Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
UM-Bot

The ancient trees of the Amazon

13 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.