.
      For the record: paleontology was an interest for the same reason everything else was an interest in high school. There was a hot chick in the class.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Re:Pop goes the theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, I wouldn't say that at all.

  5. Image by sc0ob5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is an image of the thing on this blog if you are interested. http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2007/12/hail-glacialisaurus-hammeri.html

    1. Re:Image by anzha · · Score: 1

      Thanx for the link, but Bryan has a better article.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    2. Re:Image by PenGun · · Score: 1

      Mostly off road logging trucks in this part of the world. 100 ton+ 14' wide and driven by madmen. Huge water tanks so the brakes don't melt.

        The bones are often crushed and scattered before mother nature makes them ... "litter".

    3. Re:Image by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Every bit as sexy as I had imagined

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. watch by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    watch for dino DNA in the bones. it's not that long ago

    1. Re:watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 6000 years (max), in (ID) fact.

  7. Re:Pop goes the theory by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ahm, how so? The Antarctic used to be in a warmer region so it should have all sorts of remnants on it.

  8. Re:Pop goes the theory by jythie · · Score: 1

    I'm not following. How do bones in the antarctic effect theories around climate change? If nothing else it is an example of (massive climate change) == (most stuff really dead)

  9. Headline: Antarctica by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny
    Scott Polar Station (DevNull): Today, Researchers have discovered the remains of what appears to be a long-sought-after ancient creature. Labelled Minix Tannenbaumis, or just "Minix" this creature is thought to be the direct descendant of the modern-day Penguin (Linux Sapiens Sapiens).

    Researchers have still to uncover this creature's habitat, but they did find the petrified parts of a corpse belonging to a rather large creature, which is referred to more commonly by its Latin name, Nix Quintis, as well as remains of another animal known as Distriae Berkeleyus; the latter was known to have been wiped out approximately sixteen million years ago due to the Netcraft epidemics, which gives us a rough idea as to how old Minix is.

    A lean predator, Minix was known to be a vicious and somewhat egotistical creature, prone to fits of foaming anger and long diatribes, with which it used as a means to kill its prey.

    While we do not yet know the full extent of Minix, it is well studied by previously found fragments, and today's discovery should present a far clearer picture in the years to come as it reveals its secrets.

    Meanwhile, paradoxically, no trace has yet to be found of the species known as Bloatasaurus, or Vista Microsoftae. A large, slow-moving creature, this dinosaur was well known to have been a common victim of predatory attacks, and yet very few have been found. Archaeologist Steve Ballmer is heading the team searching for Bloatasaurus, though his peers still doubt his claims that "They're everywhere! It was the most popular friggin' beast alive!" Whether this creature actually existed still remains in doubt among some.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Headline: Antarctica by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Keep your day job.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:Headline: Antarctica by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      If my car wasn't fritzed, I'd be at my day job right now. /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Headline: Antarctica by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I can't use that excuse. I live one mile from work. I'm moving to a town 40 miles away soon though.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    4. Re:Headline: Antarctica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called "Scott Base" not Scott Polar Station. Its also quite a long way from the (Geographic) pole.

    5. Re:Headline: Antarctica by LandruBek · · Score: 1

      Too bad someone thought this was flamebait. It's more like chipotle seasoned -- mellow and smoky. Now for my 2 cents, cheers:

      "Of the many casualties of those long ago days, some mourn that the tiny, swift protomammal Beos Gasseeis did not in fact survive as a species despite its seeming efficiency compared to its lumbering rivals. The coup de grace was delivered by early megafauna cat Felis Malus, ancestor of today's leopard."

      ...wait, wait, stop -- does this mean you believe in intelligent design?

      (Now there's some flamebait, ba da bing!)

      --
      $META_SIG_JOKE
    6. Re:Headline: Antarctica by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      There's a reason the thing is full of innaccuracies. That's how Parody works sometimes. ;)

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  10. Re:Pop goes the theory by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, the dinosaurs lived there before the continents moved to their current locations. It was quite a bit closer to the equator at that time, so whether or not the antarctic heating up is a good thing or a bad thing is still up in the air. Also, you seem to have switched your attacks from "global warming != bad" to "humans aren't causing it", which is somewhat confusing and makes your post harder to understand.

  11. Re:Pop goes the theory by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article...

    "This was probably due to the fact that major connections between the continents still existed at that time, and because climates were more equitable across latitudes than they are today," Smith said.

    Can we just go one discussion without bringing up global warming? While it's midly related, this is more about Pangaea and where Antarctica was 190 million years ago.

  12. Re:Erm... by icebones · · Score: 1

    If i had mod point I'd have used funny not troll.

    --
    Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
  13. Ice by Device666 · · Score: 1

    Imagine 4 to 6 ton dinosaur on arctic ice...

