An interesting study on a number of levels.

https://newatlas.com/dinosaur-asteroid-survival-chance/52155/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=dbe1402eec-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-dbe1402eec-92533145

I wonder if dinosaurs would have evolved into a sentient species if they hadn’t been wiped out.

Cymek said:

I wonder if dinosaurs would have evolved into a sentient species if they hadn’t been wiped out.

Some birds are pretty smart, but they are physically deficient (no hands) to progress to a similar intellectual level to ourselves.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if dinosaurs would have evolved into a sentient species if they hadn’t been wiped out.

Some birds are pretty smart, but they are physically deficient (no hands) to progress to a similar intellectual level to ourselves.

Cymek said:

I wonder if dinosaurs would have evolved into a sentient species if they hadn’t been wiped out.

I’m pretty sure dinosaurs were already sentient.

I think this is a little bit hilarious.

There are many variables that are largely “free” in a model for the effects of an impact event on an ecology, not just because of how little we know about ecology generally but because of how little we know about the ecology 60 million years ago.

So basically the goal is to fit those variables to derive a model that most closely matches the observed output.

Someone saying “I ran my models and the output was that the dinosaurs should’ve lived” is basically saying “my model is shitty”.

dv said:

I think this is a little bit hilarious.

There are many variables that are largely “free” in a model for the effects of an impact event on an ecology, not just because of how little we know about ecology generally but because of how little we know about the ecology 60 million years ago.

So basically the goal is to fit those variables to derive a model that most closely matches the observed output.

Someone saying “I ran my models and the output was that the dinosaurs should’ve lived” is basically saying “my model is shitty”.

Not necessarily. It might mean there were other factors involved in the extinction.

But in this case, that’s not what they’re saying anyway. They’re apparently saying that had the impact occurred elsewhere on the planet, the dinosaurs would have had a better chance.

Bubblecar said:

Not necessarily. It might mean there were other factors involved in the extinction.

other factors than they’ve included

PermeateFree said:

An interesting study on a number of levels.

https://newatlas.com/dinosaur-asteroid-survival-chance/52155/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=dbe1402eec-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-dbe1402eec-92533145

Deccan Traps.

They couldn’t have dodged that.

I spent yesterday looking at how the K-T extinction affected the rate of new species generation of mammals and birds. Was shocked to discover that it had no effect at all. At least 20 different mammal species survived the K-T and the rate of new species generation is exactly the same before the K-T as immediately afterwards.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

An interesting study on a number of levels.

https://newatlas.com/dinosaur-asteroid-survival-chance/52155/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=dbe1402eec-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-dbe1402eec-92533145

Deccan Traps.

They couldn’t have dodged that.

I spent yesterday looking at how the K-T extinction affected the rate of new species generation of mammals and birds. Was shocked to discover that it had no effect at all. At least 20 different mammal species survived the K-T and the rate of new species generation is exactly the same before the K-T as immediately afterwards.

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

WTF is wikipedia now calling the K-T extinction the K-Pg! Exceedingly annoying.

It’s always been an open question to me whether the impact alone could have been sufficient to wipe out the marine reptiles and ammonites. Blaming it for the extinctions in America is fine, but not necessarily for the extinctions in the western Pacific.

mollwollfumble said:

WTF is wikipedia now calling the K-T extinction the K-Pg! Exceedingly annoying.

It’s always been an open question to me whether the impact alone could have been sufficient to wipe out the marine reptiles and ammonites. Blaming it for the extinctions in America is fine, but not necessarily for the extinctions in the western Pacific.

It was the nuclear winter it created, which dropped global temperatures dramatically and without direct sunlight the plant-life didn’t fare well either.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

An interesting study on a number of levels.

https://newatlas.com/dinosaur-asteroid-survival-chance/52155/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=dbe1402eec-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-dbe1402eec-92533145

Deccan Traps.

They couldn’t have dodged that.

I spent yesterday looking at how the K-T extinction affected the rate of new species generation of mammals and birds. Was shocked to discover that it had no effect at all. At least 20 different mammal species survived the K-T and the rate of new species generation is exactly the same before the K-T as immediately afterwards.

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

Many mammal species that survived, like the pig, flying lemur, primative horse and opossum, didn’t live underground. And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded. We have to look elsewhere for an answer.

mollwollfumble said:

WTF is wikipedia now calling the K-T extinction the K-Pg! Exceedingly annoying.

