Slashdot Mirror
8 Million Year Old Bacteria Thaws, Lives
Jamie found a New Scientist story about 8 million year old bacteria that scientists thawed out, and now it's alive. Also somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.
I for one welcome our new microscopic overlords.
The summary ominously notes:
[...] somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.
...filed, of course, under "gonna-need-more-antibiotics".
Except the article says:
This is nothing to worry about, say experts, because the process has been going on for billions of years and the bugs are unlikely to cause human disease.
[...]
Paul Falkowski of Rutgers University, who led the study, [...] does not believe this is cause for concern because marine bacteria and viruses are typically far less harmful to human health than, for instance, those found on land.
Russell Vreeland of the Ancient Biomaterials Institute at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, US, agrees. "This has been happening probably for a long, long time. Ice freezes and melts, rocks sink and are eroded. Microbes have been involved with this process for almost 4 billion years," says Vreeland, who has resuscitated 250-million year-old bacteria found in salt crystals. "Earth acts as a gene bank for microbes."
So, what's "new" here is that a researcher has actually intentionally taken frozen microbes from the oldest known ice and successfully resuscitated them in a laboratory setting. The Earth has been doing this on its own for billions of years.
I'm sure this comments will be filled with the likes of:
- By ignoring the undeniable truth that global warming is due to human behavior, we are toying with balances we can't possibly understand, and now may even be releasing ancient microbes into the environment whose dangers we don't yet know!
- Even if the Earth has been doing this on its own, we are unnaturally accelerating it; therefore, the potential release of these microbes must be bad!
- This may be a natural process, but humans may not have existed on Earth the last time this occurred, therefore we can't predict the possible harm to humanity!
...all tied in, of course, to the fact that we should be working on ways to "stop" climate change, predicated on the belief that any negative climate change is due exclusively to human activity beyond any shadow of scientific doubt, and that no climate change can ever be a net positive, especially when caused by human activity, when there are in truth far more factors involved, even if human activity is a large one. (Note: I am not saying global warming is "positive" or that human activity isn't a component; I am saying that it is inaccurate to cloak anything in self-serving absolutes.)
The interesting intersection here is that such a transition may occur while humans are present on Earth. This is not necessarily a "good" or a "bad" thing...it just is. Humans have learned to manipulate and adapt to their environment for millennia, both on long and short term bases. Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change. Some of this change may have a negative impact on human existence on Earth; some may not.
This does not mean that we should be raping the environment or ignoring any danger. But the single-mindedness of climate change activists is somewhat disturbing. They view climate change in a vacuum, separated from all other concerns, and that is simply a foolish and counterproductive position to take.
Ever wonder why there are so many global warming deniers? It's because of the attitude taken by fanatic, self-righteous global warming alarmists. We'd be a lot better served by real discussions - which are, unfortunately, far too complex for most people on either side of the "political" global warming debate to understand - than one alarmist global warming story after another.
The issues - social, economic, scientific, and so on - surrounding "climate change" deserve a far better treatment, even in slashdot comments, than berating Chevy Suburbans, Big Oil, and fat, lazy, greedy Americans.
Not if this global cooling theory comes to pass...oh no, wait, we're pushing global warming now, is it?
Tough to keep straight...
The opposite of progress is congress
X-Files 1x07- Ice
Mild-mannered college student by day, DinoPark Tycoon by night.
Haven't these scientists ever seen The Thing?
...which is why this is safe. Same reason particle physics experiments are safe: even higher-energetic particles hit the earth all the time.
Seriously, that was a terrible summary. The reason the scientists think it's okay and not dangerous is because the process of old ice melting and bacteria being reintroduced happens all the time.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
from a publication that plays host to dancing alien ads. WTF was that journal the fucking Weekly World News?
Let me know if a mirror happens with a respectible pub.
TFA says it is global warming uncovering these bacteria that are 8 million years old...
They don't point out that in the last 8 million years the earth has been much warmer than it is today, at many different times.
At least they didn't break out the OMG its humans driving SUVs stuff. Still though, it seems like an article with an agenda. Just report about the bacteria, kthx.