    1. Re:Ice by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but then someone hired by Tonya Harding comes along and whacks it in the knees. It's not a pretty picture.

    2. Re:Ice by spun · · Score: 1

      Imagine the antarctic being near the equator when dinosaurs were around. Anyway, arctic ice can hold more than 4-6 tons. Sure would be fun to see them slipping and sliding around though, as long as you weren't to close. I can't imagine getting stuck in a dinosaur's ass would be much fun.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Ice by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      kind of like... Reptar? On Ice?

    4. Re:Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why?!? Why?!?"

    5. Re:Ice by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Imagine the antarctic being near the equator when dinosaurs were around.

      Why imagine the Antarctic at the equator at this time when the original article, the message I posted, and kdawson's editing of this all pointed out that the palaeolatitude of the site at the time of life/ burial of the fossilised organisms was between 55 and 65 degrees. These figures aren't just pulled out of people's arses, you know - in this case it's based on a combination of palaeomagnetic work on dyke swarms throughout the region, volume considerations constraining plate reconstructions, and environmental analyses of petroleum source rocks (and more particularly their marine fossil microfaunas) in the region all coming together to synthesise (check your dictionary!!) a detailed understanding of the palaeogeography of the region.
      I gave up 2 days of my life to a conference on this stuff last month ; I don't see why you should get away without some of the joy too.
      My mention that "the area was between 55 and 65 degrees south" (taken from the original paper) probably represents several man-months of work spread over a half-dozen disciplines working in as many universities over the last decade. Even the much-maligned kdawson recognised it as a significant point to preserve in editing my original post.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  14. Brontosaurus, thank you by Trogre · · Score: 4, Funny

    I prefer the traditional name for that Dino, thanks.

    The name Brontosaurus strikes an image of a colossal behemoth that would crush you to paste if you got in its way.

    Apatosaurus sounds like it should be serving you tea cakes.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Brontosaurus, thank you by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It gives me images of 'Bronto burgers' and ribs so big they'll cause a car to tip over.

      just in case: It was called Apatosaurus first and miss named latter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Brontosaurus, thank you by z-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apatosaurus sounds like it should be serving you tea cakes. To me, apatosaurus sounds like the dino version of an apathetic unemployed couch potato.
    3. Re:Brontosaurus, thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apathetic unemployed couch potato

      You mean, Slashdotus Typicalus?

      Oh come on, you knew it was coming ...

  15. Global Warming by phrostie · · Score: 1, Informative

    so there were herbivores in the Antarctic.

    did Al Gore predict this?

    1. Re:Global Warming by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually it was predicted many, many years ago.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Global Warming by Tenebrarum · · Score: 1

      Actually it was predicted many, many years ago.

      Clever lot, those dinosaurs.

    3. Re:Global Warming by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a well-known fact that cows produce massive amounts of GHG's.

      So just think how much global warming DINO FARTS would have produced!

      Seriously, it's no wonder our ancestors never got a break until those polluting beasts kicked the bucket.

    4. Re:Global Warming by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

      Yep, and then they turn around and expect us to swallow the hoax that goes "world climate was unchanged until the 20th century". Typical Orwellian double-speak in its purest form.

    5. Re:Global Warming by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      so there were herbivores in the Antarctic.

      The fossils are presently in the Antarctic ; at the time of life/ burial of these animals, the palaeolatitude is estimated as 55 to 65 degrees S, an interval which covers the Falkland Islands/ Islas Malvinas (notoriously covered in sheep), a fair amount of Argentine pampas (with cattle and some agriculture), Tierra del Fuego (barely habitable), and some of the West Antarctic Peninsula (uninhabited) ; in a continental climate setting, the interval from Edmonton (Canada) to the Great Slave Lake would be an appropriate comparison. With the exception of the WAP, all these areas have indigenous mammalian herbivores in abundance, though no major reptilian (whatever that paraphyletic grouping means ; for a start, it ignores the living dinosaurs) faunas.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  16. Re:Pop goes the theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earth surface was once molten rock and from the way you people talk, it would be just fine if it was again.

  17. Sure, call them dinosaurs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call them sauropods and theropods, but we know Elder Things and shoggoths when we hear about them...

  18. And they rocked out to... by greymond · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hammeri Time

    My, my, my, my dino hits me so hard
    Makes me say oh my word
    Thank you for proving me
    With a mind to dig and two cold feet
    Feels good when you know you're down
    A superdope therapod from the oldtown
    And I'm known
    as such
    And this is a beat uh you can touch

    The sauropod has been named Glacialisaurus hammeri (the reason for the genus name is obvious, and Professor Hammer led the field expeditions under 'extremely difficult conditions')

    1. Re:And they rocked out to... by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      AllI know is this guys name is frickkin cool. Professor Hammer !!!

      How great is that ! Almost sounds like a comic book villian.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    2. Re:And they rocked out to... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Professor Hammer !!!

