FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Blind shrimp may hold clues to alien life

Blind shrimp may hold clues to alien life

(2:16) It isn't immediately apparent how life at the bottom of the oceans could help us find life on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. More...

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1058 days ago)

WalterEgo, this is another prime example of life that survives under extreme conditions. You once said that a couple more degrees in temperature rise will kill all life on this planet. These shrimp are surviving in 450 - 750F temperatures so do you think a couple degrees more will kill them?

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

WalterEgo, this is another prime example of life that survives under extreme conditions. You once said that a couple more degrees in temperature rise will kill all life on this planet. These shrimp are surviving in 450 - 750F temperatures so do you think a couple degrees more will kill them?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1058 days ago)

I said a couple more degrees risks us entering runaway global warming, which in turn risks us ending up like Venus. With a surface temperature of 465C, and no water because it has all boiled away, I think it's reasonable to assume there is no life on Venus.

Consider this. If I and almost every climate scientist in the world is wrong, then we risk ending up in a sustainable world powered by an abundance of cheap clean energy. Massive energy corporations would lose their monopoly on power. The developing world would be developing without polluting. No more wars over oil. A booming global economy driven by the repowering of the planet... etc.

If you, danandiana, cengland0 and a few others are wrong, we risk ending up like Venus. Don't you care about your children?

ReplyVote up (121)down (113)
Original comment

I said a couple more degrees risks us entering runaway global warming, which in turn risks us ending up like Venus. With a surface temperature of 465C, and no water because it has all boiled away, I think it's reasonable to assume there is no life on Venus.

Consider this. If I and almost every climate scientist in the world is wrong, then we risk ending up in a sustainable world powered by an abundance of cheap clean energy. Massive energy corporations would lose their monopoly on power. The developing world would be developing without polluting. No more wars over oil. A booming global economy driven by the repowering of the planet... etc.

If you, danandiana, cengland0 and a few others are wrong, we risk ending up like Venus. Don't you care about your children?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1058 days ago)

You sound like a preacher. If all the preachers are wrong, what harm is there is believing in a god anyway?

Nobody is saying it is not a good idea to use renewable energy. What we are trying to do is find the truth about the planet’s climate. Your scare tactics do nothing to give us the truth. Looking at the data — all the data — is the way to do it.

ReplyVote up (114)down (104)
Original comment

You sound like a preacher. If all the preachers are wrong, what harm is there is believing in a god anyway?

Nobody is saying it is not a good idea to use renewable energy. What we are trying to do is find the truth about the planet’s climate. Your scare tactics do nothing to give us the truth. Looking at the data — all the data — is the way to do it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1058 days ago)

If you want to find out the truth about the planet's climate, listen to the experts. Trust me, they know MUCH more than you. Even I know more than you.

ReplyVote up (95)down (106)
Original comment

If you want to find out the truth about the planet's climate, listen to the experts. Trust me, they know MUCH more than you. Even I know more than you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1058 days ago)

Remember that the anonymous survey of peer-reviewed papers is not expert testimony.

ReplyVote up (120)down (104)
Original comment

Remember that the anonymous survey of peer-reviewed papers is not expert testimony.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

No. It was actual real-world research that was conducted into climate change. Even better than expert testimonies.

ReplyVote up (130)down (109)
Original comment

No. It was actual real-world research that was conducted into climate change. Even better than expert testimonies.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1058 days ago)

Experts like the IPCC?

ReplyVote up (94)down (109)
Original comment

Experts like the IPCC?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1058 days ago)

Experts like those studying climate change at NASA.

ReplyVote up (90)down (118)
Original comment

Experts like those studying climate change at NASA.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1057 days ago)

You don't believe that IPCC members are experts on climate change?

ReplyVote up (114)down (125)
Original comment

You don't believe that IPCC members are experts on climate change?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Of course. And almost every climate scientist actively working in climate research anywhere in the world.

What makes you think you know better?

ReplyVote up (133)down (120)
Original comment

Of course. And almost every climate scientist actively working in climate research anywhere in the world.

