Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Regenerate 400-Year-Old Frozen Plants

Posted by Soulskill on from the how-are-they-in-a-salad? dept.

Several readers sent word of a group of University of Alberta researchers, who were exploring the edge of the Teardrop Glacier in northern Canada when they noticed a 'greenish tint' coming out from underneath the glacier. It turned out to be a collection of bryophytes, which likely flourished there the last time the land in that area was exposed to sunlight before the Little Ice Age. They collected samples of plants estimated to be 400 years old, and the researchers were able to get them to sprout new growths in the lab (abstract). "The glaciers in the region have been receding at rates that have sharply accelerated since 2004, at about 3-4m per year. ... Bryophytes are different from the land plants that we know best, in that they do not have vascular tissue that helps pump fluids around different parts of the organism. They can survive being completely desiccated in long Arctic winters, returning to growth in warmer times, but Dr La Farge was surprised by an emergence of bryophytes that had been buried under ice for so long. 'When we looked at them in detail and brought them to the lab, I could see some of the stems actually had new growth of green lateral branches, and that said to me that these guys are regenerating in the field, and that blew my mind.'"

77 comments

  1. Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and Monsanto will patent those plants and sue anyone who has anything to do with them in 3.. 2.. 1..

    1. Re:Monsanto by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      What?!?! You can't patent DNA!

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Monsanto by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Patients have had their DNA patented in the US by companies/researchers, and denied the right to grant others access to it.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but as Monsanto has proven, you can patent the organisms containing the DNA:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/13/1552220/supreme-court-rules-for-monsanto-in-patent-case

    4. Re:Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can patent methods for researching the DNA/RNA:
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/05/24/1932208/who-intellectual-property-claims-hindering-research-on-deadly-novel-coronavirus

    5. Re:Monsanto by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Patients have had their DNA patented in the US by companies/researchers, and denied the right to grant others access to it.

      Do you have a link to this? Did the patient grant this? Or was it patented w/o their permission (not that it makes too much of a difference)? I realize that the patent thing is really out of whack, particularly regarding DNA, software, drugs, etc. But if a company can patent your DNA and claim legal ownership w/o your permission; we have gone down the slippery slope in a rocket powered sled and broken through the ground at the bottom, passed through the crust, mantle and outer core and are floating in magma.

    6. Re:Monsanto by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the mantle hold most of the magma? If we're in the inner core aren't we in solid metal?

    7. Re:Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Lyca will eat them.

    8. Re:Monsanto by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the mantle hold most of the magma? If we're in the inner core aren't we in solid metal?

      Nope. That's the outer core actually. The mantle is mostly rock with a few pockets of magma. Regardless, I was going for humor more so than geological accuracy.

    9. Re:Monsanto by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you know I was just trying to be a dick :D.
      You did say THROUGH the outer core implying we were in the inner core or beyond though.
      Unfortunately the textbooks in middle school (the last time anything geology related is mentioned) show an illustration of the crust as solid rock, the mantle as solid magma, the outer core as dense magma, and the inner core as solid iron. Damn you public school system you've failed me again.

    10. Re:Monsanto by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you know I was just trying to be a dick :D.

      That's considered being friendly on /. ;-)

      You did say THROUGH the outer core implying we were in the inner core or beyond though.

      True, but I thought it sounded funnier that way.

      Unfortunately the textbooks in middle school (the last time anything geology related is mentioned) show an illustration of the crust as solid rock, the mantle as solid magma, the outer core as dense magma, and the inner core as solid iron. Damn you public school system you've failed me again.

      Don't get me started on public education. I have a 10 year old in school who questions everything. Fortunately she's much better at keeping her mouth shut (at school) than I was at her age. She's just about to the point that she realizes that there are times when the "right answer" is not always the best answer.

      When I was in school the text books were not updated as often as they have to be now. Most of the science texts were 20 years old and the information that was in them was out of date by the time they were printed. Plate Tectonics was more of an intriguing theory in the crap books we had (yes, I'm old), and the core was "solid iron". The current thoughts the last time I checked was that it's a nickle-iron mix. It's also believed to be over 5,000C. Iron has a boiling temperature just under 2900C and nickle is just a few degrees higher., so without pressure it would boil away. It's the pressure that is making the core a "solid", not that it's a cool lump of nickle-iron as we would think of it on the surface. There's also evidence that the core is more dense than it should be. So it's theorized that there are significant amounts of heavy metals mixed in there too.

