>>4471078

>climatologists don't usually measure oxygen for ecological studies.

Ok, so I see the discrepancy. I was discussing a theoretical oxygen makeup and its paleoecological impact in the Early Triassic, which like I've said is a shaky theory that needs a full analysis of faunal turnover to actually back. Like I said, I'm hypothesising based on what I've read in papers. Geologically obviously you're talking in a different ballpark, so we're at cross purposes.

>so you have to be careful reading oxygen graphs, because they may not be relevant to life on earth. Or have the opposite relevance, e.g. extremely elevated CO2 will appear on a geo study as high O. But it's extremely toxic to life on earth. Not toxic directly of course, but as an asphyxiant and acid.

I understand

>>4471079

>depends on the point in time.

Of course

>>4471081
>>4471083
>>4471085

Ok, I gotcha. I guess I just don't really see the point in not differentiating actual free O2 as a molecule that can be used by terrestrial breathing tetrapods from the poisonous CO2.

>Because of this it's quite possible for total oxygen to be elevated but O2 to be reduced.

I understand, but surely you're referring to the totality of oxygen, including non-atmospheric? I specifically mean the breathable oxygen in the atmosphere at a given time that we can try and surmise the ecological effects of, in particular because of our discussion about archosaur breathing and sauropod size.

You could still concede the original thing, that if a rise in atmospheric CO2 is tallied into the atmospheric O2 level, it would generally contribute very little to atmospheric O2 levels. That CO2 has a large ecological effect, but numbers-wise it's very small, which is why I was initially confused.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/an/

Thread:

Am I to believe that this was real?How can a land animal possibly achieve this size?

Am I to believe that this was real?
How can a land animal possibly achieve this size?