What makes you think you know better?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1057 days ago)

Then I have to say your experts really don’t know what they are doing. Their reports always contain errors and wrong information. The forecasts do not match reality.

ReplyVote up (110)down (116)
Original comment

Then I have to say your experts really don’t know what they are doing. Their reports always contain errors and wrong information. The forecasts do not match reality.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Predicting the future is not an exact science. Scientists say the weather will become more extreme, wet regions will get wetter, dry regions drier. Overall, global temperatures will rise. It fits my experience in London. And it fits the climate news I hear from around the world.

How's it going in sunny Florida? Why don't you buy up some cheap property on the coast? You'd make a killing if you're right.

ReplyVote up (84)down (120)
Original comment

Predicting the future is not an exact science. Scientists say the weather will become more extreme, wet regions will get wetter, dry regions drier. Overall, global temperatures will rise. It fits my experience in London. And it fits the climate news I hear from around the world.

How's it going in sunny Florida? Why don't you buy up some cheap property on the coast? You'd make a killing if you're right.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1057 days ago)

“Predicting the future is not an exact science” I agree but if the scientists claim that their models are accurate in predicting the future but we have seen that they have been wrong over and over again.
“How's it going in sunny Florida?” Absolutely wonderful. It is in the middle of November (That’s our winter time) and I’m in a t-shirt and shorts. I do not have the heater on either.


“Why don't you buy up some cheap property on the coast?” All my properties are close together to make management of them easier. Besides, Florida has always been the hurricane capital (and lightning) of the world so I would pay extra for hurricane insurance for a house on the coast. This state has been hit by many category 5 hurricanes and many before the industrial revolution. So that has nothing to do with your perceived global warming,

ReplyVote up (122)down (115)
Original comment

“Predicting the future is not an exact science” I agree but if the scientists claim that their models are accurate in predicting the future but we have seen that they have been wrong over and over again.
“How's it going in sunny Florida?” Absolutely wonderful. It is in the middle of November (That’s our winter time) and I’m in a t-shirt and shorts. I do not have the heater on either.


“Why don't you buy up some cheap property on the coast?” All my properties are close together to make management of them easier. Besides, Florida has always been the hurricane capital (and lightning) of the world so I would pay extra for hurricane insurance for a house on the coast. This state has been hit by many category 5 hurricanes and many before the industrial revolution. So that has nothing to do with your perceived global warming,

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Scientists have got the overall picture pretty accurate, but not so much the detail.

In this video, Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the difference between weather and climate. LINK

What makes you think you know better than the experts, or even Neil deGrasse Tyson?

ReplyVote up (117)down (112)
Original comment

Scientists have got the overall picture pretty accurate, but not so much the detail.

In this video, Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the difference between weather and climate. LINK

What makes you think you know better than the experts, or even Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1057 days ago)

As far as I know, Neil Degrass Tyson has not performed any independent research of his own so he is just regurgitating what the media has been saying. That does not make him an expert.

There are a lot of independent people that have brought up down and controversy about what the IPCC has claimed. That gives me doubt too because the IPCC has not addressed those issues.

You are like a Christian saying that preachers are the experts and they say there is a god and if you are not a preacher you have no ability to say there is no god.

ReplyVote up (134)down (110)
Original comment

As far as I know, Neil Degrass Tyson has not performed any independent research of his own so he is just regurgitating what the media has been saying. That does not make him an expert.

There are a lot of independent people that have brought up down and controversy about what the IPCC has claimed. That gives me doubt too because the IPCC has not addressed those issues.

You are like a Christian saying that preachers are the experts and they say there is a god and if you are not a preacher you have no ability to say there is no god.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the difference between weather and climate.

Now that Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it so well, have you re-evaluated your views? If you are shown to be wrong - change your mind, don't dig deeper. That's how you make progress.

That old chestnut about preachers... climate science is based on evidence. I'm sure you'd agree that the evidence preachers put forward is somewhat dubious. That's why it is reasonable to believe what every climate scientist is telling us, but not what every preacher says.