      How great is that ! Almost sounds like a comic book villian.


      I have a vague memory that it was. One of Captain America's occasional foes, if my memory is serving me right.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  19. Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by infonography · · Score: 1

    They had the name first for their Brontosaurus Burgers. They sent a guy named Barney around to rough up some professors till they changed it.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Ah Flintstones humour, I wonder how many will get the jokes (without me spoiling it right here). I have to say it has been years since I last saw a free-to-air showing of this particular classic!

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    2. Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by infonography · · Score: 1

      when I am really hungry I dream of those ribs that tip over cars. Hmmmmmm

      Still funnier is that a lot of the Flintstones ideas showed up in Larry Niven's known space series like Gift from Earth.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    3. Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Still funnier is that a lot of the Flintstones ideas showed up in Larry Niven's known space series like Gift from Earth.

      Care to elaborate? Bearing in mind that I polished off about 3 chapters of "Gift From Earth" last night, and it's not my first reading of GFE (or any other Niven Known Space story).
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by infonography · · Score: 1

      I was sort of taking liberty with the housecleaner that lived in nests in colonist's houses. Rat based service animals. Flintstones used animals for every kind of machine, washing machines, radios etc. I doubt it's a stretch to foresee similar animal-life in our home in the next 20 years. Cats and Dogs were after all service animals long before they were pets and many still are.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    5. Re:Flintstones Bar and Grill Re:brontosaurus by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I was sort of taking liberty with the housecleaner that lived in nests in colonist's houses. Rat based service animals. Flintstones used animals for every kind of machine, washing machines, radios etc.


      OIC. Dropping the parrot's tail into the grooves of the record. Heh - try explaining that one to some spotty little kid who was born a decade after CD killed vinyl [GRIN].
      Architectural Coral - now there's an idea!

      Cats and Dogs were after all service animals long before they were pets and many still are.
      How did Al-dibblah put it (in Small Gods IIRC) ? "Pets can be a great solace in times of stress. And in times of famine."
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. "climates were more equitable across latitudes" by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    By what mechanism?

    Sure, it is easy to understand that Antarctica might have been closer to the equator and moved, but if the atmosphere etc was the same as todays (or similar) then surely the global climate would have been similar to todays and the polar bits (that have moved out of the way now) would have been frozen, as they are today.

    So the big question: what is so different bad then that allows such sweeping statements to be made?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by djupedal · · Score: 1

      "By what mechanism?"

      The planet sat at an entirely different angle on it's axis - placing areas we now consider 'poles' much closer to what would have been near equatorial.

    2. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by pokerdad · · Score: 3, Informative

      By what mechanism?

      The same mechanisms that are said to cause globabl warming today; CO2 levels for earth peaked in the triassic period at about 3000ppm (currently at 381ppm, under 300ppm pre-industrial revolution). The higher CO2 levels led to higher levels of water vapor, and the two together made earth a big greenhouse.

      Reference

      On a bit of a tangent, I saw an interesting documentary about four years ago where a group of scientists tried to deduce of all the things needed for life on earth, what would run out first. They came to the conclusion that CO2 levels would continue to fall, till Earth became incapable of supporting plant life, and as a result any higher life form.

    3. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      but if the atmosphere etc was the same as todays (or similar)

      It wasn't.

    4. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Informative

      then surely the global climate would have been similar to todays and the polar bits (that have moved out of the way now) would have been frozen, as they are today.

      Actually no. The only reason we have ice at the poles is because we are coming out of an ice age. There have only been four known ice ages in the planets history and outside of these (which is the vast majority of the time) the planet, even at the poles and highest latitudes has been ice free.

      The planet has ben changing from completely ice covered to completely ice free long before people ever showed up.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.

    6. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by djupedal · · Score: 1

      Sorry for you - tons of proof... http://www.geocities.com/mw0440/earth.html

    7. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I don't think that page on GeoCities constitutes proof. It reads like crank science. Have you got anything more substantive?

    8. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 1

      I thought the earth went through ice age cycles about every 25k years or so (though I could be wrong). If you're interested for more explanations for why Antartica was so warm, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory. It's controversial, but it claims that the earth's crust - due to the momentum built up by uneven ice distribution at the poles - shifts en masse every twenty-fifty thousand years or so. Takes about a thousand years, and it's a godawful mess (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.), but once everything settles down, formerly temperate areas suddenly find themselves circumpolar. It's also the only explanation I've found for why the north pole (magnetic) used to be in St. John's Bay, and how all those mastadons in Siberia froze solid with fresh grass in their stomachs.

      But it's also one step shy of the whole aliens-under-the-ice-ruling-everything-via-freemasonry theory, so use a couple grains of salt.

    9. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by alexo · · Score: 1

      The only reason we have ice at the poles is because we are coming out of an ice age.