It’s always been an open question to me whether the impact alone could have been sufficient to wipe out the marine reptiles and ammonites. Blaming it for the extinctions in America is fine, but not necessarily for the extinctions in the western Pacific.

Tertiary got kicked out as name for a period some time back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Deccan Traps.

They couldn’t have dodged that.

I spent yesterday looking at how the K-T extinction affected the rate of new species generation of mammals and birds. Was shocked to discover that it had no effect at all. At least 20 different mammal species survived the K-T and the rate of new species generation is exactly the same before the K-T as immediately afterwards.

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

Many mammal species that survived, like the pig, flying lemur, primative horse and opossum, didn’t live underground. And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded. We have to look elsewhere for an answer.

I don’t think the mammals you mention were wandering around with the dinosaurs.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

Many mammal species that survived, like the pig, flying lemur, primative horse and opossum, didn’t live underground. And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded. We have to look elsewhere for an answer.

I don’t think the mammals you mention were wandering around with the dinosaurs.

This.

>>And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded.<<

The birds survived, which also had insulating feathers.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Deccan Traps.

They couldn’t have dodged that.

I spent yesterday looking at how the K-T extinction affected the rate of new species generation of mammals and birds. Was shocked to discover that it had no effect at all. At least 20 different mammal species survived the K-T and the rate of new species generation is exactly the same before the K-T as immediately afterwards.

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

Many mammal species that survived, like the pig, flying lemur, primative horse and opossum, didn’t live underground. And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded. We have to look elsewhere for an answer.

Perhaps the death of all the large dinousaurs created an eco system collapse that wiped out all dinosaurs

PermeateFree said:

>>And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded.<<

The birds survived, which also had insulating feathers.

and I believe there is a lot of intellectual debate about the warmbloodedness of dinosaurs.

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

I’ve seen that movie.

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

From the OP article in the first post. Probably indicates the extent people read stuff contained in more than one sentence.

>>Based on the hydrocarbon-rich rock at the impact site, the model indicated that the soot thrown into the air would cool the Earth by a devastating 8 to 11° C (14 to 20° F) on average, with a drop as drastic as 17° C (31° F) over land and 5 to 7° C (9 to 13 F) in the seawater, to a depth of 50 m (164 ft). Rainfall over land would have dropped by 70 to 85 percent. Altogether those figures paint a grim picture for life on Earth.<<

This nuclear winter is estimated to have lasted several years.

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

no really. too big a gap between dinos and the first humans.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

Would, or did, the triceratops have a more bird like skeleton re bone density or mamillian?

PermeateFree said:

From the OP article in the first post. Probably indicates the extent people read stuff contained in more than one sentence.

>>Based on the hydrocarbon-rich rock at the impact site, the model indicated that the soot thrown into the air would cool the Earth by a devastating 8 to 11° C (14 to 20° F) on average, with a drop as drastic as 17° C (31° F) over land and 5 to 7° C (9 to 13 F) in the seawater, to a depth of 50 m (164 ft). Rainfall over land would have dropped by 70 to 85 percent. Altogether those figures paint a grim picture for life on Earth.<<

This nuclear winter is estimated to have lasted several years.

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

no really. too big a gap between dinos and the first humans.

Yeah I know was being silly, it a silly idea as yeah I could believe it if was a few thousand or even ten thousand years gap but not tens of millions

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

From the OP article in the first post. Probably indicates the extent people read stuff contained in more than one sentence.

>>Based on the hydrocarbon-rich rock at the impact site, the model indicated that the soot thrown into the air would cool the Earth by a devastating 8 to 11° C (14 to 20° F) on average, with a drop as drastic as 17° C (31° F) over land and 5 to 7° C (9 to 13 F) in the seawater, to a depth of 50 m (164 ft). Rainfall over land would have dropped by 70 to 85 percent. Altogether those figures paint a grim picture for life on Earth.<<

This nuclear winter is estimated to have lasted several years.

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

AwesomeO said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

Would, or did, the triceratops have a more bird like skeleton re bone density or mamillian?

You’d think dense bone structure to support all that body armour and muscle but is that something fossil bones could indicate

And just thinking a bit more, much of the vegetation will be dried and many animals will thrive on thrive on dried vegetation, even bark from trees.