The Bacteria, named Cirroc, have said that they plan to attend law school and embark on a new career as a personal injury lawyer.
Now people are gonna get that blank ink stuff in their eyes and hatch into fanged aliens. But, Skully's hot, so, there's your silver lining....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
If old bacteria can thaw out fine, then I'm sure it happens decently often naturally...Lot of ice melting in the world, and it's not all "new" ice...When ice melts, the water carves channels deep into the ice, and liberates more ice in the process (or refreezes, depending).
Interesting that they're so robust, though I guess if the freezing doesn't kill it, there isn't anything else that will either.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If bacteria can survive that long, and I'm sure longer, this means there is a good chance that there may be life on planets with ice in our solar system. All we have to do is go find it!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to You,
Happy Birthday dear bacteria,
Happy Birthday to You!
(P.S. please don't tell the RIAA I sent this or there might be a fine. ;-)
So Bacteria survives being frozen, but Woolly Mammoths don't.
I guessing we won't either, so I'm filing this under "I" for "irrelevant".
If life survives and there is nobody there to see it, does it matter?
Just to see what would happen. I could get super powers and take over the world.
Wasn't this the plot to "The Blob"? .... Wait, No, No, that one's still frozen in the Antarctic as a solution... Right?
No, No.. that was "The Thing" that thawed out... Someone should Call Kurt Russell...
the process has been going on for billions of years and the bugs are unlikely to cause human disease.
Yes that's all good, but were there any human few billion years ago?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
you typed all that in under 4 minutes. (story posted at 11:01, comment posted at 11:05)
want to document my code for me? shouldn't take you long
If you are going to worry about bacteria, worry about the stuff that is now actively learning how to resist all of our antibiotics and hanging out in our hostpitals, not the stuff that hasn't encountered it before. You might as well blame Bush or AlQueda and claim we need to nuke the ice sheets to stop this while you are at it.
The article said they were parasitic bacteria?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
By ignoring the undeniable truth that global warming is due to human behavior, we are toying with balances we can't possibly understand, and now may even be releasing ancient microbes into the environment whose dangers we don't yet know!
Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
-Peter
Even if this hadn't been happening all the time, I doubt that a bacteria so old could seriously threaten us. Things have changed since 8000000 B.C. Its younger siblings have been hammering our ancestors' immunodefense systems, hardening them and getting better themselves. Present creatures vs 8 mo. years bacteria is like Slashdot moderation system versus pre-WWW trolls :-)
Is it just me or does this sound incredibly dangerous? Killer Bees have shown the detrimental impacts of introducing non native species into new environments. This bacteria is not only not native but millions of years old so perhaps its at a completely different evolutionary stage or possesses attributes that will either cause it to flourish in todays environment or die quickly. One can only imagine that someday a virus or a bacteria will be thawed out that could potentially reak havoc in todays world. Talk about messing with a fragile equilibrium. This is both cool and scary.
I just saw this plot play out on a made for SciFi movie just the other week. As humans, we can rest safely knowing there are several Baldwins out there protecting the human species.
The White House WITH Congressional approval.
News at 11.
If these microbes turn out to love eating our greenhouse gasses?
The oldest they can be is about 6,000 years, right?
Something from 8 Million years ago? Has anybody bothered to call in Professor Bernard Quatermass? But since it's 8 Million he's Three million years too late.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Tough to keep straight...
Yeah, when your intelligence is as limited as yours evidently is, it must be.
Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.
Oh, yeah? Well, what about the giant man-like alien, frozen in the ice for thousands of years after its space ship crash landed on our planet? Wait until it thaws out and starts looking for blood to water its little alien plant space babies. Then you won't feel so safe. Will you, Mr. Smarty Pants Scientist?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I think posters are getting too hung up on the "prehistoric killer bacteria" story and not the fact that something frozen for 8 million years can be thawed and live again (not sure how new this news is). So, we could potentially have a solar system filled with seeder asteroids (meteoroids?) from massive impacts with Earth or an older life-bearing Mars.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Before the early 21st Century, Earth experienced a scourge of humans. Common bacteria from ancient ice stopped the humans, but it didn't destroy them. Instead they lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now, the humans are resurrected, more destructive than ever before. Before the early 21st Century humans had taken over the world. Now, they're taking over our colonists' bodies!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Uhhh, negative, I am a "gene popsicle."