      According to Wikipedia, the last glacial period ended 12,000 years ago.

    10. Re:"climates were more equitable across latitudes" by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, the last glacial period ended 12,000 years ago.

      That's just according to convention. They define the end of a glacial period to the point where the glaciers no longer cover the seas. That doesn't mean the glaciers halt receeding.

      The glaciers and polar caps we have are the remnents of the last glacial period, so I'd say it is essentially correct to say we are at the end of the last ice age.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  21. Re:Pop goes the theory by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    How about... "if dinosaurs existed long enough ago that they're fossils now, then perhaps the planet warming up is merely a return to its original conditions, when our ancestors were food, rather than the apex predator"... who knows, maybe the dinosaurs should've burned more hydrocarbons so maybe the globe would've warmed and they would still be alive chomping on those poorly evolved mammals.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  22. Re:Pop goes the theory by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If they think the earth is only 6000 years old becuase they have only read the first half of a book then they will think there is no time for continental drift. Ignore them, they don't believe in education in general and think dinosaurs are a hoax anyway.

  23. Re:That's impossible by bob.appleyard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hear that, penguins?

    Out!

    --
    How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
  24. I smell a sitcom! by sharkey · · Score: 1

    ...isolated bones of a sauropod were found associated with a theropod ...

    It's the original Odd Couple!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  25. Re:Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which, of course, is why you no longer get mod points..

  26. Correction by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "becuase they have only read the first half of a book "
    should be:
    "becuase they have misunderstood the first half of a book "

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  27. Re:Pop goes the theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me all the continents must have been at the equator.

    Have they slowed down? One must be able to calculate exactly where they were and when. Does that coincide with the dinos?

  28. That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Ok, if scientists are allowed to dig for dinosaurs, I'd like go set myself up with an oil well for, ummm, "research purposes"...

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by RockDoctor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, if scientists are allowed to dig for dinosaurs, I'd like go set myself up with an oil well for, ummm, "research purposes"...


      A speaker at last month's conference on "South Atlantic Petroleum Systems", where Antarctica was the "elephant seal in the room which no one mentioned", summarised the prospectivity of Antarctica thus : "Don't drill on an Archean shield (East Antarctica); don't drill in an active volcanic island arc (West Antarctica/ Antarctic Peninsula) ; and for the remaining area, where there are real uncertainties about presence of and quality of source rocks, and the thermal history of the area to mature those source rocks, and the sediment sources to provide clastic reservoir rocks ... well in that marine basin you've got to be prepared to dodge icebergs the size of Belgium."

      It's your money. You have the hassle of organising it ; I'll do your wellsite geology. It'll be $1000/day if you're starting in the next 3 years, beyond that I'm not able to commit myself to a price, but it's likely to be higher.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      It's your money. You have the hassle of organising it ; I'll do your wellsite geology. It'll be $1000/day if you're starting in the next 3 years, beyond that I'm not able to commit myself to a price, but it's likely to be higher.

      It was a joke, because, commercial exploitation of Antarctica is presently illegal.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's your money. You have the hassle of organising it ; I'll do your wellsite geology. It'll be $1000/day if you're starting in the next 3 years, beyond that I'm not able to commit myself to a price, but it's likely to be higher.


      It was a joke, because, commercial exploitation of Antarctica is presently illegal.


      I know that you were joking, and why.

      I wasn't joking, and this is why :

      In case you hadn't guessed, I work in the industry. The industry is examining the question of "IF we got permission to look, where would we look first?" We'd be remiss not to, even though it might be 30 or 50 years before we get any opportunity to work there. The conference I attended may have cost in the order of £100,000 to stage, and represent the results of a considerable amount more of investment in regional research. But since that money wouldn't hire a 5-6 generation floater rig for 12 hours (compared to the 6 or 7th generation rigs that would be needed to handle the Belgium-sized icebergs ... which are probably a decade or so from the drawing board) ... well, talk is cheap.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      I wasn't joking, and this is why :
      In case you hadn't guessed, I work in the industry.


      I gathered that, and I apologize for the sharp comment back. It was rude of me and am I'm sorry.

      So, really, if I had a navy of my own to defend my claims, plus, a gen 6 or 7, drilling rig, then I could hire you for a $1000 a day? It seems that, for that kind of money - we're talking billions here, really.

      Now, here's the question. That kind of money could also drop a probe into an asteroid and do a return mission as well. If you could do a geological assay of say, Eros, and confirm that it really is worth 20 trillion dollars, wouldn't that be a more interesting line of work, plus potentially far more profitable. It seems like the quest for resources and its attendant cost of exploring earth is hitting a critical point where space exploration is actually cheaper.

