Ice Age Physiology

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

Nothing particular WRT mammalian trends but in mentioning Ice conditions one thing is certain. The oceans become a greater CO2 sink and are themselves in a greater oxygenated condition. In other words the atmospheric O2 and the oceanic O2 have a greater ratio. It is the ratio between the oxygen16 (air) and the oxygen18 (oceans) that tell how cold or warm the climate was. When Oceans warm up they absorb less CO2 and release more oxygen18 into the atmosphere. This release is the main reason for anoxia events which translates into major marine die-offs.

Cold climates are the reverse which also results in binding methane in permafrost areas by halting organic decomposition and methane releases from marine calthrates in the seabeds.

Edited December 17, 2013 by hiflier

[JDL]

Henry's Law

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

 

Yes, Exactly. Henry's Law. Or, more precisely, Henry's Coeffecient.

 

G'nite JDL

Edited December 17, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

Quote from LarryP:

 

"I've heard a tremenously long and loud whoop that was followed immediately by a thunderous deep howl that lasted around 20 seconds without a pause and grew in intensity the entire time.

 

That took tremendous lung capicity and will definitely get your attention, to say the least"

 

I have heard something like what you describe. Even though i know a human could make the sounds, I have trouble believing anyone has the sheer lung power to do what I heard, without some high quality sound equipment and studio enhancement. Which is way past highly unlikely considering the circumstances and location.  Whatever it was that made the sound, everyone should have the opportunity to hear something that impressive, just for the awesomeness of the vocals.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I agree with you regarding the Lovelock cave finds not being the same species as sasquatch, but I do think it is probable that some of the mound skeletons found in other states are in fact sasquatch. I am especially interested in the fact that there are numerous claims of these mound skeletons having had double rows of teeth. I am thinking I have seen at least ten individual reports making this claim, or somewhere around that number, and there are likely more given that most of these finds were made in the 19th century. The teeth wouldn't be that interesting if it were not for the fact that modern eyewitnesses, who have gotten close enough to a sasquatch and could view the teeth, have also claimed that there seemed to be a double row of teeth, or at the very least something peculiar about them.

 

I know such modern reports exist, but I don't know how many there actually are. Probably not too many, given that it is nearly impossible to get that close to a sasquatch, who happens to have its mouth open. If it is baring its teeth at a person, which they are apt to do it seems, then a person could not actually see behind the front row of teeth. I never would have speculated such a feature myself, and only became interested in it after noting the correlation between some mound skeletons and modern eyewitness testimony.

 

I also know for a fact that oxygen affects the size of animals, and possibly even their rate of growth. There was much more oxygen in the atmosphere during the time of the dinosaurs, and that may be partly why they got so big. And there were many other large animals as well. But I am not sure that sasquatch could have been affected by such things, mainly because I believe that sasquatch are fairly young as a species.

 

I think they've likely been around about as long as humans, or somewhere around there. I would say no more than a few hundred thousand years, just as a guess. Now whether the atmosphere would have affected growth during that time, and especially up until the present, I do not know. I think that what you are claiming is very interesting, and it definitely should be pursued.

[JDL]

I can't rule out that some of the mound skeletons are bigfoot skeletons.  I do know that several of the large skeletons were found with crafted artifacts, which would rule out bigfoot, in my opinion.  But that doesn't mean that other skeletons are from bigfoot.  It would require examination of stored remains, or the excavation of a new mound with a lucky mix of contents.

 

I never paid much attention to the double row of teeth thing until tonight.  Apparently it's not that uncommon for some people to have a few extra adult teeth and for a very few to have a complete extra set.  No one seems to have a satisfactory answer to their origin other than random mutation.  I haven't seen it related to a given species or race other than anecdotally.

 

I've never had a squatch open its mouth to the point where I could see its teeth, so I don't have anything to offer there either.

 

Until hiflier mentioned it, I didn't know that the four foot dragonflies and that the larger dinosaurs thrived during times when oxygen concentrations were high.  It seems there's something to it.  More oxygen means better oxygenation of the body, which means that physiological processes are less constrained and can reach higher potentials.  Certainly there was a reason that megafauna once existed and there's a reason why they no longer exist.  Cold alone can't be the answer, otherwise, arctic fauna, though large, would be as large as their megafauna relatives.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing from more members about any insights they might have.