I'm moving to Boulder today... I know the outcome of this story.
(just an obligatory remark)
One thing: Er, The Thing
We're doomed...
Exactly, because no point is ever valid if it came from an asshole.
Sorry, just joining the dogpile.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
There's virtue in simplicity. How many species can survive for 8 million years, never mind an individual. This "multicellular" crap is just one of those passing fads.
Because as we all know, bacteria have but one function: to infect humans. And nothing prepares them for the invasion of our helpless tissues like living in a glacier for a few eons.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.
Everything to which the bacteria had adapted is 8 million years dead.
Poor little feller... :(
Dr Bidle:"Look we've done it. It's alive! Alive!" [cackling laughter]
Dr Falkowski:"Muhahahahaha!"
Dr Bidle:"Hey, where did it go?"
[toilet flushing]
Bacteria emerges from bathroom: "Ahhhhhh!"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It sounds like they were caught-up in the transporter's pattern buffer for too long. Yet they live! It sounds as though part of the transporter myth has been solved!
"...cells that had been in a "suspended state of animation for 8 million years"
One could say this is proof of concept for cryonics.
The game.
He was just the last monkey in line. The other 999,999 monkeys wrote the bulk of the comment; he just had to type in the period.
... I was walking around the lab and I sneezed. That's part of my boogers. /blushing sheepishly.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Well, ACs are so important you devoted your entire sig to them. Weird.
Not really.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Get ready then. It melts as we speak due to global warming.
Is this news 28 days later or 28 weeks later??
Can we eat it?
If anything I think this news lends credence to the theory that Earth may have been "seeded" with life by bacteria carrying comets/asteroids.
Karma be damned:
... doubt" in one sentence. BRAVO, you are a fundamentalist . Every evolutionist will tell creationists, beliefs have no place in science. So which is it, do you believe or do you know? You are almost as bad as an old time fire and brimstone preacher the difference being they say "send us money and be saved from hell", and you say "send us money and be saved from earth"
"...all tied in, of course, to the fact that we should be working on ways to "stop" climate change, predicated on the belief that any negative climate change is due exclusively to human activity beyond any shadow of scientific doubt"
Thank you for the good laugh this gave me. I will explain why.
"...all tied in, of course, to the fact that we should be working on ways to "stop" climate change..."
Ok, and while we are at it, let's stop continental drift, the dimming of the sun, and also stop the moon moving away from the earth.
"predicated on the belief that any negative climate change is due exclusively to human activity beyond any shadow of scientific doubt"
Using the phrases "predicated on the belief" and "beyond any shadow of
---
Q: Are we experiencing a warming trend?
A: Yes
Q: Is it because of man?
A: Maybe.
Q: Could it just be a natural cycle?
A: Maybe
Q: Even if there is no evidence of a cycle like this before?
A: Maybe. This could just the first occurrence of the cycle that happens once every 900 billion years which would explain why there is no evidence of it happening before?
Q: What should we do?
A: Well if it is caused by us, and we do nothing, we all die. If it not caused by us, and we do something and it doesn't fix things, we waste a ton of money, we all die. If we do something, and it fixes it, we spend tons of money, and oh yeah, we all die, just at a little slower rate.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
It's a joke. Laugh. I swear, the prevention of global climate change would probably catch on if its spokespeople weren't so solemn all the time.
It's "Global-American Warming", you insensitive dolt.
Well, someone has to be.
Well, you can prove how much you know. http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/ will pay $100,000 to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.
ASCAP sued the Girls Scouts for singing Happy Birthday at campfires without paying public performance royalties. The copyright is held by Summy-Birchard Music, a subsidiary of Time Warner.
God seeded the Earth with very old fossils and so forth to test our faith (nod to Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies"). Obviously this bacterium was on the Ark just like all the others.