      If I had a billion dollars, I wouldn't be drilling, I'd be flying, that's for sure. And yeah, I'd pay you a $1000 a day to tell me if these rocks that I am looking at indicate the presence of precious metals and an indication of what sort of industrial process would be needed to extract them. It would be chump change.

      --
      This is my sig.
    5. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't guessed, I work in the industry.

      I gathered that, and I apologize for the sharp comment back. It was rude of me and am I'm sorry.

      I didn't even notice there was an edge to the comment.

      So, really, if I had a navy of my own to defend my claims, plus, a gen 6 or 7, drilling rig, then I could hire you for a $1000 a day?

      If you needed the navy to "defend your claim", then it would be pretty obvious that even you didn't believe your claim of legality. So I wouldn't touch your business with a 10 foot barge pole of someone else's.

      To put that in context - I'm actively pursuing work in Iran, North Korea, and various East African countries, as well as having been at the previously-mentioned conference specifically to hob-nob with companies working in both the Falklands and Malvinas Basins. And don't forget Angola and Namibia too.

      As for working in legally-dubious areas, one of my university classmates has spent some of the last couple of years on a Halliburton contract for redeveloping fields around Mosul in the relatively-safe part of Iraq ; when we hung the phone up on Halliburton telling them that we thought staying alive was more important than big pay checks, the day-rate was going over $2500. I never bothered asking my friend what he stuck out for, but the photos of catching core in a flack jacket, with a "private security guard" who looks like a refugee from a 3rd-rate remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Thinking about it, I haven't had an email from him for several months. I hope that he got out of the job before the current Turkish brohaha.

      It seems that, for that kind of money - we're talking billions here, really.

      But of course. A typical land well costs a million or two (USD or GBP, doesn't really matter). A typical North Sea (my main stamping ground) would be 10 to 20 million. Deep offshore, you're looking at 20 to 30 million. Per well. Add a few 10s of million for seismic surveying and detailed prospect evauation seismic. Per field, but you keep on re-doing it as seismic gets better. Don't forget to allow for building infrastructure to get to the prospect (and to get the hydrocarbons out) - that can be a good few bucks. If you're going into the Southern Ocean, you're going to need to service a marine rig from Cape Town or Punta Arenas, so look at a week of steaming time each way with equipment. Budget for around a half-million a day for renting the big boats you're going to need - one at the rig, one sailing in , one sailing out, one in or around harbour. You might as well make them all anchor handlers, and on exclusive hire (well, who you're going to share them with?) ... that's no small ticket. You might have to delay your well until you can get supply boats.

      Just going for a gut feeling (IANA-drilling-engineer, IANA-accountant), I'd guesstimate a Weddell Sea well at $100 to $150 million. That's per well drilled. How you're going to produce the field is a separate question, where the really big bucks get involved.

      Producing a small North Sea field pushes a billion USD, in an area with abundant infrastructure and absolutely riddled with pipelines and refinery capacity. So applying a similar multiplier as for a single well, look at an investment in the region of 5 billion for a field in the Weddell Sea. ASSUMING there is something there (see previous comment). That's why the 1998/1999 drilling campaign in the Falklands "failed" : they found hydrocarbons, but not in anything vaguely like sufficient quantities to make it worth developing. (Corollary : oil prices around 6 or 7 times higher today ; conference on development prospects in the South Atlantic last month ; 2 + 2 = 4 ; drilling maybe 2010? ; producing maybe 2015?)

      Now, here's the question. That kind of money could a

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Bugger - missed that trailing .LT. /i .GT.
      And at this time of night I can't remember the appropriate HTML entities.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      when we hung the phone up on Halliburton telling them that we thought staying alive was more important than big pay checks, the day-rate was going over $2500.

      Christ almighty. If Halliburton was hiring programmers in Iraq at that rate, I would go there immediately. That kind of money is the worth the risk of my life. If I live, it means my son is guaranteed an excellent education. Hell, for that kind of money, I could put my brother in law's kids through college too, and he went to Iraq for a hell of a lot less money than that!

      5 billion bucks? 7 Shuttle launches? Well, I guess you could do so. Ask NASA.

      Unmanned is a lot cheaper. You make one baseline probe design, and you build say, 5 or 10 of them. Spread the design cost over a series of flights. Launch into space at multiple asteroids.

      I'm wondering what on Eros would be worth 20 trillion

      I've read that some folks say that the asteroid is very purely iron, nickel, platinum, gold... when the dust all settles, the cost of getting that ore back is very high.

      there's no reason to believe that there's oil in space

      No, but there is a lot of methane to be had, and who knows what's going on Titan. There's all sorts of weird hydrocarbons forming up there. Here's the thing... nuclear stuff is pretty rare, so far, and that's what you need for space. But, if you had like an asteroid base, and could tap a big ball of methane and oxygen your way, you'd have plenty of fuel to move on. It's funny but I think we'll always be burning something, just because there's so much to burn.

