Scientists have new theory on ice age

Lawrence Journal-World ^ | 12/29/2003 | Alea Smith

[EUPHORIC]

KOWABUNGA. At least with an asteroid we might be able to do a little target practice with some of our nuclear toys and have some chance of stopping it but aside from everyone crawling into VERY deep holes there is not much one could do but enjoy the nice toasty warm feeling just before you started to melt!

[TheBigB]

"Our new theory about the ice age is that it was pretty darn cold. But to be sure, we'll need a few billion dollars more in federal grants."

[jwalsh07]

No such thing as gamma rays.

[Tallguy]

I guess I'd better breakout the lead-lined jockies...

[zook]

According to Anne Elk, it was rather warm when the ice age began, then it became very very cold, then it got warmer near the end.

[isom35]

my only theory about the ice age is that it was very cold for awhile, then it warmed up a little.

[zook]

According to Anne Elk, it was rather warm when the ice age began, then it became very very cold, then it got warmer near the end.

[Erik Latranyi]

The above article conclusively proves that science know absolutely nothing about what causes anything.

Once again.

[WIladyconservative]

Now wait just a minute . . . .The scientists' research has led them to believe the long-term effects of gamma-ray bursts would deplete the ozone and cause global cooling and acid rain. . . . .

Didn't we all learn that depleting the ozone layer causes acid rain and GLOBAL WARMING???????

No way - nuh-uh - can't have it both ways!!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This might expl KU's football program lately.

[xrp]

Anyone outside when this occurred would be blinded

So...sunglasses wouldn't help.

[Drammach]

Spongebob Squarepants theory..

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[steveo]

According to Anne Elk...

Anne Elk?!?! Where???

[VadeRetro]

Gee, this is a badly written article. It doesn't explain well at all how gamma ray bursts cause ice ages, nor does it explain what extinction it is talking about. The date 440 million years ago is not one of the "biggies" normally discussed. Those would be the Permian-Triassic 250 million years ago and the Cretaceous-Tertiary 65 million years ago. Then there was the "Snowball Earth" episode about 700 million years ago. But this is none of those. It apparently refers to the time we started losing a lot of trilobite species.

Not saying it's wrong, just a rather scattershot presentation.

[John H K]

Hmmm, I thought they meant "Snowball Earth" but as you point out the dates are wrong.

What's really bad about the article is the average person thinks of the "Ice Age" as the very recent episodes we've had in the last few million years, and the article doesn't point out that it's not the same Ice Age most people are thinking of when they read the headline.

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

[VadeRetro]

Much of the contempt that people have for science on FR is actually just caused by moron non-science writers getting it totally wrong for a general audience, not the scientists themselves.

Seems to be what's happening here. Local talent writing for the Lawrence, Kansas newspaper.

[HangThemHigh]

I guess this means my tin-foil beanie won't help much?

[LibWhacker]

Previous theories have attributed the extinction to the start of an ice age but offer no explanation as to what triggered the ice age during a relatively warm climate.

Those theories -- and this one, too -- have an even higher hurdle to worry about it seems to me; namely, what evidence do they have that there actually was an ice age 440 million years ago? They may have evidence there was a mass extinction. But what evidence do they have that an ice age caused it? As I understand it, not very much at all of the earth's crust from the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction is still around, much less from 440 million years ago.