... in the year 2,150,495 finished thawing out the remains of ancient homo sapiens. "We're not sure why they went extinct. One theory holds that an asteroid that hit the earth, causing global warming. Some believe that they foolishly exposed themselves to some virulent organism against which they had no defense. Either way, it matters very little, as our shark ancestors would surely have wiped them out with their newly developed lasers sooner or later."
Have gnu, will travel.
Yes and no, mostly no.
AFAIK the immune system isn't set to kill known bacteria, it's set to kill any unknown cell. Your own cells have a "self" marker, meaning "it's mine". Anything identified as lacking this marker is instantly marked for termination with extreme prejudice.
The bacteria that kill you have had millions of years to learn to cope with that big problem, precisely _because_ they had to deal with mammals all the time. Some fake the marker (with different degrees of success, usually not too well), some do the reverse peroxide kiss of death on any immune system cell trying to do it to them, some just kill you faster than your immune system can do much about it, etc. And, even so, most actually are actually pretty easily kept in check unless your immune system is already compromised.
A bacterium which is so completely foreign that it never had to live in a mammal, well, won't live too long in there. There are layers upon layers upon layers of defenses to which they have no answer whatsoever.
Now with _viruses_ it's exactly the other way around, as the immune system pretty much has to figure out an antibody and remember it. So a new one _can_ fuck you up badly. That's why flu and smallpox nearly wiped out the american indians: those were viruses.
Of course, even then the assumption is that it knows how to modify your DNA code. Flu and smallpox already had to deal with the Europeans, so they were already well tuned for humans. A completely alien virus (a la Andromeda Strain), while it would probably get past your immune system easily, it also probably wouldn't even know where to start to reprogram your cells.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You are unwilling to take a life-style hit to help keep the Earth in a comfortable state. So what if it isn't a real problem...these changes can only improve our quality of life. If it is a real problem, we'd be fools not to start experimenting with ways to shift the climate back ASAP.
In your lifetime, climate shift will make everything more expensive. I've got a paid-for house and six-figure income. I'm not TOO worried. How you doing?
Blar.
Geico ...so easy even 8 million year old bacteria can do it
----------
Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
While 8 million years is impressive, geologists and biologists have revived much older microbes before. I don't remember where this was, or exactly when since it was a special on the Science Channel, but microbes were found in water bubbles locked inside crystalized sea salt. Biologists drilled into a sample of the crystal in a vacuum chamber to extract the water to see what was inside. They found single cell organisms that were in a state of suspended animation. Carbon dating placed the crystal, and microbes, at just over 30 million years old. The microbes were placed in favorable conditions with nutrients and controlled temperature and they revived, began to divide, and grew into healthy colonies. Of bacteria. That's 30 million years old.
I just hope they dont one day uncover a bacteria that accidently becomes be the next global plague.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bar-art/546252526/in/ set-1830094/
Are they sure it was 8 million and not really 7.857 million years old. Ah, who cares about 0.143 million years anyway? I always love these rounded dates - as if they mean anything at all :)
Did it really not occur to you that by being an annoying AC in your response to his sig, you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
I submitted this story in 2004 :) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/2 0/1346246
Too bad I used a crummy source, though. The link to the original story is dead.
Does anyone have the correct citation for this research? I can't find it. It's not in the publication list of the guys they name in the article (http://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/), the doi is incorrect and PNAS doesn't have it...
For those of you making references to The Thing" by John Carpenter with Kurt Russel in the 1980's...
That was a remake of a 1951 B&W movie "The Thing from Another World"...
Which was loosely based on the short story / novella "Who Goes There?" by John Campbell in 1938.
Ironically, the 1983 film was more faithful to the source material...
Check out the story. It is a quick read and as usual, the book is better than the films, IMHO.
assertion: a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence
Headlines will read: "Email Spammer thawed from ice and lives"
Next Days headline will read: "Email Spammer vaporized by angry mob"
Now that I've correctly read the title of this article I'm very disappointed that 8 million year old barracuda hasn't been brought back to life.