      I take it that is an Americanism for "low pay"? Yes.

      Hmmm, no. Chump change in that context means that the pay would be insignificant compared to the investment return. So, yeah, if I was a billionaire, staring at becoming a trillionaire, because of what you tell me about some rock, paying you a $1000 a day in consulting fees, is really chump change. It's not cheap in the absolute sense, but the value you would be delivering would be so vast, like, why not?

      --
      This is my sig.
    8. Re:That's all good, but, can we drill yet? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That kind of money is the worth the risk of my life. If I live, it means my son is guaranteed an excellent education.

      Your life, your choice. If you die, then your son grows up as the orphan of someone who died for someone else's money. Pay stops on the day of your death, and you only get paid for days in-country.

      I thought for quite a time about the $1000 a day offer (and again over the increased offers). I thought about my newly married wife and her daughter. I thought about the various times I've had machinery (or rocks) trying to kill me. I thought about a lot of things. And I told the Boss that I wasn't interested in the work. TTBOMK, I was the only married member of the staff the Boss offered the job to, because he knew that I have a liking for exotic workplaces and living on the edge. If I couldn't justify it to myself, then there wasn't really any reason to waste the nerve ending of the other married staff members with the prospect - they'd very likely come to the same conclusion as me, but agonise over it for longer.

      Of course, there was (and is) nothing to stop any of the company's staff from resigning, going freelance, and taking up the offer. Just don't expect there to be a staff job waiting if you don't like it on the freelance side of the road. You get the full day rate, but you have to be prepared to take 6 months with zero income, and to then have two long-cultivated jobs come to the payback phase at the same time. (You can only be in one place at a time!)

      I've read that some folks say that the asteroid is very purely iron, nickel, platinum, gold... when the dust all settles, the cost of getting that ore back is very high.

      I've not heard anything to suggest that Eros (in particular) is anything other than fairly normal silicates ; NiFe would have a pretty distinctive reflection spectrum, but in any case neither are rare metals. The PGE (Platinum Group Elements, including gold) might be worthwhile, if they were in any significant concentration. That's a big IF : PGEs are, if I recall my geochemistry correctly, strongly partitioned into sulphide phases, so in an asteroidal setting are going to go into any differentiated "core" with the NiFe. It's only on planetary-scale objects (Mars fits ; Ceres might ; Vesta probably didn't, even before it's big bang) that you're going to get enough hydrothermal activity for long enough to have a real chance of doing significant hydrothermal concentration.

      Don't confuse Sci-Fi "wouldn't it be nice if" with "is" (or even "is probably", or "is possibly"). I like my Sci-Fi too, but it isn't reality.

      What you can get from asteroids in the realistic term is reaction mass and volatiles. Without going to the "bottom of a hole".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. STOP by achenaar · · Score: 0

    HammerI!

  30. So what's earth's normal temperature? by i)ave · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because I can not resolve in my own mind how anyone can claim to believe in global "warming", yet have no clue as to what represents a "normal" temperature. According to the article, Antarctica was once much warmer than it is today -- so why not establish that period of time as representative of earth's "normal" temperature? That would show we are in a period of global cooling and any rise in temperature would mean we were moving back towards normal. Who the hell is to say that the last 100 or 1000 years should represent the normal temperature of earth and totally ignore a couple billion years. Simply because someone likes the idea of keeping their beach house in the family doesn't mean this is the normal temperature of the earth. It wasn't so long ago that most of North America was completely underwater -- is that "normal" ? Why not?

    --
    -- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
    1. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The temperature of Antartica 100 million years ago compared to today has no bearing on the global temperature, as Antartica was not located at the South pole back then, so it of course was warmer than it is now.

    2. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by derdesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make a very good point. Statistically it is unlikely that today's global temperature is "normal" for our epoch, and that normal baseline almost certainly has changed in the past 10's of millions of years and will continue to change on that same timescale into the future.

      That said, the discussion and concern about "global warming" has nothing to do with what's "normal" for the planet. The concern is for effects that occur too quickly for our societies to adapt without massive disruption and accompanying economic collapse, famine, and war that might accompany such.

      The planet doesn't care, and will be fine in the long run. It's we humans, and our civilization, that worry about survival.

      Also, dinosaurs are cool.

    3. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by Rudi+G · · Score: 0

      You are right, anything is normal for mother nature. It doesn't care whether it's 30 or 50 degrees outside, and it certainly would not care if all humans become extinct, just look how kind it was to the dinosaurs.

    4. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of continental drift? Real concern about global warming is potential for positive feedback. Less snow cover means more heat absorbed means less snow cover. Of course in 50 or so years the cause of global warming will be fixed because most of the fossil fuel will have been burned. Mother nature has her way of taking care of species that overpopulate their environment. No birth control means death control big time.

