If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   Forget the ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers, carbon-dating, fossils, etc. ... let's try urine layers ... say 55,000 years worth   (treehugger.com) divider line 68
    More: Strange, tree rings, fossils, carbon datings, ice cores, fissures, strata, climate change, pollen  
•       •       •

4081 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Mar 2013 at 8:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-30 07:27:58 PM
"UREA!!!"
ridiculouswave.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-30 08:29:48 PM
The Rock Hyrax is an ugly animal.
 
2013-03-30 08:50:21 PM
Sounds like my old apartment.
 
2013-03-30 08:51:04 PM
I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...
 
2013-03-30 08:54:37 PM
My computer chair is getting there.
 
2013-03-30 09:03:41 PM
I bet all these people went into science thinking they would be building rockets or something, not taking core samples of urine deposits.
 
2013-03-30 09:10:43 PM
It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.
 
2013-03-30 09:11:55 PM
it can't have been that long since I mopped the bathroom....
 
2013-03-30 09:13:51 PM
content7.flixster.com
 
2013-03-30 09:17:35 PM
Subby, you made me promise to never speak of your Mom ever again.
 
2013-03-30 09:21:56 PM

skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...


www.sectalk.com
 
2013-03-30 09:24:29 PM
And yet we still have people that claim we couldn't possibly have an idea of the climate from before we started taking written records of it.

It isn't just that the urine samples give an indication of the climate by themselves, it's that they corroborate what the other historical climate records show.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:52 PM
another example of important urine


A packrat midden is a debris pile constructed by a woodrat. A packrat midden may preserve the materials incorporated into it for up to 50,000 years. The middens may thus be analyzed to reconstruct their original environment, and comparisons between middens allow a record of vegetative and climate change to be built. Examinations and comparisons of pack rat middens have largely supplanted pollen records as a method of study in the regions where they are available

In the absence of rock crevices or caves, the dens are often built under trees or bushes. The packrats will also use plant fragments, animal dung and small rocks in building the den. The vast majority of the materials will be from a radius of several dozen yards of the nest. Woodrats often urinate on the debris piles; sugar and other substances in the urine crystallize as it dries out, creating a material known as amberat, which under some conditions can cement the midden together. The resilience of the middens is aided by three factors. The crystallized urine dramatically slows the decay of the materials in the midden; the dry climate of the American Southwest further slows the decay; and middens that are protected from the elements under rock overhangs or in caves survive longer.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:17 PM
That's just taking the piss.
 
2013-03-30 10:08:23 PM
www.shockya.com

/not amused
 
2013-03-30 10:22:17 PM
And I thought things left on the Internet lasted a long time.
 
2013-03-30 10:26:31 PM
gaia.adage.com
 
2013-03-30 10:31:41 PM
media.treehugger.com

SOON
 
2013-03-30 10:32:08 PM

not2bright:


Came for our boy. I love you.
 
2013-03-30 10:48:01 PM
Is it just me, or is anyone else genuinely curious as to the viscosity of this urine?
 
2013-03-30 10:49:27 PM
"regional"
"presumably"
 
2013-03-30 10:56:32 PM
This is getting ridiculous. Is anyone's mind being persuaded by additional evidence? Is there anyone who will dismiss everything else but exclaim, "Yes, the pee study changed my mind!" I mean, I enjoy some watersports as much as the next guy but even the most hard core fetishist would probably say that although they appreciate the outreach effort, it isn't really something that they look for in trying to establish credibility for a policy position.

/waiting for the inevitable study of some wierd animal that has left bukkake traces all over the hidden landscape for tens of thousands of years
//any small mammal out there use their own placentas for nesting materials?
///how disgusting can we make science? I think we need a new reality show....
 
2013-03-30 11:23:28 PM

wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.


I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?
 
2013-03-30 11:35:24 PM
Bukkake Traces would be a hell of a name for a band.
 
2013-03-30 11:36:11 PM

skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...


this morning I listened to NPR. esteemed experts from M.I.T. debated the pros and cons of presenting papers to the public wherein science or religion is presented in a positive or negative light, how these papers are viewed by the non-scientific community of assorted fields of intellectuals or laymen and how these papers are doing more harm than good to the scientific community at large. you were on that program, weren't you?

/ and you thought no one cared!
 
2013-03-31 12:00:36 AM
It's time they brought in a real urine expert.

Paging Mr. Norton, Mr. Jim Norton.

/ Could probably tell you the year, acidity & brix.
 