Steal my band's record! Seriously,
DNA is an inherently unstable molecule, prone to breakdown after just a few decades unattended. Does anyone know the half-life of DNA? What are the odds that enough DNA would be left after this kind of time? Also, there are other vital molecules that are even less stable than DNA - how would all these have survived in sufficient quantities?
dude, did you not watch the X-Files?
Damn son, they aint from here!
This is exactly what they have been waiting for all these years
Stupid humans
Reminds me somehow of the Stargate SG-1 episode Frozen..
1 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_(Stargate_SG-
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
are they out of their fucking minds?
they're trying to kill us all.
we don't have antibodies for 8 million year old bacteria.
do these things resist antibiotics?
They're using their grammar skills there.
via any means is more likely to be hazardous to the traveler rather than the inhabitants of the future. Unless we stop evolving and developing resistance to more cleaver and lethal diseases we would easily be able to thwart such a bug. A virus might be more problematic if it's something like hemorrhagic smallpox but even an earlier version of that may have a hard time catching up.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
"Good evening. Here is the news for Parrots. No parrots were involved in an accident on the M1 today when a lorry..."
The article clearly states that the oldest bacterium MAY be 8 myo -- but that the sample may have been contaminated. Therefore the age claim is UNVERIFIED.
THIS IS A TECHNICAL SITE with readers who RESPECT precision. Some sites might be able to get away with this kind of sloppy representation. It shouldn't be happening here.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Would that make this bacteria the oldets living thing on the planet?
Fox claims 100,000 years old. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292450,00.html
for you are less stringy than dinosaurs and just as tasty.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
the scientists wash their hands before eating anything.
Yes, the earth has been dumping ancient bacteria into the ocean during meltoffs before. But not all of the ice at once, if you understand a few decades as being really REALLY quick. And we weren't here at the time. That last bit bears repetition and emphasis. WE. Modern humans flying around the world on planes every day with new bugs, were not present in our current numbers and surface coverage during previous big meltoffs. This is a different ball game. And scientists are by nature and nurture non-alarmists, so demurring about the threat is normal for a scientist. (And conversely, tens of thousands of scientists screaming "THE WORLD IS ON FIRE" at the same time should therefore scare the living piss down your pants).
Lyme disease was released into the greater habitat by us humans cutting down wooded areas to build homes in the 20th century. More problems than we can count have been caused by simple population expansion. Diseases released by invasion of previously untouched wilderness, warming, famine, dustbowls, desertification, poisoned watersheds, massive flooding, all those things were caused by us, that would be me and thee and all the other hairless apes running about. This is truth. The Earth is warming, bad stuff will happen, and it doesn't hurt to anticipate the obvious.
"You are unwilling to take a life-style hit to help keep the Earth in a comfortable state."
And you are unwilling to concede that it doesn't take significant lifestyle changes. You're exactly who the parent poster was talking about... you revel in self-sacrifice because you're a young nobody with nothing to lose and only a vague idea of the principles involved in the entire global warming debate.
You should hold up a mirror because you'll see the real problem with the conservation movement: it's the fringe like you who doesn't like how the other 99% of the people live, and so you're going to force us to do things the way you want. You're no different than the neocons or the religious right or anyone else who knows what's best for all of us.
And in your zeal to make the rest of humanity sacrifice the way you think is appropriate, you'll destroy the credibility of the entire ecology movement because unless those dirty SUV drivers feel pain, it can't be good. And so the rest of humanity shuns you and in the process the environmental movement takes a black eye and with it, the chance for real change. All because it isn't the way *you* want it to be.
In a lot of ways, it's too bad your mom met your dad.
Nicely done!
-Peter
Tell me do you believe the words of Francis Collins over the Bible? Hmm... I question your authority on the subject. If you are not a Christian, why do you claim to understand scriptural truth? If you are a Christian, you are proclaiming word contrary to the scripture, and you are doing more harm than anything else I can think of. So then where do you stand?
u ng.asp". There is way more evidence than I could quote here. I don't find any scripture in your message, and certainly not in my Bible that agrees with your statement.