So why do you think you know better than almost every climate scientist in the world? Even I destroy your arguments and I'm not even an expert.

ReplyVote up (129)down (101)
Original comment

You don't need to be a climate scientist to understand the difference between weather and climate.

Now that Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it so well, have you re-evaluated your views? If you are shown to be wrong - change your mind, don't dig deeper. That's how you make progress.

That old chestnut about preachers... climate science is based on evidence. I'm sure you'd agree that the evidence preachers put forward is somewhat dubious. That's why it is reasonable to believe what every climate scientist is telling us, but not what every preacher says.

So why do you think you know better than almost every climate scientist in the world? Even I destroy your arguments and I'm not even an expert.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1057 days ago)

“climate science is based on evidence.” If only it was, that would probably make me change my mind. It is based on an analysis of cherry picked papers and if they mentioned if humans are the cause of global warming or not. That analysis has been proven to be flawed. The authors of the papers were asked if the results matched what their papers said and some said no.

Christians have evidence too. It’s called a Bible. It’s just week evidence like what global warming alarmists have.

Keep in mind that I do not disagree that the temperature has risen .86 degree since something like 1880 but I am not so sure that is not a natural cause especially when the historical record of our planet shows us that the average temperature is usually much warmer and we are coming out of an ice age.

The big question is, are you ready for this? Would the temperatures get back to the normal historical levels if humans did not exist.

ReplyVote up (113)down (116)
Original comment

“climate science is based on evidence.” If only it was, that would probably make me change my mind. It is based on an analysis of cherry picked papers and if they mentioned if humans are the cause of global warming or not. That analysis has been proven to be flawed. The authors of the papers were asked if the results matched what their papers said and some said no.

Christians have evidence too. It’s called a Bible. It’s just week evidence like what global warming alarmists have.

Keep in mind that I do not disagree that the temperature has risen .86 degree since something like 1880 but I am not so sure that is not a natural cause especially when the historical record of our planet shows us that the average temperature is usually much warmer and we are coming out of an ice age.

The big question is, are you ready for this? Would the temperatures get back to the normal historical levels if humans did not exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

OK, so you agree the temperature has risen 1C. There are no known natural causes that can account for that. No denialist has ever suggested one that I'm aware of, and do you really think all the climate scientists in the world haven't thought to look?

Also, you have to explain how a rise in CO2 of 40% does not warm the planet.

Like I said before, when you're shown to be wrong, change your mind and stop digging. Otherwise you just stay wrong.

As for your "big" question - if humans didn't exist, CO2 levels would be 40% lower. Also, an extra 40+ billion tons wouldn't be added next year, and probably even more the year after, and the year after, and the year after, and...

So the answer is yes, until something comes along to change it, maybe when chimps evolve intelligence and then start spewing billions of tons of carbon into the air relentlessly.

ReplyVote up (65)down (104)
Original comment

OK, so you agree the temperature has risen 1C. There are no known natural causes that can account for that. No denialist has ever suggested one that I'm aware of, and do you really think all the climate scientists in the world haven't thought to look?

Also, you have to explain how a rise in CO2 of 40% does not warm the planet.

Like I said before, when you're shown to be wrong, change your mind and stop digging. Otherwise you just stay wrong.

As for your "big" question - if humans didn't exist, CO2 levels would be 40% lower. Also, an extra 40+ billion tons wouldn't be added next year, and probably even more the year after, and the year after, and the year after, and...

So the answer is yes, until something comes along to change it, maybe when chimps evolve intelligence and then start spewing billions of tons of carbon into the air relentlessly.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1057 days ago)

I’ll jump in here.

“OK, so you agree the temperature has risen 1C” He said .86

“There are no known natural causes that can account for that” Yes there is, it’s called the sun. If you think there’s no cause for the planet to heat up, let’s go through a quick exercise. First, we all know the average temperature of the planet is usually 25C unless some natural disaster like an asteroid hits the planet. So what caused the current ice age? Why can’t it get back to normal like all the previous natural events?