    5. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      It's not just warming, it's the change in weather patterns. Previously arable areas are becoming arid, previously arid areas are becoming arable. Ocean currents are changing, driving weather systems into changes in turn. And then there's the issue of ice on land being melted. Evidence is coming in from many places around the world showing earlier thawing and later re-freezing, lower or missing icecaps. Low-lying land is being threatened by all of this, and while you may be okay, many of the world's people won't be. There are lots of low islands in addition to the coastal cities of the world.

      But hey! It's all a hoax!

      Keep telling yourself that.

      I'd argue that even if it is a hoax, we lose little by treating it seriously. We get lower pollution, more efficient energy and some minor wealth redistribution from big energy companies to the small pollution-control companies. If it's real, treating it seriously may well be critical to the future of the Human race.

      Seems that the only logical position is to assume (or pretend) Human-caused climate change is real and form policy from there.

    6. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

      No, the ocean currents are not changing. Ocean currents are determined by WIND, not politics. Wind is caused by the sun, and so far Albert Gore has not said the sun will go out. You can believe whatever you like, even though nature is not cooperating with your theory. The southern hemisphere is not listening to Al Gore. They have had record breaking cold in 2007, and the the total ice in the antarctic is increasing. Yes, even if it IS a hoax we're only 49 trillion dollars in debt, whats another few hundred trillion being that high taxes change the weather. The arctic is supposed to be melting even while my birdbath is not. Funny that.

    7. Re:So what's earth's normal temperature? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Wrong way around. Wind is driven by ocean currents.

      And I'm in the Southern Hemisphere. We're having record heat here in Australia as well as droughts. Winters are weaker, summers longer and hotter. Sydney is getting Brisbane's weather, Melbourne is getting Sydney's and Hobart is getting Melbourne's.

      Antarctic ice increasing? Tell that to the Ross Ice Shelf.

  31. More evidence that global warming isn't by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0

    Global warming is not only not man made, it hasn't gotten warmer in the last 5 years. The only global warming anyone can actually point to is a bunch of erred NASA reports from the 80's and statistical analysis by computers of the errorous data. I'm sure everyone here on slashdot appreciates the inaccuracy of any analytical computer program predicticting the outcome of anything in the real world. These computer climate models, while entertaining, have absolutely nothing to do with reality, it's a kin to a gigantic magic 8 ball. The best proof that global warming is a crock of shit is how defencive proponents are of any skeptics : http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c . This global warming farce and gone on long enough! It's time for the halfway intelligent people to say "Enough politics in science!"

  32. Re:That's impossible by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing can live in the antarctic.

    Well that's why they found dinosaur *bones* and not living dinosaurs!

    Duh...

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  33. The name change is obviously more important. by zaxor0 · · Score: 1

    Ah! Thats where I left my Apato-burger (formerly known as Bronto-burger).

  34. To the tune of the Oscar Meyer song... by brassman · · Score: 1

    I have a fav'rite movie
    It's called "Jurassic Park"
    It has velociraptors
    Eating lawyers in the dark

    I'd like to watch it every day
    And if you ask me why I'll say
    "'cause Steven Spielberg has a way
    With fossil dino D.N.A!"

    --
    "Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
  35. Re:Pop goes the theory by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to add, that the CO2 levels were also predicted to be higher as Pangea was breaking up and the resulting vulcanism released large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The climate in that region was more closer to tropical- something akin to the climate in Miami.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  36. Re:Pop goes the theory by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

    You dingalings have everything wrong again. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs and man never existed together in the same time period. So if you do believe them then you have to disregard your own comments here.

  37. C - none of the above by patiodragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The earth is what? Like hundreds of millions of years old? Only 10 million, okay, whatever...

    The point is the same. Many upon many catastrophic events (HUGE earthquakes, volcanic events, great floods even, recorded by every civilization of the world) change lots of stuff. Plates in the earth move. Sometimes a lot. Antarctica is a moving target on a geological time scale.

  38. Re:Pop goes the theory by piedmont67 · · Score: 0

    ~~~Sorry, no proof of that whatsoever. Also no proof that it did not happen, but science requires proof. There are fossils of very large palm fronds in the Canadian Arctic. The earth's atmosphere millenia ago was DRASTICALLY different from the one we have now and EVERYTHING in earth science points to that scientific fact.

  39. Welcome! by gaelfx · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would like to welcome our new ancient ice-covered reptilian overlords. Probably a step up from the current administration....

    1. Re:Welcome! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I'd vote for em. After all, I don't want some other lizard to get elected.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  40. Incorrect by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

    at the time of life, the area was between 55 and 65 degrees south, suggesting a climate similar to the Falkland Islands or Tierra del Fuego.

    At that time the climate in the area between 55 and 65 degrees south was not that of today's Falkland Islands. The world was several degrees warmer.