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

Had to look it up: The largest wingspan of a prehistoric dragonfly or griffinfly was 2ft 4in. So 28 inches is a far cry from what I thought I had read some years back of 48 in. Still looking into it though. I guess the idea of the relationship of oxygen to size was popularized in the early 1900's but was kinda slammed by the scientific community. There has since been a resurgence of the hypothesis.

[JDL]

You know, the prospect of giant ticks, cockroaches and mosquitoes isn't that appealing to me.

 

As beneficial as increased atmospheric oxygen may be to humans, we wouldn't get to pick and choose which other species benefited along with us.

[BC witness]

An intriguing hypothesis, JDL. I have no expertise in any related fields, but the idea seems very possible, given what little I do know of physiology. It does tie in to things like very loud vocals, high energy movement, and possibly long lifespan, in spite of zero medical attention. Would high O2 intake in any way relate to an ability to exist in a cold environment, when covered in hair, with no undercoat, as opposed to fur, which has a thick insulating undercoat?

[JDL]

In general, as a creature grows larger it has a lower surface area to body mass ratio.  This means that the heat generated in the body core is retained more easily, or at least is radiated from the body less easily. 

 

Also, our cells typically have access to less oxygen than they can efficiently and beneficially use.  We see this in the previously mentioned findings regarding stem cells, and it applies to other cells also.  We've all seen athletes taking hits of oxygen on the sidelines to get a performance boost.

 

One of the consequences of having less oxygen available than our bodies can use is that our cells do not get the benefit of all of the potential energy available from a particular source of food.  Some of the potential energy is wasted due to the restricted availability of oxygen.  In carburetor terms we tend to burn lean.  If we have more oxygen, we burn fuel more efficiently, getting more energy out of it, and produce more heat in the process.

 

So better oxygenation promotes better biological function; is believed to contribute to increased growth, better health, and longevity, and the ability to use more of the potential energy available in a given food source, generating more heat as a byproduct.  In turn, increased size, a synergistic consequence of better oxygenation promotes better heat retention.

 

I can't give you an empirical answer to your question, but these are the physiological trends and I think that I can safely say that higher O2 intake should make a creature responding to these trends better able to withstand cold.

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

A body also does better and lasts longer when it's less acidic. It's all about how much O2 vs. CO2 is dissolved in bloodgases. It makes me wonder if the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect in general organic health across the board. Plants AND animals.

Edited January 5, 2014 by hiflier

[JDL]

I'd say very high levels might, but I also don't believe we're anywhere near a dangerous level on that.

 

I saw press article the other day about a paper that found higher CO2 levels were better for plant life and my jaw dropped. 

 

I guess it was a good example of the fact that there is a difference between science and common sense.

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

Plants as you know take up CO2 so no issues there (when things are more balanced). They therefore are a good sink for that purpose but do not all thrive in an acid environment. Things are moving north these days including plants, which is perfectly normal for a warming planet as history shows. But history also shows tree die-offs that in turn are replaced with drought resistant grasses. Trees are amazing carbon sinks as demonstrated by the great boreal forests in the north; and so is the ocean. My point is overly acidic oceans and atmospheres are killers. Losing trees because of it on top of what we take is a recipe for a positive acidic feedback senario.

Wow, LOL, am I EVER off the beaten Sasquatch Path! Sorry. Hey BC witness, welcome to the Forum. I didn't forget about ya.

Edited January 5, 2014 by hiflier

[BC witness]

Thanks for the detailed reply, JDL, and for the welcome, hiflier.

[Guest]

 

 

Maybe the evolution of megafauna wasn't simply because bigger bodies (higher body volume to body surface ratio) made it easier to conserve heat.  This may have helped from a natural selection process, but perhaps healthier and better functioning stem cells made it biologically possible to grow larger.

 

 

 

A major problem with this scenario is that all of your giants would be restricted to generally narrow coastal habitats. Most of our mega-fauna fossils come from habitats higher than modern sea-level, let alone a sea level 400ft lower.