pdxmonkeyboy Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 https://www.iflscience.com/environment/researchers-have-obtained-a-20000-year-old-sample-of-seawater/ Stuff like this fascinates me. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuncrestReef Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 It's probably contaminated with ancient ich and really high phosphates. 🙄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Tavan Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 OMG Here comes the copper resistant marine velvet 💀 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabbyCrabs Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 But you can kill that copper resistant velvet with 1 tsp of chloramine tap water per 100 gallons of volume! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadAShark Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 11 hours ago, pdxmonkeyboy said: https://www.iflscience.com/environment/researchers-have-obtained-a-20000-year-old-sample-of-seawater/ Stuff like this fascinates me. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk Very fascinating indeed. Did they run it through an ICP or what? I’d love to see the ion breakdown of that water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Tavan Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Pretty sure they have testing available that’s 1000 times better than ICP lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdxmonkeyboy Posted May 29, 2019 Author Share Posted May 29, 2019 Some spilled the water, the project is shuddered now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadAShark Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 9:17 AM, pdxmonkeyboy said: Some spilled the water, the project is shuddered now. Wow that’s disappointing, but it’s good to know that it’s possible more water samples like that can exist so we can search out more of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorW Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 Wow that’s disappointing, but it’s good to know that it’s possible more water samples like that can exist so we can search out more of them!Pretty sure he was joking [emoji23] at least I think [emoji50] I didn't read anything about that so pretty sure he was joking...Sent from my BLU R1 HD using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadAShark Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, TaylorW said: Pretty sure he was joking at least I think I didn't read anything about that so pretty sure he was joking... Sent from my BLU R1 HD using Tapatalk I was tired and gullible when I replied haha. Still pretty tired as I am now though haha. But to be honest it sounded so silly that I thought it was possible it might just be true 😂 Actually I just checked on the original article... or some of it anyway. Of course publicly funded research is behind a paywall thanks to Elsevier. The paper establishes that the ocean had many chemically distinct masses of water, some of which can be rediscovered stored in pores. It establishes a correlation between oxygen 18, deuterium (an isotope of Hydrogen), and chloride. It appears that the ratio of change is linear at 25 mM of Chloride, 1.2% oxygen, 9% deuterium. And it also establishes that the higher the strontium concentration, the lower the variation in calcium isotopes. Note this is correlation and not necessarily causation. Basically the biggest thing here, and they admit themselves, is this was an incidental discovery that opens up a whole lot of research to be done. Finding more of these pores and studying them can give us a much better idea of the ancient ocean; this is the first time they can directly measure what the Ocean was like instead of estimating, calculating, and extrapolating. So they spent a lot of time presenting some incidental data, but also a lot more time basically saying why this new line of research is so valuable. So all in all, this suggests it’s not possible to say “the ancient ocean was different in x, y, z ways,” because it turns out there were many different pieces to the ocean with significant variation to chemical makeup. It’s pretty interesting research. In theory, with a lot of time, money, processing power, and memory, they can now have a chemical map of the ancient ocean anywhere they can find these pores. I’ve accessed and downloaded the paper. If anyone cares to read it, just message me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertareef Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 28 minutes ago, LadAShark said: I was tired and gullible when I replied haha. Still pretty tired as I am now though haha. But to be honest it sounded so silly that I thought it was possible it might just be true 😂 Actually I just checked on the original article... or some of it anyway. Of course publicly funded research is behind a paywall thanks to Elsevier. The paper establishes that the ocean had many chemically distinct masses of water, some of which can be rediscovered stored in pores. It establishes a correlation between oxygen 18, deuterium (an isotope of Hydrogen), and chloride. It appears that the ratio of change is linear at 25 mM of Chloride, 1.2% oxygen, 9% deuterium. And it also establishes that the higher the strontium concentration, the lower the variation in calcium isotopes. Note this is correlation and not necessarily causation. Basically the biggest thing here, and they admit themselves, is this was an incidental discovery that opens up a whole lot of research to be done. Finding more of these pores and studying them can give us a much better idea of the ancient ocean; this is the first time they can directly measure what the Ocean was like instead of estimating, calculating, and extrapolating. So they spent a lot of time presenting some incidental data, but also a lot more time basically saying why this new line of research is so valuable. So all in all, this suggests it’s not possible to say “the ancient ocean was different in x, y, z ways,” because it turns out there were many different pieces to the ocean with significant variation to chemical makeup. It’s pretty interesting research. In theory, with a lot of time, money, processing power, and memory, they can now have a chemical map of the ancient ocean anywhere they can find these pores. I’ve accessed and downloaded the paper. If anyone cares to read it, just message me. Thanks for the recap and offer to share! Interesting material for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdxmonkeyboy Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 As a general rule, 98% of what I say is humor based. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuncrestReef Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 50 minutes ago, pdxmonkeyboy said: As a general rule, 98% of what I say is humor based. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk The term "humor" is thrown around loosely here. 🤣 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadAShark Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 8 hours ago, SuncrestReef said: The term "humor" is thrown around loosely here. 🤣 So you tell me that I would be fine discussing the four humors here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.