      I read some interesting stuff about Jupiter a while back regarding its' core. When I was a kid it was supposedly some kind of rocky lump. But this didn't explain its massive magnetic field. It's supposedly metallic hydrogen. The gravitational pressure is so great that it has compressed the hydrogen into a solid metal! This causes it to become a superconductor and that is where the magnetic field is coming from.

  2. Global Warming is good for something. by Nyder · · Score: 2

    If the glacier didn't melt some, I'm sure they'd never have found those plants.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      what exactly does finding the plants do for us?

    2. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing I noticed it did for us is allow you to post your question on slashdot. Every moment in the past led to this one. This is the perfect moment.

      On a more serious note. I think it allows us to at least study a plant thats 400 years old. To compare its genome to other plants. To see what kind of adaptations it had. What kind of environment it liked.

      We can infer from the climate that it grows well in what the climate might have been like prior to a glacier forming over and freezing it.

      Did the plants freeze in the glacier? Did they get transported there some how? If it was a fast freeze. That might be some interesting science as well. I have seen some theories saying the ice age was a unique event that came about rather quickly. As opposed to a cyclical event. Something that won't happen again without certain criteria being met.

      Anyway a lot of questions could be raised or answered by these plants.

    3. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Master+Moose · · Score: 2

      While there may not be any imediate or obvious benefit for you (or anyone) at present. Every bit of knowledge and understanding that we can gather about ourselves, and our planet is beneficial.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    4. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Funny

      If this were an X-Files episode, I'm sure they'd do something to us instead. Something horrible.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    5. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by lennier · · Score: 2

      what exactly does finding the plants do for us?

      Well, they're probably a great source of oil.

      And as long as you keep them chained up, avoid their whip-stings, and don't look at all those bright lights in the sky, I'm sure everything will be perfectly okay.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    6. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more variety in salads

    7. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      The downside is the lack of glacier, I'd rather have the glacier.

    8. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      think it allows us to at least study a plant thats 400 years old. To compare its genome to other plants. To see what kind of adaptations it had. What kind of environment it liked.

      We can infer from the climate that it grows well in what the climate might have been like prior to a glacier forming over and freezing it.

      dude, it was 400 years ago. like year 1600, shakespeare and all that. we know pretty well what the weather's been like since then, more than we'd learn from the plant anyway.

      I have seen some theories saying the ice age was a unique event that came about rather quickly. As opposed to a cyclical event. Something that won't happen again without certain criteria being met.

      Anyway a lot of questions could be raised or answered by these plants.

      The last ice age was 10,000 years ago. during the time of wolly mammoths, like you know the movie Ice Age?

    9. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah derp. The little ice age. Well. We know the planet was warm enough 400 years ago for them to exist so maybe this global warming stuff is not so world ending. But should it be this warm now?

      I was mostly trying to be a smart ass. In reply to his question. Which while worthy in that it was a question. Was fun to poke at. With a troll stick.

    10. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Global warming is a very good thing. It is a heck of a lot better than the alternative. We are coming out of a cold period. Cold is bad. Warm is good. During the warming periods is when biodiversity has exploded and life has bloomed. It is during the cold periods that we've gotten the worst of the great extinctions.

      The problem is that people are used to the very recent planetary temperature setting and built their cities down too close to the ocean. The oceans have gone up and down over time. Now they're rising again and the big cities which have too many people in them are going to suffer. This is unfortunate but that is how normal climate change operates.

      The real problem is not climate change. Climate change is normal. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. The real problem is toxic pollution that mankind is spewing into the environment, untested genomes that are being spilled into nature (GMOs) and all the waste. Global warming is just a distraction. Things like Earth Day, Carbon Credits and cloth shopping bags are just feel good measures that fail to address the real issues while letting people get a false sense that they have done something to 'save the world' when in reality they've done nothing.

      Focus.

    11. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because it has "always been there?"