Look at this graph of our temperatures for the past 450,000 years and notice a pattern. Also note that humans were not around except for 200,000 of those years. LINK

“Also, you have to explain how a rise in CO2 of 40%” False. The CO2 has not risen by 40%. In fact, there is some evidence that CO2 levels have fallen but you have chosen to ignore those 90,000 chemical readings because it doesn’t fit within your religious beliefs.

ReplyVote up (114)down (106)
Original comment

I’ll jump in here.

“OK, so you agree the temperature has risen 1C” He said .86

“There are no known natural causes that can account for that” Yes there is, it’s called the sun. If you think there’s no cause for the planet to heat up, let’s go through a quick exercise. First, we all know the average temperature of the planet is usually 25C unless some natural disaster like an asteroid hits the planet. So what caused the current ice age? Why can’t it get back to normal like all the previous natural events?

Look at this graph of our temperatures for the past 450,000 years and notice a pattern. Also note that humans were not around except for 200,000 of those years. LINK

“Also, you have to explain how a rise in CO2 of 40%” False. The CO2 has not risen by 40%. In fact, there is some evidence that CO2 levels have fallen but you have chosen to ignore those 90,000 chemical readings because it doesn’t fit within your religious beliefs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Thanks for another faceplant moment.

The sun has been cooling for the last 35 years leading scientists to conclude that it's not the sun warming the planet. LINK

If CO2 has not risen by 40%, then you have to explain what has happened to the CO2 released when we burn fossil fuels.

ReplyVote up (122)down (108)
Original comment

Thanks for another faceplant moment.

The sun has been cooling for the last 35 years leading scientists to conclude that it's not the sun warming the planet. LINK

If CO2 has not risen by 40%, then you have to explain what has happened to the CO2 released when we burn fossil fuels.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1057 days ago)

The heating of the sun is cumulative. So even if it had less output, it can still warm the planet.

Take a 40 Watt bulb and turn it on and then immediately touch it. Not very hot right? Keep it on for an hour and you’ll see that the temperature builds in time.

“If CO2 has not risen by 40%, then you have to explain what has happened to the CO2 released when we burn fossil fuels.” Beating a dead horse but I’ll try to do this one more time for you. We do not need to explain where the CO2 went. Just look at the evidence of what the CO2 levels were in the past and what they are today and you can see it is not increasing like you think. Just because I personally cannot explain something doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

The heating of the sun is cumulative. So even if it had less output, it can still warm the planet.

Take a 40 Watt bulb and turn it on and then immediately touch it. Not very hot right? Keep it on for an hour and you’ll see that the temperature builds in time.

“If CO2 has not risen by 40%, then you have to explain what has happened to the CO2 released when we burn fossil fuels.” Beating a dead horse but I’ll try to do this one more time for you. We do not need to explain where the CO2 went. Just look at the evidence of what the CO2 levels were in the past and what they are today and you can see it is not increasing like you think. Just because I personally cannot explain something doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Faceplant again! Stop it, you are hurting my nose. Take a heater and warm up a room. Switch off the heat and feel the room continue to warm for the next 35 years.

What makes you think you know better than the experts. You don't seem very bright to me.

ReplyVote up (120)down (105)
Original comment

Faceplant again! Stop it, you are hurting my nose. Take a heater and warm up a room. Switch off the heat and feel the room continue to warm for the next 35 years.

What makes you think you know better than the experts. You don't seem very bright to me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1057 days ago)

Are you saying CO2 is not released when we burn fossil fuels?

ReplyVote up (129)down (126)
Original comment

Are you saying CO2 is not released when we burn fossil fuels?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1056 days ago)

CO2 is released when burring fossil fuels. The question is how much of that stays in the atmosphere. I believe that is where our debate begins.

ReplyVote up (121)down (106)
Original comment

CO2 is released when burring fossil fuels. The question is how much of that stays in the atmosphere. I believe that is where our debate begins.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1054 days ago)

About half of the CO2 emitted from our burning of fossil fuels in the last 150 years remains in the atmosphere.