2013-03-31 12:34:43 AM

Snapper Carr: [www.shockya.com image 600x376]

/not amused


Hey, "55,000 years of urine" was a great song!
 
2013-03-31 01:04:05 AM
Why forget? As long as the new data provides new and useful information, it can just be added to the pile. Besides, from the rather uninformative article, it seems that it isn't the urine that is important, but what gets stuck in it. Not all that different from some reptilian DNA, preserved in mosquito saliva in a piece of amber.
 
2013-03-31 02:20:25 AM
In the year 2525, if the rock hyrax is still alive, 60k years of pee will survive!
 
2013-03-31 02:32:24 AM
I think there's a hyrax living in my bathroom.
 
2013-03-31 02:51:49 AM
Piss porridge hot.
Piss porridge cold.
Piss porridge in the pot,
55,000 years old?
 
2013-03-31 07:15:10 AM
"The crucial point is that hyrax urine - which is thick and viscous and dries quickly - contains pollen, bits of leaves, grasses, and gas bubbles .....

That's got to be the most painful piss on earth.  Explains their expression.
 
2013-03-31 07:42:28 AM

wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s.


It's still funny that you keep repeating the same lie regardless of how many times it's been corrected.

Oh, wait, that's not funny at all.
 
2013-03-31 08:30:26 AM
Rock Hyrax piss was put there by God to test our faith.
 
2013-03-31 09:57:26 AM
img826.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-31 10:02:48 AM

czetie: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s.

It's still funny that you keep repeating the same lie regardless of how many times it's been corrected.

Oh, wait, that's not funny at all.


The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.
 
2013-03-31 10:12:03 AM

ikanreed: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.

I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?


http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-al ar mism.html

Moron.
 
2013-03-31 10:14:29 AM

skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...


You're trying too hard.
 
2013-03-31 10:32:12 AM
Has Mann found a hockey stick yet?
 
2013-03-31 10:35:07 AM
But, but ... HUMANS CAUSE EVERYTHING.
 
2013-03-31 10:35:50 AM

lelio: Has Mann found a hockey stick yet?


He's in the workshop, engineering one right now.
 
2013-03-31 11:39:41 AM

THE GREAT NAME: skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...

You're trying too hard.


And you're not? You sound crazier than the green general.
 
2013-03-31 11:57:57 AM

THE GREAT NAME: ikanreed: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.

I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-al ar mism.html

Moron.


See, as a dumb person, THIS is what I like to see. I don't have to think about the possibility of problems today because a subset of the media reported things incorrectly 40 years ago.

Thank you for jumping in and helping those of us who don't want to think about anything more complex than a NASCAR racetrack. I was afraid for a second I might actually have to think critically about the issue. You're a real lifesaver!
 
2013-03-31 12:01:38 PM

Shakin_Haitian: THE GREAT NAME: skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...

You're trying too hard.

And you're not? You sound crazier than the green general.


You must have missed the Shroud of Turin thread.
 
2013-03-31 12:44:00 PM

THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.


The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.
 
2013-03-31 02:07:59 PM

omeganuepsilon: Shakin_Haitian: THE GREAT NAME: skozlaw: I'm not a very smart person and I don't like to believe things could be true that I don't already know, therefore this must be pseudo-science because it involves urine and urine is funny and therefore has no real applicable value.

Phew! It sure would have been inconvenient if I'd acknowledged the truth just then...

You're trying too hard.

And you're not? You sound crazier than the green general.

You must have missed the Shroud of Turin thread.


I've, for the most part, avoid religious threads after reading the whole "math and emotions, therefore god" crap that had been going on.
 
2013-03-31 02:14:10 PM

Shakin_Haitian: religious threads


 that one is a lot of basic science of how the shroud could have been made,  and a certain green someone denying that
 
2013-03-31 02:30:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: Shakin_Haitian: religious threads

 that one is a lot of basic science of how the shroud could have been made,  and a certain green someone denying that


That was one of the most amusing threads I'd ever seen on fark.
 
2013-03-31 07:09:32 PM

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: Shakin_Haitian: religious threads

 that one is a lot of basic science of how the shroud could have been made,  and a certain green someone denying that

That was one of the most amusing threads I'd ever seen on fark.


I just read some of it and about split my forehead open.
 
2013-04-01 01:23:31 AM

THE GREAT NAME: ikanreed: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

 
Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.
 
I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?
 
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-al ar mism.html
 
Moron.
 
You have to take into account what exactly is meant by 'the literature'.  The popular media isn't the best place to get your science news, now or back then. The actual scientific literature looked more like this:
mind.ofdan.ca
From Peterson et al. 2008.
 