    12. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have the plants.
      The glacier is something we've studied.
      These plants are new.
      This is why I want to melt the south pole.
      I'm looking forward to finding out what kind of plants and animals are hidden under the kilometers of ice over there.

    13. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't share your enthusiasm for warming.

      Yes, Climate change is normal.. but not at the rates we're seeing.
      Stopping your car is normal too.. it's the speed at which you are stopped that might be the problem.

      Much warmer/cooler... yeah, the Earth survived it.. we weren't around.

      >During the warming periods is when biodiversity has exploded and life has bloomed.
      Again.. life.. not humans... I wonder...
      It's not the rising oceans or the changing rainfall that will be the biggest concern.. it's the accelerated mutation of disease we'll have trouble keeping up with?

      War of the Worlds ending?

    14. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm a warming denier, or think that things shouldn't be done to make our species impact on the environment smaller. But you do realize that there wasn't a glacier there 400 years ago right?

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    15. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Jagasian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know enough to be dangerous. Yes biodiversity was higher in the distance past when the Earth was warmer, but even more telling is what happened in the distant past when the Earth warmed at a very fast rate. The Permian–Triassic extinction was likely caused by an approximately 10 degree warming event that took place over tens of thousands of years. That lead to the extinction of almost all life on Earth. The current warming trend that the Earth is in is much faster than the trend associated with the Permian-Triassic extinction, and the obvious concern should be that this will lead to an even larger extinction event than the Permian-Triassic extinction. Plants can only migrate at a certain rate. Similarly for animals. Most won't be able to adapt, causing ecosystem failures. Maybe 99.9% of life will go extinct, who knows. Let's just dive right in!

      Random fact: You can easily spot the Permian-Triassic sediment deposits because there are two layers: (i) the Permian layer is loaded with fossils, and (ii) the next layer has only sand stone. Why? When almost all of the plants and animals die, all that is left is a giant dust bowl.

    16. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 please

    17. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Permian–Triassic extinction was likely caused by an approximately 10 degree warming event that took place over tens of thousands of years.

      How do you know that the warming was the reason for the extinction?

    18. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

      Plants can only migrate at a certain rate. Similarly for animals. Most won't be able to adapt, causing ecosystem failures.

      Indeed. This is why, from the start, some scientists argued that we should be coming up with mitigation strategies, since they did not believe that mankind would be able to get its collective act together and slow, let alone reverse, global warming/climate change.

      They were howled down by the majority of activists, who claimed - understandably - that such a strategy would just give a cop-out to both the denyers and world leaders. Still, despite some glacially-slow progress, nothing much has been done.

      Looks like we're going to have to give nature a hand to fix the mess we are busy creating...progress has been made, and continues, with drought and disease-resistant crops, for example.

    19. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Xest · · Score: 1

      The worst part is he seems to miss the obvious with his comment as follows:

      "During the warming periods is when biodiversity has exploded and life has bloomed. It is during the cold periods that we've gotten the worst of the great extinctions."

      If he stopped and thought about it for a second, he'd ask the obvious question - why, if we're undergoing a period of rapid warming, are we also undergoing one the most rapid extinction events man has known? By his logic we should be seeing an increase in biodiversity not an extremely rapid decrease given that things are getting warmer.

    20. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Do you have an alternative peer reviewed theory backed up by verifiable evidence that you'd like to share?

    21. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Global warming is a very good thing. It is a heck of a lot better than the alternative. We are coming out of a cold period. Cold is bad. Warm is good. During the warming periods is when biodiversity has exploded and life has bloomed. It is during the cold periods that we've gotten the worst of the great extinctions.

      It boggles me that people can repeat mantras like that and get modded up as insightful. 'Bad'? 'Good'? Can you not pause for a moment to consider 'for whom'?

      Yeah, sure, a nice warm humid environment is awesome for a very biodiverse set of tropical diseases. It is surely also worth it to lose much of the existing local ecosystems to be replaced by a set of warm-climate invaders which will, over subsequent millions of years, generate new biodiversity.

      I'm *sure* this is what everyone wants.

    22. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by fredrated · · Score: 0

      You are a fool and a tool.

    23. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd be impressed if you could find ANY "peer reviewed" "theory" backed up by any "evidence" for either side of this sub-topic.

