Do you have adblock enabled?
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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8022243


(Newser)   The oldest large body of ancient seawater in the world is discovered UNDER the Chesapeake Bay   (newser.com) divider line 22
    More: Interesting, Chesapeake Bay, seawaters, global ocean, Cretaceous, hydrologists, oceans, dinosaurs  
•       •       •

2245 clicks; Favorite

22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
2013-11-23 12:10:27 AM  
So....no scuba diving?
 
2013-11-23 12:49:06 AM  
Discovering is fine, disturbing is not.

www.tedmcneil.info
 
2013-11-23 12:59:30 AM  
Awesome! 150 million year old water molecules on a 4 billion year old planet made from 14 billion year old atoms!
 
2013-11-23 01:19:07 AM  
A once in a lifetime discovery that there is water at the bottom of the ocean.
 
2013-11-23 01:19:17 AM  

WordsnCollision: Discovering is fine, disturbing is not.

[www.tedmcneil.info image 540x350]


If we can come up with a way to explore it without cross-contamination, I'm sure it would turn out to be quite a boon to our understanding of geological and biological history of the Earth.  I farking love discoveries like this.
 
2013-11-23 01:34:27 AM  

DigitalCoffee: A once in a lifetime discovery that there is water at the bottom of the ocean.


Remove the water, Carry the water...
 
2013-11-23 01:50:37 AM  
Time to start bottling Cicely Water.
 
2013-11-23 02:22:33 AM  
Please link to the Washington Post, not the shiatty newser summary. Not that either explains how water trapped in a 35 million year old crater could be 150 million years old.
 
2013-11-23 02:39:39 AM  

NobleHam: Please link to the Washington Post, not the shiatty newser summary. Not that either explains how water trapped in a 35 million year old crater could be 150 million years old.


Read it again. The water isn't trapped in the crater.
 
2013-11-23 02:54:54 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: NobleHam: Please link to the Washington Post, not the shiatty newser summary. Not that either explains how water trapped in a 35 million year old crater could be 150 million years old.

Read it again. The water isn't trapped in the crater.


Yeah, it more or less is, according to the linked article, the WaPo article linked from the article, and the Nature article summary linked from there. A meteorite slammed into the earth there 35 million years ago and trapped sea water underground. It's not clear from any of those sources whether the water was trapped from the silting over of the crater or from the impact itself, but either way, the incident which caused the water to be trapped is supposed to have happened 35,000 years ago.

When the meteor or whatever it was struck North America and disfigured the landscape, "the ancient seawater was preserved like a prehistoric fly in amber,"

Both articles are probably wrong, but the text available offers no explanation for how water trapped either under or in the crater is older than the crater.
 
2013-11-23 03:26:26 AM  

WordsnCollision: Discovering is fine, disturbing is not.

[www.tedmcneil.info image 540x350]


Is that the terrible Churnadryne?
 
2013-11-23 03:29:42 AM  

NobleHam: water trapped either under or in the crater is older than the crater.


Anything that has been trapped under anything else MUST be older than the thing on the top, at least in the geological sense. It's simple logic.

In this case, it's very much older, but you can't trap something that isn't there yet.
 
2013-11-23 04:00:08 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Awesome! 150 million year old water molecules on a 4 billion year old planet made from 14 billion year old atoms!


Didn't you just argue in another thread that atoms don't have an age?
 
2013-11-23 04:57:08 AM  

Lsherm: Quantum Apostrophe: Awesome! 150 million year old water molecules on a 4 billion year old planet made from 14 billion year old atoms!

Didn't you just argue in another thread that atoms don't have an age?


He doesn`t seem to know what he is saying other than if a printer cannot take his coffee machine apart and fix the seals it fails as a printer. This seems to be `water stays sealed in underground pockets so life extension theory is valid`

Also, how come this story gets two greenlights and my great and awesome links don`t appear?
 
2013-11-23 07:24:09 AM  
At the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay is a good place to hide a body of water. Who's going to notice?
 
2013-11-23 08:25:25 AM  
I saw this movie. The little parasite things attach to our tongues, it's gross.
 
2013-11-23 09:03:57 AM  
Scientists have named it Goo Lagoon
 
2013-11-23 09:42:44 AM  
I love made up Science!
 
2013-11-23 09:57:45 AM  
When I moved the old washing machine from the corner of my garage I found a body of water that had been undisturbed for several years.  And there was weird life forms in it.  I called Time Life and Science News but they seemed oddly disinterested.
 
2013-11-23 10:30:41 AM  

SVenus: I love made up Science!


What made up science? The Chesapeake bay is an impact crator.

well diggers find packets of trapped sea water all the way up to the piedmont
 
2013-11-23 11:07:14 AM  
We found Y'ha N'thley. That crazy guy was right.

Dynamiting Devil's Reef brought no relief. It was deeper than we knew. At the time, anyway.
 
2013-11-24 09:34:15 AM  

Cerebral Knievel: SVenus: I love made up Science!

What made up science? The Chesapeake bay is an impact crator.

well diggers find packets of trapped sea water all the way up to the piedmont


All salt water in underground formations is trapped water.

To suggest that an event that fractured the rocks extensively in an area didn't connect already existing salt water reservoirs with fractures is a nice theory, but logic indicates otherwise.

I'll give you an example without the impact scenario: Shallow shelf conditions, sands are deposited, covered with mud, all in salt water.  Your classic sea water.  Everything buried by more of the same, alternating sand and mudrock(shale).  As the burial happens, you have the initial dewatering of the mudrocks.  The water is pressed out of the mud, and the mud compacts.  Where does that water go?  Some into the surrounding sands, perhaps some makes it up to the surface.  In theory, this is mostly the same general salinity as the sands, so... so far, relatively consistent.  Then, as pressure and temperature build, you have the shales undergo a chemical change.  The second dewatering happens where FRESH water is expelled, and that now goes almost exclusively into the sands nearby.
With that water goes other items, but mostly it's going to be water.

I'm not saying they don't think they have an isolated body of water, I'm saying it's not that difficult to challenge their findings, and this is without reading their results. There's most likely several caveats in there with the words "could" and "possibly".

 I have no doubt the paper is just a way of getting more grant money to study the impact site.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report