Earth's Water Existed 135 Million Years
Earlier than Thought
Citation:
Cofield, Calla. "Earth's Water Existed 135 Million Years
Earlier than Thought." Space.com.
N.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web.
02 Nov. 2014.
The article, Earth's Water Existed 135
Million Years Earlier than Thought, discusses how the water on
Earth arrived earlier than people expected. Through research, researchers’
prediction were off by about 135 million years when water arrived on Earth. The
reason researchers were so off was because they did not believe that water
could exist on early Earth with extreme temperature. According to the article,
the water that arrived on Earth came from meteorites from the asteroid Vesta.
Vesta is one of the biggest objects in the asteroid belt. The researchers know
that the water came from Vesta because the hydrogen on Vesta has the same chemical
signature as the hydrogen on Earth. The water from Vesta would not be enough to
make the oceans today. The article says the rest of water came from the outer
planets like Jupiter which flung icy objects into Earth. After this research, it
is still unknown about the timeline of water on earth.
This article has a major effect on science. One
effect it has on science is the study of new planets. Scientist can use the
discoveries to see how new planets form outside our solar system and see if
they are habitual. Another effect it has on science is the chemical signature of
elements. With this, scientist will be able to find what elements came from
where in the universe and what objects have similar signature with other
objects. Another effect is that it changes our understanding of our solar system.
Scientist believed that some of the first water on Earth came from the moon 150
million years ago. The water from Vesta arrived 135 million years before that.
By learning this, will can learn about the history of Earth.
This article was good but had some problems.
One of the strengths of the article was that it was clear and easy to read.
Another strength of the article was that the evidence was presented clearly.
The author did this by having separate paragraphs for each piece of evidence. One
of the problems with this article is that the author did not explain how they
got the data in the experiment. If this was given, the article would be easier
to understand the data. Overall, this article was very good and presents scientist
with more questions about the formation of Earth.
Tripp Judkins
I found Tripp’s review of “Earth’s Water Existed 135 Million Years Earlier than Thought” very interesting. One aspect of the review that was especially compelling was how scientists believe that water came from the asteroid Vesta and other planets like Jupiter. I found this interesting because I previously thought that water had just somehow developed on Earth. Another thing that was thought provoking about Tripp’s review was how off the scientists’ initial guess as to how long ago water appeared on Earth was. This was interesting because 135 million years seems like an enormous time to modify a prediction by. Tripp presented evidence that water came from Vesta by describing the similar chemical signature of Vesta and the hydrogen found on Earth, which seemed very convincing to me. One aspect of Tripp’s review that was particularly well presented was his thorough explanation of every way in which water may have come to Earth. Another thing that Tripp did well was that he explained the strengths and weaknesses of he article, giving specific details of what could be improved. This shows a full understanding of what the article was about. One thing that I would have like to see from Tripp’s review is a more in-depth explanation of why scientists’ previous guesses were so off and what research they have done to allow them to make a more accurate guess. Overall, I found Tripp’s review concise, to the point, and interesting.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very fascinating; the fact that we still are learning about new things about the earth is amazing. For years scientists thought water existed 150 million years ago from the moon, now we have evidence of water existing 135 years previous to that. I learned so many new things from this article, that icy comets could hit the earth even when it was still a very high temperature.
ReplyDeleteOur knowledge of the world is always changing and new discoveries lead to newer advances in science.
I thought that this review was really easy to understand. He was very straight to the point. I thought his connections to science today and how it affects us was interesting and insightful. I liked how he connected it to learning more about the earth and how important it is.
This review was great but, the summary was very choppy and needed more flow to it. I suggest using more transition words and not using the same words all the time. I also think there should be more facts provided in the summary. This article made me question, how if icy objects were flown into the earth while its temperature was still extremely hot, wouldn’t the water turn to gas? How did the water end up on earth due to the extreme climate?
In Tripp’s review of the article, he did a good job of briefly explaining the main idea. He states that researcher’s prediction of when water came to Earth from the asteroid Vesta was of by 135 years. As well as summarizing the article well, Tripp did a good job of providing details. For example, he included that scientist’s know the original water on Earth came from Vesta because the hydrogen has the same chemical composition. Another thing Tripp did well was explaining how this effects people and science. He states it could lead to scientists studying other planets to see if they could potentially be habitual. Although this was a good point, Tripp could’ve added a sentence or two to state how this is related to Vesta’s water on Earth. Also, Tripp should have included his opinion on the topic to make the article more relatable to it’s student readers. I still was able to learn a lot of interesting information, despite some of the missing points of the review. I was surprised to read that Earth’s water first came from an asteroid and that the rest came from outer planets, such as Jupiter.
ReplyDeleteFor Tripp's review of "Earth's Water Existed 135 Million Years Earlier than Thought." he did a great job of summarizing the article. I thought it was very interesting that scientists were extremely off in their prediction but I don’t find it very surprising since we are still continuing to learn more about our universe and its formation. I also found it surprising that Earth’s water originally comes from Vesta and other outer planets. As stated in the review and the article,"Scientists believed that some of the first water on Earth came from the moon 150 million years ago." Before reading this article I thought that water had just come from the moon and somehow developed but now I realize that the moon could not have been the only source of water, and it only makes sense that there were other sources of water. In general the review was very clear and easy to read, and it included just enough detail. However, it had a few minor spelling errors and I was still left questioning why did it take scientists so long to finally come to a conclusion? Do we know if there could have been other sources of Earth’s water and if so how may we prove it?
ReplyDeleteThis review should receive a lot of attention. Why? Because both the article and the review not only make a strong idea stronger, but also because the review was well written. Tripp's review was astounding! He found an article that does not seem as big as one might think and summarized it in a way that would make readers understand the significance. The readers, especially me, would find this review to be a grand one because he not only summarized it well, but he also applied the knowledge that was in the article to the review in a way that us, as students, could understand well. As generic as that last sentence might sound, I mean it sincerely. Who would have thought that water would have existed longer than the actual predicted date? It is truly mind blowing to experience such understanding in modern science that we would eventually contradict ourselves by saying that water existed on Earth longer. Truly impressive! One thing that I might change in this review is the title and the wording. As I was reading, it felt a little awkward to read various fragments, or non complete sentences. Also, I found it boring to see that the title of the review is the exact same one as the article itself! I hope that these changes would be made in the future to make reviews like this one even better.
ReplyDelete