      I have seen an episode of Horizon on this extinction event (which doesn't make me an expert, but hey) and there seems to be many theories out there as to the cause, but no definitive proof of much except that
      1. They KNOW that most of Siberia was a pool of Lava at this time (cause unknown, but suspected asteroid impact). They know this because they have found parts of Siberia in the strata pretty much everywhere they dig.
      2. They know that the temperature crept up 10F in the 10,000 years before the Siberian debris.
      3. They know there was an extinction at around the time of the Siberian debris.

      Every theory is unprovable and anyone that claims otherwise is in it for something other than the science.

    24. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's not the case that every theory is unprovable, we're not talking about god here, we're talking about natural history - a topic for which there is an awful lot of evidence still buried on our planet. It may be that we haven't proven any one theory to any reasonable degree of confidence yet but it doesn't mean it's impossible, we can still fathom an awful lot from the remnants of that era that are still very much on our earth.

      It's perfectly possible that fossil records and so forth could demonstrate a failure to evolve relative to the change in geology to a reasonable degree even if we're not there yet.

    25. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Soon, due to the combined effects of global warming, genetic engineering, patented crops, and similar issues, glacier-revealed plants will be our only source of food.

    26. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      But wait, the Global Warming alarmists keep insisting that these glaciers always existed, and never were gone before Modern Man! IF these plants existed before the Glaciers then ... the earth ... was once warmer than it is now ... and all life didn't perish in the heat. I'm afraid that the cry "earth is warming" cry is misleading at best. The goal of Global Warming (or Cooling if you're from the 70's) is singular, control of humans by the elites.

      Who knows, global warming may be good for life on earth, allowing more land to be inhabited.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    27. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd rather have the known that works than the unknown that nobody understands in regards to climate change and the glaciers melting.

    28. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The oceans have gone up and down over time. Now they're rising again and the big cities which have too many people in them are going to suffer.

      Actually sea levels have been remarkably stable for about the last 6,000 years, essentially since we started building port cities.

    29. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Plants can only migrate at a certain rate.

      On their own. With human help, they can migrate faster than any anticipated climate change. We can move, and start generations of, any plant you can imagine, in just one season. If we have a reason to. So this claim is completely deceptive. There's no reason whatsoever to anticipate a problem here.

      Similarly for animals.

      "Similar" only in the sense that there is a limit; they can certainly migrate much faster than any anticipated rate of climate change, even on their own. And we can assist if we like. This claim is completely wrong in the warmist context.

      Both of these points you make are at best, scare tactics. They're nonsensical in the picture of the rates of change the various models suggest.

      Likewise human risk; the rates of sea level rise and the time available for adjustment of crops and accommodating whatever precipitation changes occur are both ultimately non-threatening. We've made more changes, agriculturally speaking, in the last 50 years, than have ever been made before. Both as to what is being grown, and how it is being grown. Migration of people away from a shoreline that is moving inland at slower than a walk is no threat at all; it will indeed force change, if it occurs, but there is no reason whatsoever to assume that change will be all negative. For instance, Florida largely consists of coral fossil; for all we know, climate change will (after considerable spans of time) result in a huge return of coral and lifeforms that thrive therein. And who's to say we'll breed at the same rates if population pressures begin to be felt? And then there is the impact of future technology we can't predict. There are so many false and/or unsubstantiated assumptions in the warmist cries of "sky is falling" that it is almost not worth trying to even talk to them -- except that they want control of the pursestrings based on their ideas, and that does not appear to be called for.

      If indeed we face a warming period, that's one thing -- it is far from certain that the ultimate consequences of this will be negative. A great deal of the claims, as yours, are exaggerated and not well thought out at all. Furthermore, no doubt there will be changes that are of advantage; you might devote some time to thinking about that as well. This isn't a volcano or a meteor -- this is a glacially slow set of temperature changes happening in the face of an enormously capable, scientifically literate, fast-reacting race. If, in fact, these changes occur at all. That remains to be seen.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    30. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Try a Vermont winter on for size and then you'll appreciate warming.

    31. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...and built their cities down too close to the ocean."

      People did this before too, they just got all wiped out around 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended and sea level started to rise. That is what the Sumerian flood of Gilgamesh is about.

