A diverse range of life forms exists deep below Earth's surface, scientists have concluded, but they live at an incredibly slow pace.
Long-lived bacteria, reproducing only once every 10,000 years, have been found in rocks 2.5km (1.5 miles) below the ocean floor that are as much as 100 million years old.
Viruses and fungi have also been found.
The discoveries raise questions about how life persists in such extreme conditions.
Scientists from the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program have announced the findings at the Goldschmidt conference, a meeting of more than 4,000 geochemists, in Florence, Italy.
Fumio Inagaki of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reported that the microbes exist in very low concentrations, of around 1,000 microbes in every tea spoon full of rock, compared with billions or trillions of bacteria that would typically be found in the same amount of soil at Earth's surface.
Alongside the simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes) found in the deep rocks, Tom Englehardt of the University of Oldenburg, Germany, showed that viruses are even more abundant, outnumbering microbes by more than 10 to one, with that ratio increasing with depth.
Speaking to BBC News, Dr Englehardt said of these viruses: "They are quite stable in these sediments, especially as the metabolic rates of the cells are so low, and they exist in sediments up to 100 million years old."
The number of microbes was so low that the distances between them were much greater than those of communities at Earth's surface, so the scientists were surprised to find that they could support a virus' life cycle.
"We're pushing the boundaries of what we understand about how viruses cycle on Earth elsewhere, by studying them in the deep biosphere" Dr Beth Orcutt of Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Maine, US, told BBC News.
Microbes exist in sediments that are up to 100 million years old Dr Orcutt continued: "One of the biggest mysteries of life below the sea floor is that although there are microbes down there it's really hard to understand how they have enough energy to live and how incredibly slowly they are growing.
"The deeper we look, the deeper we are still finding cells, and the discussion now is where is the limit? Is it going to be depth, is it going to be temperature? Where is the limit from there being life to there being no life?"
Alive, or just un-dead? The long-lived bacteria metabolise at such a slow rate that some even question whether this constitutes life at all.
"The other question we have is that even though we are finding cells, is it really true to call it alive when its doubling every thousands of years? It's almost like a zombie state," Dr Orcutt commented.
Despite being very slow-living and slow-acting, Earth scientists have also suggested that the existence of microbial communities deep in Earth's rocks could be changing the chemistry of the rocks, the deeper Earth, and the planet itself.
By locking up and using carbon within the rocks, these deep organisms could be modifying the carbon cycle on Earth, and could ultimately have some impact on the rates of release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from volcanoes over Earth's history
Agreed and with relatively few of them at pretty hefty depths I also don't think that they will be having much affect on the current climate but it does say "... could ultimately have some impact on the rates of release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from volcanoes over Earth's history".
"over earths history" so the unit of measure is billions/millions of years not a few tens of years. There is no doubt that "microbes" and other life has changed the earth in very dramatic ways, from giving it a toxic, oxidising, atmosphere to locking up vast amounts of carbon dioxide in limestones/chalk, coal/oil/gas etc.
The recycling of the earths crust with the draw down of the life derived marine deposits/rocks to produce volcanic rocks less dense than the magma means they float on the magma to create the continents...
As is man caused global warming. Its a theory presented without any evidence other than some mathematical models that have been consistently wrong. So much for it being science, it is but not as we used to know.
However the only important thing is the predictions. We already know what the climate is and we are only concerned with what it will be. The only way to know what it will be is the models and they have all been wrong so far.
So if no one is interested in the predictions why is there any concern for climate change? Without the predictions there wouldn't be any greens like you arguing about climate change so it must be very important to you even if you don't understand it.
They are all wrong based on the predictions they have made in the past. None of the ones used to predict the climate change people are told is happening have got it correct so far. What makes you think any more predictions they make are any more correct than all the ones they got wrong on the past?
Because the underlying physical principles have been understood for decades, and the world is warming.
As you can't or won't understand or accept the relatively simple physical principles underlying global warming, the complex depths of a human mind is obviously even further from your understanding.
As you have not supplied any creditable links to support your claims, and until you do, I am going to assume that this is just another value judgement of yours, which you can't expect others to share.
And anyway, the problem is one of a modelling a numerically relatively small longer-term trend underlying relatively large shorter-term normal climatic variations. Consequently, you can't say yet whether any one particular system of modelling is working better at predicting the future than any other.
The current rate of warming is highly unusual. If you choose not to believe it, take a look at the Vostok data FOR YOURSELF. It's available by following the links that I have given in another thread within the last few days.
On the contrary, the theory fits the known facts remarkably well. As the team headed former climate science critic Prof Muller at BEST has shown, there is a very good correlation between C02 levels and temperature rise:
formatting link
On the contrary, I am sufficiently logical and rational that I understand, and therefore have no trouble accepting, the science. By contrast, you never produce any actual facts, just bullshit seemingly based on a stubborn inability to face them.
I explained the difficulties caused by natural short-term variability earlier.