    1. Re:Incorrect by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      At that time the climate in the area between 55 and 65 degrees south was not that of today's Falkland Islands. The world was several degrees warmer.

      My original posting put the comparable region as between the Falklands and part of the West Antarctic Peninsula (via Tierra del Fuego) ; that covers quite a few degrees of change.

      In a European comparison, compare Central England and Norway just south of the Arctic Circle.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  41. Re:That's impossible by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Penguins are dieing out, many Microsoft funded studies confirm it.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  42. Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, go look it up already.

  43. Re:Pop goes the theory by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    No, but it throws a BIGGER monkey wrench in the theory of (global warming) == (bad for life on earth)
    I'm not sure how this has anything to do with global warming at all, much less whether it is good or bad for life on earth. When those dinosaurs were roaming around Antarctica it wasn't Antarctica at all - the continents weren't anywhere near where they are. The ice and snow came much later. So whatever global climate conditions we have today have very little to do with dinosaur remains and where they're found.

    unless of course mankind existed before dinosaurs, and we drove our SUV's until they all died from CO2 overdose and the SUV's disintegrated completely (even the plastics) but the dinosaur bones remained... Which means Al Gore has reincarnated to save the poor dinosaurs agai... oh wait, they're not around. Tough tamales, eh?
    Is this even related to your first statement? Did you just wander off on a tangent? What does human influence, or lack there-of, have to do with whether global warming is good or bad for life on earth?
    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  44. My theory ... by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

    ... is that it was narrow at one end, big in the middle and narrow at the other end.

    That is the theory which is mine. It is my theory, belonging to me.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  45. I'm glad they're finding the dinosaurs.. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Now we just need for the scientist to find the aliens that were stored down there in ancient times by the alien predators. Then we can harness them as a military weapon to defeat the terrorist.

    Of course, they will get loose just as the predator aliens are returning for a hunting expedition. Then we will need Sigorny Weaver AND Arnold Schwarzennager to defeat them and stop them from turning the entire human population into baby food.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Antarctica has moved around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I might be feeding a troll, but Antarctica has not always been at the South Pole. In fact, there have been times when it has been located (as best as I can remember) near or at the equator.

    1. Re:Antarctica has moved around by phrostie · · Score: 1

      it was never a troll, just my sense of humor.

      thanks though :-D

  48. In-depth investigation reveals that... by zLaSh · · Score: 1

    There where found rests of fossilized parachute pants over their bones... Ahh, I can imagine a rampage of dozens of parachute-pants-wearing dinosaurs singing: "Stop! Hammeri time!"

  49. Uh, no. Antarctica hasn't really budged. by He+Who+Waits · · Score: 1
    The landmass that is now Antarctica has been near or at the South Pole since the formation of Pangaea about 280 Ma. The previously adjacent India and Australia moved north by northeast (and continue to do so).

    So, yes, this find does indicate that either these dinosaurs were able to thrive in much cooler climates that previously given credit for, or that the global climate was much warmer, for at least one extended period in the past, than Global Warming(TM) activists are willing to admit.

    Gotta love those dino bones. First they kick the crap out of Creationism, now they do the same for Global Warming. What other anthropocentric delusion will be next?

  50. Slave!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seen the city, seen the zoo.
    Traffic light won't let me through.

  51. Re:Uh, no. Antarctica hasn't really budged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or that the global climate was much warmer, for at least one extended period in the past, than Global Warming(TM) activists are willing to admit.

    WTF? Every idiot knows the earth was once much warmer. This has nothing to do with the global warming debate. Guess what? The earth didn't always support life. Does that make it "ok" with you if I sterilize the planet? Who give a flying stink if the earth was once warmer or colder. The question is, how will it effect humans?

  52. Re:Uh, no. Antarctica hasn't really budged. by He+Who+Waits · · Score: 1
    Bravo! This position makes you a moderate compared to many of the GW activists heard from, even despite your remark about sterilizing the planet.

    But a less moderate (and I daresay more common) position would insist that you also care about how this affects all living things (or at least the cute and useful ones) and not just humans. Careful, you may not be a part of the universal GW "consensus" I keep hearing about.

  53. But then some other area would have been polar by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Sure earth might have toppled a few times, but if it was spinning on an axis then surely there would have been some sort of poles (perhaps where today's tropics are). Those poles are going to revceive less solar radiation and thus the earth's temperature would have not been "equitable".

    Even if the angle was the same (eg end on), the same would still hold true.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  54. so many books so little time by infonography · · Score: 1

    these days if I can't torrent it in audio or convert it to .pdb onto my treo for consumption on mass transit I don't read it. at least Open Office has that as a save-as option

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  55. Re:That's impossible by bwogowly · · Score: 1

    When will they grow dinosaurs on chips?