Cymek said:

Could humans have hunted the remaining dinosaurs into extinction

Some, yes.

Birds are the descendants of one group of dinosaurs.

Nieces son’s birthday cake. I told them that dinos and humans didn’t co-exist.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

From the OP article in the first post. Probably indicates the extent people read stuff contained in more than one sentence.

>>Based on the hydrocarbon-rich rock at the impact site, the model indicated that the soot thrown into the air would cool the Earth by a devastating 8 to 11° C (14 to 20° F) on average, with a drop as drastic as 17° C (31° F) over land and 5 to 7° C (9 to 13 F) in the seawater, to a depth of 50 m (164 ft). Rainfall over land would have dropped by 70 to 85 percent. Altogether those figures paint a grim picture for life on Earth.<<

This nuclear winter is estimated to have lasted several years.

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

So life could go into survival mode but never recover sufficiently to repopulate especially if the environment had changed, would it go back to something resembling normality or be forever changed.

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Would, or did, the triceratops have a more bird like skeleton re bone density or mamillian?

You’d think dense bone structure to support all that body armour and muscle but is that something fossil bones could indicate

Yeah, but tough can be strong whilst being full of holes.

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

So life could go into survival mode but never recover sufficiently to repopulate especially if the environment had changed, would it go back to something resembling normality or be forever changed.

Duration
The length of time taken for the extinction to occur is a controversial issue, because some theories about the extinction’s causes require a rapid extinction over a relatively short period (from a few years to a few thousand years) while others require longer periods. The issue is difficult to resolve because of the Signor–Lipps effect; that is, the fossil record is so incomplete that most extinct species probably died out long after the most recent fossil that has been found. Scientists have also found very few continuous beds of fossil-bearing rock that cover a time range from several million years before the K–Pg extinction to a few million years after it. The sedimentation rate and thickness of K-Pg clay from three sites suggest short duration of event, perhaps less than ten thousand years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event#Duration

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

So life could go into survival mode but never recover sufficiently to repopulate especially if the environment had changed, would it go back to something resembling normality or be forever changed.

No idea, just throwing it out there. Survivors of a huge event might find food is the least of worries.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

So life could go into survival mode but never recover sufficiently to repopulate especially if the environment had changed, would it go back to something resembling normality or be forever changed.

No idea, just throwing it out there. Survivors of a huge event might find food is the least of worries.

Giant asteroids kinda kill the mood, therefore no more baby dinos…

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

From the OP article in the first post. Probably indicates the extent people read stuff contained in more than one sentence.

>>Based on the hydrocarbon-rich rock at the impact site, the model indicated that the soot thrown into the air would cool the Earth by a devastating 8 to 11° C (14 to 20° F) on average, with a drop as drastic as 17° C (31° F) over land and 5 to 7° C (9 to 13 F) in the seawater, to a depth of 50 m (164 ft). Rainfall over land would have dropped by 70 to 85 percent. Altogether those figures paint a grim picture for life on Earth.<<

This nuclear winter is estimated to have lasted several years.

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

The survivors were generally small and there would be roots, seed, insect eggs and larvae that could last for years to feed on, plus there are animals like reptiles that can survive for long periods without food. This is not to say many of the survivors would still die, but there would be enough to carry on when conditions improved.

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

It wouldn’t take more than a couple of years for just about everything living to die of starvation, the bigger you were the quicker you died quite likely. No sunlight combined with cold temperatures could kill most vegetation within months and then the dinosaurs that ate plants would be next and so on

Cold temperatures would preserve meat? Just as an idea. And many vegetarians will eat meat when starved, horses will eat animal hide and dried flesh.

So life could go into survival mode but never recover sufficiently to repopulate especially if the environment had changed, would it go back to something resembling normality or be forever changed.

Many Dinosaurs were large animals requiring large amounts of food and with the much colder situation, both on land and in the sea they were unable to survive.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

The big advantage of early mammals being small, warm blooded and living underground.

Many mammal species that survived, like the pig, flying lemur, primative horse and opossum, didn’t live underground. And many dinosaurs were small and warm blooded. We have to look elsewhere for an answer.

I don’t think the mammals you mention were wandering around with the dinosaurs.

Their direct ancesters were. Next time I get on desktop I’ll post the chart I saved from a Google Scholar paper.