Neuman, Scott. "Researchers Find Ancient Seawater Had Twice The Salt." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/19/246187564/researchers-find-ancient-seawater-had-twice-the-salt
Scientists recently discovered a pocket of ancient seawater near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. This pocket of seawater has been trapped below layers of sediment near the present day area of Chrales, Virginia. It is estimated that this archaic seawater has been trapped since the days of the dinosaurs, approximately 100-150 million years ago. Hydrologist Ward Sanford theorized that the seawater was struck my an asteroid some 35 million years ago which prevented the water from being flushed out with sediments, isolating it. This water pocket was found 5,000 feet underground. This is the oldest large body of seawater ever discovered. It was discovered that the seawater of the Cretaceous Era was nearly twice as salty as modern day water. Scientists were able to identify the age of the water using the amount of helium in the water, helium is given off by uranium deposits as they age.
This discovery has a large impact in the science community. It gives evidence that ancient oceans had a much higher degree of salinity (saltiness) than they have today. This discovery does not really have an impact on the average person but I believe it will in the long run. Scientific discoveries like this help us to understand the world and design solutions for current issues.
I thought this article was well written by author Scott Neuman, it was concise, to the point and easy to read. Despite the article not being as lengthy as I would like it still provides the reader with a wealth of information. Neuman provides useful information about this important scienfic discovery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked how Michael gave interesting facts on how long the ancient sea water had been trapped. I also liked how he gave a very good explanation on what this meant for the future of our world but how it will not specifically impact one person. I also liked how he had very smooth transitions between his paragraphs because it made his review flow very nicely.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do think that were are certain areas where Michael could have drastically improved his review. In his conclusion he only gave one reason for hwy he liked the article but he said it in three different words or phrases. Secondly, I think Michael should have included who discovered this patch of ancient sea water so the reader could find out more information on how he came to find the water.
Overall, I think Michael's review was very well-written, and just like his article, it was straight to the point. He included very good information on where the water was and how it affected the human race as a whole.
Michael’s summary was deliberate, thorough, and easy to understand because of his use of specific details pertaining to his article. I also liked how he presented an aspect of the reading which could have been improved in his final paragraph. His statement about the significance of scientists in our world in his second paragraph was valid and a demonstration of good thinking as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the second paragraph could have been more developed, for the reader may think his ideas were not coherent or perspicuous as he did not clarify his thought on the major effect this finding may have had in the science community. He also could have given an example or explanation backing his idea of how the average person may be impacted in the long run due to the discovery.
Personally, I was enthralled by Michael’s topic; it’s really neat how a piece of ancient history still physically exists in our seawaters, and that scientists have the ability to determine the properties of the water and compare/contrast them to our present-day elements of Earth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Michael’s review on “Researchers Find Ancient Seawater Had Twice The Salt” Michael gave interesting facts on how long the ancient sea water had been trapped for a long time. I also liked how he gave a very good explanation. I liked the way he had very smooth transitions between his paragraphs because it made his review flow very nicely and it was presented very well and not boring to read.
However I think that were are certain areas where Michael could have done just a little better, some of the information he had talked about the region could have been written just a little bit more the writing itself was could it just need more. In his conclusion I believe that Michael could have done a much better job stating some more details.
I think Michael included very good information on where the water was and how it affected the human race as a whole and Michael did a really good job on this article summary.
I thought that this article was very interesting, even to an average person with a limited understanding of science. I thought that this review was very thorough and well presented. Firstly, like any review should have, there was background information on the topic. I thought he did a good job on this by giving more than just the minimal information, but also information on how old how long it was approximated to be there, and the theory behind that. I also really liked that Michael added that how the scientists were able to determine the age of the water. Finally, I liked that although there may not have been information about how this topic directly affects people, he was able to infer how it would in the future. I thought it was very professional, the way he said that although it might not directly affect anyone now, new discoveries may later affect us.
ReplyDeleteI thought that a few minor changes could have been made to make the article a little bit better. Firstly, I thought it would have been interesting to know how salty our water is now. In the review, he stated that the water pocket was found to be twice as salty, but nothing was said about how salty it actually was. Although there was a connection to the real world, which was very helpful, I thought he could have expanded upon that idea. He said it could help us better understand, as well as create solutions for problems, but I thought he could have included at least one example of what could have been expanded upon.
Overall, I found this article to be very informative, and I learned a lot. I never knew that over time the saltiness of seawater changes, and I feel that that information could be good information especially in Earth science, more specifically oceanography. I also thought that the critique at the end covered many aspects of the article, including length, quality of information, and difficulty level.
I think Michael did an incredible job at giving an accurate summary of the article he read on how scientists recently discovered a pocket of ancient seawater near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. I liked how he was short and got to the point quickly, stating all of the important information. I also think that Michael did a great job making smooth transitions between his paragraphs. I also liked how he articulated his opinions of the article very clearly.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I think Michael could’ve done better on this would’ve been if he just explained the article just a little more. Also, he made a few grammatical errors, and if he fixed those it would’ve been better.
Overall, I think that this review was very well written and Michael’s ideas were very easy to understand. I found it very interesting that this ancient water was found in the sediments, and have never been discovered before.
Michael did a really good job on this review. First, he did a good job of summarizing a topic that is hard to understand. I thought that he made it clear to the reader what the article was about. Also, I think Michael included a lot of detail, helping to make the article more interesting with accurate statistics. I liked how Michael included how scientists were about to determine the age of water, which I thought was really cool.
ReplyDeleteMichael's review was really good, but I think he could've added a few more thing to make it better. I think that Michael could have explained what scientists are planning to do with the pocket of seawater - if they're studying it or just leaving it there, trying to preserve it. I also think that he could have added a little bit more detail about how this discovery affects us, but I also liked that he added the fact that it will be helpful for us in the future for different reasons.
I thought this article was really cool to learn about and was overall well done. I hadn't heard about this patch of water and didn't know that it could be so interesting.