That's about 250 billion tons.

ReplyVote up (125)down (108)
Original comment

About half of the CO2 emitted from our burning of fossil fuels in the last 150 years remains in the atmosphere.

That's about 250 billion tons.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1054 days ago)

Wasn't there a video posted recently that showed the CO2 was removed in the summer because of the plants? It looked just like there was hardly any left after summer was over.

Your scientists should meet so they can get their stories straight and try to tell us the same thing so they don't conflict each other. If your scientists would stop producing conflicting information, perhaps more people would begin to believe them.

ReplyVote up (126)down (122)
Original comment

Wasn't there a video posted recently that showed the CO2 was removed in the summer because of the plants? It looked just like there was hardly any left after summer was over.

Your scientists should meet so they can get their stories straight and try to tell us the same thing so they don't conflict each other. If your scientists would stop producing conflicting information, perhaps more people would begin to believe them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1054 days ago)

Why don't you look at that video again and see if you can figure out what you missed? If you have difficulty, I'm happy to help. LINK

ReplyVote up (140)down (114)
Original comment

Why don't you look at that video again and see if you can figure out what you missed? If you have difficulty, I'm happy to help. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1054 days ago)

I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything. I even went back and viewed the video again and took screen shots so I could show you the same thing that I saw. Here’s an image from 1/1/2006. LINK Look at all the CO2.

Now look at this image after all the CO2 is produced and the trees began absorbing the CO2. It’s actually better than it was at 1/1/2006. LINK The date is 10/16/2006.

ReplyVote up (116)down (113)
Original comment

I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything. I even went back and viewed the video again and took screen shots so I could show you the same thing that I saw. Here’s an image from 1/1/2006. LINK Look at all the CO2.

Now look at this image after all the CO2 is produced and the trees began absorbing the CO2. It’s actually better than it was at 1/1/2006. LINK The date is 10/16/2006.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1054 days ago)

You missed checking out the legend. When you think there's no CO2, it's actually around 380 ppm. The darker reds are about 386 ppm. Max on the legend is 395 ppm. Min is 377 ppm.

Now do you feel really stupid?

ReplyVote up (131)down (116)
Original comment

You missed checking out the legend. When you think there's no CO2, it's actually around 380 ppm. The darker reds are about 386 ppm. Max on the legend is 395 ppm. Min is 377 ppm.

Now do you feel really stupid?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1054 days ago)

I understood the legend perfectly fine, thank you. I suggest you look at those images again and, if you cannot see the colors properly, perhaps someone nearby that is not color blind can describe the colors to you. They can point out that there is a lot less dark red in the later snapsot.

Now don't you feel stupid?

ReplyVote up (116)down (146)
Original comment

I understood the legend perfectly fine, thank you. I suggest you look at those images again and, if you cannot see the colors properly, perhaps someone nearby that is not color blind can describe the colors to you. They can point out that there is a lot less dark red in the later snapsot.

Now don't you feel stupid?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1054 days ago)

This is what you said: "Wasn't there a video posted recently that showed the CO2 was removed in the summer because of the plants? It looked just like there was hardly any left after summer was over."

380 ppm is hardly nothing left.

ReplyVote up (144)down (116)
Original comment

This is what you said: "Wasn't there a video posted recently that showed the CO2 was removed in the summer because of the plants? It looked just like there was hardly any left after summer was over."

380 ppm is hardly nothing left.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1054 days ago)
Latest comment:

Left after it was added. The end of the video shows less CO2 than the beginning of the video.

ReplyVote up (130)down (126)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Left after it was added. The end of the video shows less CO2 than the beginning of the video.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Capybaras' impressive range of friends
Capybaras' impressive range of friends
Richard Dawkins - Like a moth to a flame
Richard Dawkins - Like a moth to a flame
Walking octopus carries a coconut
Walking octopus carries a coconut
Soft tissue found inside dinosaur bone
Soft tissue found inside dinosaur bone
Raccoon in the middle of the freaking bay
Raccoon in the middle of the freaking bay