Would you prefer that they never updated their work to match actual facts? Of course you would, then you would be able to criticise them some more, and you'd like that, wouldn't you? Perhaps it satisfies your ego to criticise others who, by and large, are better and more successful people than yourself. (Note: this is irony!)
I explained the difficulties caused by natural short-term variability earlier.
You submit no evidence, as usual.
I explained the difficulties caused by natural short-term variability earlier.
I accept the science on this issue, so mine is not a value judgement, except in the sense that my belief that science is the best way to discover how the world works is something of a value judgement for the way I choose to live my life.
There have been many, too many, previous threads on this topic where climate sceptics such as yourself never produce any relevant, worthwhile, game changing FACTS, while link after link is given by people such as myself in scientific support of statements we make. For example, from a previous thread in reply to Terry Fields:
"In the thread specifically entitled "OT: Wow, a sensible nuke article in the UK press", excluding this post, I have given about 25 links or substantiated quotes, of which: 4 Could be construed as repeats, being to different pages on the same results site. 1 Was to a blog of questionable scientific value.
You [Terry Fields] have supplied 4, comprising: 1 Was not actually a link, but did at least state whence results derived. 2 Were to blogs of questionable scientific value. 1 Was completely irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.
Readers are left to draw their own conclusions from a ratio of 20:1."
Mine is based on a widely-based consensus amongst a majority of the world's scientists working in this field, while yours is based on a complete misunderstanding of climate science, as evidenced by your previous remarks made up-thread.
More to the point, just because you claim something doesn't mean that you are correct. On the contrary, without scientific support, it's just so much more bullshit. People accuse me of arrogance because my attempting to follow logical precepts often brings me into conflict with them, but at least I am following logic, and can therefore explain why I do things that I do, whereas you set yourself against the body of climate science, seemingly not just without any appropriate experience or qualifications, but more importantly being too f*king lazy to even bother to do any of your own investigations. THAT is profoundly arrogant in the extreme.
Because the modelling predicting the future does not, at least yet, work well enough to be reliable, while, as linked above, the fit of the known past temperature increase with CO2 increase is remarkably good.
snipped-for-privacy@killspam.kicks-ass.net. Yeah right! Beam me up Scotty! They're in too deep sh*t down here for us to help them!
As we all brace ourselves for another long and tedious bout of unsubstantiated denialism, the only conclusion that a rational man can draw is that regardless of the endeavours of science, people such as yourself have made up your minds that you don't want to believe in AGW, therefore it must be disbelieved, and at every mention of the subject this disbelief must be preached and proselytised to every audience however ignorant the preacher, however inappropriate the circumstance, and whoever and however unwilling the audience.
A very good working definition of a religious belief is one that cannot be scientifically or logically justified. This disbelief in AGW is such a religious belief by that definition, and indeed it bears many of the hallmarks of one of the 'new religions' - rational debate with an adherent rapidly proves impossible either because no facts, however basic, are ever admitted or because of the proliferation of pseudo-science; websites and blogs are set up preach it and to vilify people who oppose it, and every time one of the faithful produces some new blog that purports to attack the science, even though the attack doesn't hold water to any rational person, there is a chorus from the rest of the faithful, "Too right!", "Who do these people think they are to make these unfounded claims?!"; etc, etc.
That's putting the kindest interpretation on it. If one were more unkind, one would call it a deliberate and dangerous industrial conspiracy of scientific denial, broadly linked across various industries who all stand to lose through the efforts of science - amongst others, the tobacco and oil industries. I really think you and many others here need to read this page. You needn't accept every word of it, indeed I probably don't myself, but you need at least to read and hoist in every word of it, and think about its implications:
formatting link
Lobbying government is a mega-industry in every democracy, and all parties and all sides on any debate are doing it all the time. You have the choice of whether to be an unthinking puppet going through the world being manipulated by others via knee-jerk reactions and sowing FUD, or to make your way by thought based on good science.
Climate Science is still comparatively in its infancy, there are some things known and understood, but still many grey areas open to dispute. Also, like any other branch of human endeavour, it is open to abuse, and there will always be examples of that, but when clearing one's mind afterwards, it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If, instead of peddling the same old lies with unsupported claims as so far, you want to participate in interesting and worthwhile debate, you must expect at least to WORK. You could do worse than by starting with the Vostok data.
I have downloaded the Vostok data and analysed it at great length. What it shows is that the temperature regularly varies cyclically by many degrees, and the claimed variation of around 0.7 degrees C in the last hundred years is therefore insignificant. The actual variation is probably somewhat less than 0.7 degrees.
Java jives metaphysical position is that humans are bad dudes so when shit happens its humans fault. And when bad shit doesn't happen, you believe in any drivel that says it could/ might/shouldhappen
Show him a cure for cancer, and he'd be complaining about 'tampering with nature' an 'possible unknown side effects' or some such drivel.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.