Thursday, May 1, 2025
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries Support Us
You are viewing: Home > News > Palaeontology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Palaeontology

Prehistoric jungles laughed at global warming

By T.K. Randall
October 27, 2009 · Comment icon 8 comments

Image Credit: sxc.hu
Evidence has been found to suggest that giant creatures such as the massive one-tonne titanoboa snake would have thrived in hot jungles millions of years ago with temperatures significantly warmer than those seen today.
Fossil boffins say that dense triple-canopy rainforests, home among other things to gigantic one-tonne boa constrictors, flourished millions of years ago in temperatures 3-5°C warmer than those seen today - as hot as some of the more dire global-warming projections.


Source: The Register | Comments (8)




Other news and articles
Our latest videos Visit us on YouTube
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #1 Posted by SQLserver 16 years ago
Heads up: If you are going to happen to mention anything along the lines of "LOL THERE WERE NO SUVS THEN LOL!!11" then please don't even bother to post.
Comment icon #2 Posted by DieChecker 16 years ago
I do not think the arguement is that there will be an extinction event due to climate change, but that all the melting ice will raise ocean levels and displace hundreds of millions of people. Also changes such as desertification will lead to there being a harder time growing crops and supporting the world human population. The various animals of the world that survive will be doing just fine. As long as a few survive the diversity will eventually return.
Comment icon #3 Posted by 747400 16 years ago
Heads up: If you are going to happen to mention anything along the lines of "LOL THERE WERE NO SUVS THEN LOL!!11" then please don't even bother to post. Quite right, of course. We can't have anyone challenging the orthodoxy, can we.
Comment icon #4 Posted by SQLserver 16 years ago
Quite right, of course. We can't have anyone challenging the orthodoxy, can we. Well, I completely disagree with you here. First, it is healthy to rationally challenge anything from a scientific standpoint: this happens constantly in the scientific community. Second, I would certainly not call the consensus of the scientific community "orthodoxy": It certainly isn't, and anyone who thinks such is kidding only themselves. In science, all scientific theories are temporarily viewed as the most accurate hypothesis posited and examined by the community based on the evidence, and nothing more. Third... [More]
Comment icon #5 Posted by danielost 16 years ago
Well, I completely disagree with you here. First, it is healthy to rationally challenge anything from a scientific standpoint: this happens constantly in the scientific community. Second, I would certainly not call the consensus of the scientific community "orthodoxy": It certainly isn't, and anyone who thinks such is kidding only themselves. In science, all scientific theories are temporarily viewed as the most accurate hypothesis posited and examined by the community based on the evidence, and nothing more. Third, screaming "LOL SUVS LOL WALLHAX!11" is not challenging anything, besides perha... [More]
Comment icon #6 Posted by Mattshark 16 years ago
I do not think the arguement is that there will be an extinction event due to climate change, but that all the melting ice will raise ocean levels and displace hundreds of millions of people. Also changes such as desertification will lead to there being a harder time growing crops and supporting the world human population. The various animals of the world that survive will be doing just fine. As long as a few survive the diversity will eventually return. Yes, but some of us do care about the Holocene extinction event, cos there is pretty much no doubt on the cause of that.
Comment icon #7 Posted by danielost 16 years ago
Yes, but some of us do care about the Holocene extinction event, cos there is pretty much no doubt on the cause of that. this statement means that there is doubt if you admit it or not. pretty much does not mean 100% sure
Comment icon #8 Posted by Mattshark 16 years ago
this statement means that there is doubt if you admit it or not. pretty much does not mean 100% sure So what, you'll never find 100% consensus on anything and this is science, nothing is ever 100%.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Recent news and articles