  3. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No action by the scientists led to the observed regeneration. In fact, they were shocked to discover it. The actual series of events was that plants were recovering and growing on their own, a science team noticed things looked greener than expected in recently-uncovered tundra, and upon further study confirmed that flora covered by glaciers for hundreds of years were sending out new growth.

    So it's not "Researchers regenerate ..."; it should be "Researchers notice 400-year-old frozen plants buried under glacier regenerating"

    Even the word regenerate isn't really correct. The real title should be "Researchers find frozen plants buried under glacier for 400 years still alive, sending out new growth."

  4. Old weed by Rixel · · Score: 4, Funny

    To bad they weren't found to be over 2000 years old. Could have called that the original BC bud.

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
  5. Can we attrib this to carbon pollution? by ozduo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or is the climate finally returning to normal? The answer depends on politics!

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
    1. Re:Can we attrib this to carbon pollution? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Define normal. Normal for whom?

      The answer depends on politics!

      No it doesn't

  6. This is where I get confused about AGW. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    which likely flourished there the last time the land in that area was exposed to sunlight before the Little Ice Age.

    So, this makes it sound like it was a climate change - an ice age - that caused this area to get totally covered in ice, right? But isn't one of the major concerns about the proposed AGW/CC that said ice is melting (presumption: it shouldn't)?

    I realize maybe we could argue about the rate of change, but didn't the previous ice ages ... kinda ... supposedly happen rather quickly, too?

    Truth be told, my views are significantly different than the above, ha. But I'm curious how this works out, since I believe the overlap of those who accept this history of the earth with those who accept AGW is likely pretty large.

    1. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't one of the major concerns about the proposed AGW/CC that said ice is melting (presumption: it shouldn't)?

      Sure! Enjoy your bryophyte salad, I'm sure it's tasty and not at all poisonous to humans!

    2. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by gznork26 · · Score: 2

      The Little Ice Age was what happened the last time the Gulf Stream stopped. It was the reason why some artists had painted ordinary-looking scenes of people out on the ice of their lake -- something that had not happened before in those places. The North Atlantic gyre can be stopped by the addition of too much fresh water from melting ice, because it is the difference in salinity that drives the currents and the upwelling from the depths. We live on a planet with a lot of interconnected systems that rely on one another to keep the cycles going. A small change can have large effects.

    3. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      But, the previous ice age was caused by humans. Man overusedtheir vehicles, causing massive global climate change. Just watch the Flintstones, and you can see how much they were overusing their industrial technology. This obviously caused the climatic collapse, directly leading to the Ice Age. I took a vote, among my various gmail accounts, and came to this consensus, thus scientifically proving it.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point isn't to argue that the earth has some natural state that we should keep it in.
      The point is that if the poles were to melt large numbers of people would be homeless and probably die.
      All kinds of plants we rely on wouldn't grow in the same places, screwing up our agriculture.
      Then there's the whole issue of triggering an ice age, which would solve our flooding problem, but leave us with the problem of having to deal with colder weather in a lot of places. (also not good for food etc).
      We could just say if we all lives on mountains near the equator we'll be fine. But that would require displacing a lot of people.

    5. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I realize maybe we could argue about the rate of change, but didn't the previous ice ages ... kinda ... supposedly happen rather quickly, too?"

      This isn't something you can simply write off with "I suppose we could...". There are different scales of quickly. Slow changes in the past have seen changes of a few degrees over many millions of years, some of the faster events have seen changes of a few degrees over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

      We're seeing a few degrees change over hundreds of years. That's a problem and something largely unprecedented in Earth's history without there being an obvious outside factor such as a massive meteor impact or similar. We'd know about it already if one of those were the cause, in fact no, we probably wouldn't know about it because we'd all be dead already. You can see similar events in periods of high volcanic activity and so forth also, or through noticeable solar changes but the problem is we can't find any of these that correlate with the issue either.

      So therein lies the problem, the only thing we can find that correlates with the problem is us. Maybe something else is to blame and we don't know what yet, but realistically, given the rate of change, history tells us that whatever causes this much change isn't hard to find, and again, the only easy to find possibility is once more, us.

