Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

The ancient trees of the Amazon


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 19 December 2005 - 11:07 AM

news icon rTrees in the Amazon grow slower and are older than scientists thought, a discovery that has implications for computer models of climate change. Up to half of all trees greater than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter in Amazon tropical forests are more than 300 years old, the study found.

Some are 1,000 years old.

news icon View: Full Article | Source: Live Science

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,339 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2005 - 12:37 PM

How much can we really trust scientists. Latley I've been hearing alot of things where scientists miss the mark.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin
Are you a cynic?

#3    dnb420

dnb420

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • Joined:21 Oct 2004
  • Location:Down The Rabbit Hole

  • There is some fiction in your truth, and some truth in your fiction. To know the truth, you must risk everything.

Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:21 PM

I dont care if it is true or not, it will not do any harm either way. I think its good scientists have said this because maybe they will stop cutting down rainforest's. Global warming is quickly taking effect.

Posted ImagePosted Image
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream
~Pink Floyd

#4    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,236 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:44 PM

Quote


How much can we really trust scientists. Latley I've been hearing alot of things where scientists miss the mark.


You should trust scientists a bit more.  They have a habit of checking their work over several time themselves, and then publishing so that other scientists can look it over.  All this double-checking results in the discovery of errors such as these.

If all scientists did was look at things once, we would never progress.  I sincerely hope you do not believe that scientists have ever claimed to be infallible.


#5    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 20 December 2005 - 06:01 AM

^Very true aquatuas.  Generally scientists wont publish their theories or work if they aren`t as sure as they can possibly be that all data is accurate. It is their reputation on the line after all!

Edited by AztecInca, 20 December 2005 - 06:01 AM.


#6    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,339 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2005 - 06:23 AM

But that's what I'm saying. It's good if they double check, but for so long any would be considered stupid if they said "these trees are actualy 1,000 years old"  and now they found out they were wrong. I just don't like the idea that people are so looked down on when disagreeing with scientists as if science is the "know it all" of everything.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin
Are you a cynic?

#7    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:26 AM

Well firstly no one was having a go at you for disagreeing with the scientists. If you wish to disagree with them go ahead. Debate on any subject is more than welcome around here.

You weren`t disagreeing you were accussing them of being untrustworthy which is why some of us said something. I didn`t agree with your point of view as calling them untrustworthy seemed to be going to far in my opinion. Scientists may make mistakes or get something wrong as we all do but it doesn`t make them untrustworthy.

Edited by AztecInca, 20 December 2005 - 10:28 AM.


#8    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,339 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:40 AM

I didn't accuse them of anything, and I never stated anyone on this topic called me stupid for disagreeing.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin
Are you a cynic?

#9    SureFire

SureFire

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Caserma Ederle, Vicenza (Italy)

  • Who Knew?

Posted 20 December 2005 - 01:07 PM

It is true that they "miss the mark" often but just like the others said, it's been checked and checked again, until they can finally come to something they can agree on.  Scientists have been wrong on everything at least once, don't know if anyone remembers the big debate on the "Age of the Earth" a while back.  Old news, but ya know.

It did sound as if you had something held against scientists being wrong from time to time, but we all have our thing.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

#10    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,339 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2005 - 08:44 PM

See, there it is again. Everytime I disagree with science "I have something wrong with science", or I'm out to make it look bad, lol. What gives? O_o

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin
Are you a cynic?

#11    SureFire

SureFire

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Caserma Ederle, Vicenza (Italy)

  • Who Knew?

Posted 20 December 2005 - 08:50 PM

Quote


See, there it is again. Everytime I disagree with science "I have something wrong with science", or I'm out to make it look bad, lol. What gives? O_o


Must just be the way it was written, no harm no foul.  thumbsup.gif

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

#12    ROGER

ROGER

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,471 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Wisconsin,USA

  • Sticks and stone didnt break my bone,
    But old age is starting to Hurt me!

Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:39 PM

Scientists and researchers depend on accurate facts in order to do their jobs. The age of the trees of the rain forest were estimated using the size of trees in other parts of the world. This was an error that has been corrected by carbon dating. I will be interested in seeing if follow up testing confirms this data, so that computer climatic programs may be updated.

The world can't end in 2012, I have a yogurt that expires in 2013.

#13    Crosswings

Crosswings

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2012

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:40 PM

Of what I have seen in movies, these trees of the Amazon back in BC when dinosaurs were around, were just extremely small. These trees could be that older and growing older as we speak.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users