2013-04-01 05:24:11 AM

skozlaw: THE GREAT NAME: ikanreed: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.

I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-al ar mism.html

Moron.

See, as a dumb person, THIS is what I like to see. I don't have to think about the possibility of problems today because a subset of the media reported things incorrectly 40 years ago.

Thank you for jumping in and helping those of us who don't want to think about anything more complex than a NASCAR racetrack. I was afraid for a second I might actually have to think critically about the issue. You're a real lifesaver!


Meh. Lazy, sarcastic arguing from somebody who obviously does not have a good point to make.
 
2013-04-01 05:26:11 AM

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.


Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!
 
2013-04-01 08:42:36 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!


Just the one that is posted most often.
 
Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.
 
2013-04-01 09:36:55 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Meh. Lazy, sarcastic arguing from somebody who obviously does not have a good point to make.


Well, yea, I already knew that.

You didn't think I was mistaking you for somebody with anything of value to say, did you?
 
2013-04-01 01:41:03 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.

Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!


So what you're saying is that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a scientific article and a magazine article?
 
2013-04-01 02:35:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.

Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!



It's more that the popular media isn't always (or arguably most of the time) an accurate mirror of the scientific literature and tends to reflect what is superficial, sensational and of the moment. I mean, if we're going by magazine covers, apparently this was also a concern in the 70's:

jespaa.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-01 04:50:05 PM
"And if we piss here, every 55,000 years someone will dig us a new latrine for free!"
 
2013-04-01 10:07:57 PM

Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.


You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.
 
2013-04-01 10:28:08 PM

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.

You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.


I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??
 
2013-04-02 10:28:30 AM

Farking Canuck: the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW


Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...

Policy is decided (by swaying public opinion which affects policy makers who like populist policies) in one place.

The Tabloid Media.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.
 
2013-04-02 01:44:21 PM

dready zim: Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...


And I repeat: Who cares what the unwashed masses think? These idiots currently think that all scientists are greedy liars who's only purpose in life is scamming for research grants. This is how stupid these people are.

I care not about what public thinks/wants. I care about the accuracy of the science.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.

... of scientists bringing forward an issue which in turn led to public policy changes and some positive outcomes. I assume that is what you were going to say.
 
2013-04-03 05:35:32 AM

Farking Canuck: And I repeat: Who cares what the unwashed masses think?


dready zim: policy makers who like populist policies


Did you read my post?
 
2013-04-03 05:39:02 AM

Farking Canuck: The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.

... of scientists bringing forward an issue which in turn led to public policy changes and some positive outcomes. I assume that is what you were going to say.


The ozone hole is a perfect example that it doesn`t matter what scientists think until it is in the daily mail...

Your assumptions are wrong and are only partially correct even if you cherry pick from my post...
 
2013-04-03 08:22:18 AM

dready zim: Farking Canuck: the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW

Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...

Policy is decided (by swaying public opinion which affects policy makers who like populist policies) in one place.

The Tabloid Media.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.


Timecube disproves egghead scientists anti-semitic 24 hour day. It's published on a popular medium therefore it's widely believed by everyone.
 
2013-04-03 09:37:40 AM

dready zim: Did you read my post?


I care about the science.

You seem to care about public opinion and public policy.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:10 PM

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.

You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.

I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??


Nope. Science blogs that preach about ridiculous science. Or, in this case, ridiculous Science magazine.
 
2013-04-03 02:19:29 PM

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??

Nope. Science blogs that preach about ridiculous science. Or, in this case, ridiculous Science magazine.


So you link to a "skeptic" blog created by a meteorologist who doesn't have a degree in anything. Your link specifically goes to an article written by a chemical engineer (same degree and background as me interestingly enough) who gives his opinions on real scientific papers. Is this supposed to be evidence of something?

This is not peer-reviewed science. These are opinions. There is a vast difference.
 
2013-04-03 03:19:19 PM

Farking Canuck: dready zim: Did you read my post?

I care about the science.

You seem to care about public opinion and public policy.


Well that is what will make politicians sign the cheque to pay for the changes the people writing peer reviewed science say we need...

You can`t just stand in a heroic pose and say "The science is RIGHT!", and expect money to fall from the sky into all the projects and technology you say we need.

If you put everything you get from being right into a bucket you only have a bucket.

You have to sway public opinion and change policy to effect the changes you say are needed. THAT is why I look at the public media and see what things look like from there.

It`s not good. 11 months and counting.
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report