Genesis says 6 days. Gen 1-8 God created heaven and earth, as well as the light and the dark (i.e. sun and moon). "And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day." - How is this not a day? I don't change my beliefs just because someone says it should take longer than this.
"They assert that all physical creation was produced in just six days of 24 hours each...But in doing so, they promote an unscriptural teaching that has caused many to ridicule the Bible." - How is this conflicting with scripture? Check this URL out for more info on young earth vs old earth "http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/yo
"Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1)" - That was part of the first day. You have therefore only claimed that the earth and heaven sat around for a while. The first day ended when the light returned on the second day. Do you then admit at that point the days were 24 hours? The sun and moon cycle didn't change after they were created. So then the animals were all created in a day? Stating the earth was in existence doesn't change the fact that God created in 6 days, unless you choose to make up your own account of it.
2 Peter 3:8-9 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This is a SIMILE, and it was completely taken out of context. It does not say a day IS a thousand years, it says LIKE. The point is to say the time will come, but on the Lord's schedule. Be patient and it will happen, just not when we want it.
Frankly I don't believe anyone here can prove the Bible wrong. But if you wish to try and disprove it you will be disappointed, because for the scientific theories that have been presented there is more science to refute those theories. It all comes down to faith. Do you believe the scientific theories and pick and choose your faith in God, or do you do it the other way around?
I've already reserved the stripper for their welcoming party!
Huh, what?
Is argument.
In modeling complex real world systems, there are always things you'd like to know, but either don't know, or don't know with much precision. In fact, it is for this reason you need computer models. Computer models are test beds in which you can run ranges of values for unknown parameters to determine the parameters to which the system is most sensitive under various scenarios. They are not predictive tools, they are analytical tools.
You don't run a computer model to tell you that Microsoft's stock will go from $29.55 on August 07 2007 to $32.15 in August 07 2008 if the Fed hikes interest rates by 2% in January. It might output that, but if it is right on this individual case, it is almost certainly dumb luck. You don't run the model for that kind of information, because it can't tell you that sort of thing. You might be able to show that some stock index like the NASDAQ will tend toward a certain range of numbers over the entire Q3 of 2008. Even so, an event like a major terrorist attack, a stock market bubble burst, or a major corporate governance scandal could throw even that prediction off.
What you can learn from a computer model is the general sensitivity of the stock market to interest rate changes, knowledge that is useful in setting interest rate policies that balance economic growth and inflation.
In fact -- that's what the Fed does. They use knowledge gained from models in a way that deliberately restrains economic growth, but in return keeps the terrors of hyperinflation at bay. It's a price we willingly pay, and pay with confidence, although the Fed cannot tell us the precise value that any single stock will have on any day in the future. It seems odd to me that people accept this, a case where we know policies are restricting growth, but get all bent out of shape about technological changes which would reduce climate impact, even though it is far from certain such a change would retard economic development.
This, of course, is sheer malarkey, and the way you make your stipulation shows you probably know it. You are asking for a model that will do the climate equivalent of telling you what the share price of any arbitrarily picked set of stocks on August 07, 2008. You aren't talking about climate modeling, you are talking about long term weather prediction. It's not the same thing at all.
As you probably know, variability in weather dwarfs any long term climate trends over the course of a year. On the other hand climate trends overtake yearly variability when you smooth things out by using a multi-year moving average.
If you stipulated "accurately models regional temperatures and storms decade-by-decade", then you'd be talking climate modeling.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Name should be Stromus Thurmondillis........can't assume it's dead because it stopped moving......
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I cant keep meat in my freezer for more than 6 months
Not sure if it was posted before, but I did do a quick search: Shouldn't the title be "8-Million-Year-Old Bacterium Thaws, Lives"?
"The cultures grown from organisms found in the 100,000-year-old ice doubled in size every 7 days on average." "Whereas the young ice contained a variety of microorganisms, the researchers found only one type of bacterium in the 8-million-year-old sample. It also grew in the laboratory but much more slowly, doubling only every 70 days." Now, that's what I call evolution