      For this kind of change you need a global event, and what in the world at the moment is the only thing we can see producing measurable releases of gases altering the consistency of the atmosphere which is demonstrably a cause of increase temperature? There are no large chains of volcanos, there are no meteor impacts, the only thing we can find is is us.

    6. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      The great part is you're right, life will go on.

      What morons like you seem to miss is, its not a given that human beings will be able to survive. So yeah, I guess you're right, if you dont mind possibly killing off the entire human race.

  7. AKA global climate change is normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these plants have a trait that allows for a 400-year sleep under ice, then maybe global climate change is quite common, with glaciers forming and receding regularly?

  8. Atoms don't have an age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How old will these plants be when they sprout? 400? 0? 15 billion?

  9. Already on the 11th regeneration by Guppy · · Score: 1

    No action by the scientists led to the observed regeneration. In fact, they were shocked to discover it.

    They shouldn't have been so surprised; this regeneration is a well-known ability possessed by Time Fronds of Gallifrey.

  10. It's almost like life is resilient, hey? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    But I have it on good authority that +3 degrees C is pretty much going to kill us all?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:It's almost like life is resilient, hey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the Dutch.

    2. Re:It's almost like life is resilient, hey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us is just humans. It's quite generous of you to make space for the species that will thrive in the new climate. Too bad for us if our food plants and animals won't, eh?

    3. Re:It's almost like life is resilient, hey? by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Are you a moss?

      --
      Je me souviens.
    4. Re:It's almost like life is resilient, hey? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      IQ comparisons seem to say yes.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  11. I read TFA but was disappointed.... by nblender · · Score: 1

    I hope these things taste better than Arugula...

  12. energy dense carbon neutral triffoil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the triffid apocalypse will be a lot of fun

  13. A rolling stone gathers no moss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But a retreating glacier on the other hand...

  14. Global Melting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I see is that they found a plant as the glacier melted so we must have had a warmer climate 400 years ago meaning that this man caused global warming crap is just that, crap.

    1. Re:Global Melting by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Because the ice melting is not an instantaneous response it's not necessarily true that it was as warm 400 years ago as it is now. Just that it was warm enough over a long enough period of time before 400 years ago to have melted that ice.

  15. And when it finishes regenerating... by TWX · · Score: 2

    ...it'll call out, "Feeeed me, Seeeymour!"

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:And when it finishes regenerating... by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the plants

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
  16. 400 years ago warming was not due to humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So from this we learn that 400 years ago this place now under ice was warm enough for these plants to grow there. I don't recall anyone claiming humans were responsible for the warm climate back then. And isn't 400 years one of the Sun's cycles?

    I think the statement, which 90+ percent of scientists reportedly agree with, that humans are responsible for global warming is true. It's a much more open question as to how much of the warming is due to humans alone.

  17. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our Bryophyte Plant Overlords.

  18. Little Ice Age by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    So despite all the global warming hullabaloo, the earth still has not recovered fully from the pre-industrial little ice age.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  19. Scientists always melt our glaciers to see things by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Yeah that's the downside- having melted the glacier, just so we can see a plant, was a bad idea. (Well, in the deal we were also able to drive to work and heat our houses and stuff. And minor details obviously deserve a little of our consideration.) But obviously these were just side effects from when we let our cryogenic botany crowd bully our fossil fuel industry around. They said "Dig up all the filth from the Carboniferous Era that you can find, and burn it fast. Then we can melt this glacier and defrost these little bitches within our careers." Of course scientists always think that because of their ideology. But they were lucky this time because it melted anyway for them, didn't it?

  20. Crinoids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0562952/

  21. OMG by azav · · Score: 1

    Get out of my freezer!

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  22. Not quite Jurassic Park... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    ...but Little Ice Age Garden is a decent consolation prize.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  23. Fuck it. I quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been trying to get this stupid amaryllis to grow; it's supposed to be easy to raise, and it's DYING. I follow the directions, I give it sun, water, moderate temperature, and it is still dying on me.

    Then these guys find some plants that should have been dead since the days of Galileo, and they just grow all by themselves... I give up. I'm just going to put it outside and what happens happens. If it lives, lovely, I guess it just didn't like me. If it dies, well, fuck it, it's dying anyway. I should find some 400 year old dead plants, see if they'll grow for me.