still denying global warming?

Foxrac said:
There isn't much point for me to debate about climate change because some area in US may not disappear until after we die - more than 100 years, but we may have deal with frequent of extreme weather.

It is too late to change it, though.
Click to expand...

I am only trying to point out that it has already happened before. That was why I posted the link about the tropical forest that used to be under all the ice in the Antarctic.

What caused that? CO2 emissions?

Nope.

(just a side note here) I found it interesting to read about the autopsy of the Wooly Mammoths. They died suddenly, they were not driven, slowly, into extinction by a slow gradual climate change. Their bodies had been crushed, and some were reported to have died from asphyxiation. Some even had perfectly preserved and frozen vegetation in their bowels (bacteria had not even begun to break down the vegetation when they died).
 
Steinhauer said:
I am only trying to point out that it has already happened before. That was why I posted the link about the tropical forest that used to be under all the ice in the Antarctic.

What caused that? CO2 emissions?

Nope.
Click to expand...

ice age. but then what causes ice age to melt?
 
Jiro said:
ice age. but then what causes ice age to melt?
Click to expand...

There are about 15 different ongoing theories. It's anyone's guess. I think the one about maunder minimum is close. The sun also has a cycle.

I will occasionally read this site ( http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ ) and anyone who keeps up with it, quickly discovers that not much is really known about the sun. Well, other than it has a differential rotation.

A better question for Foxrac is ... what happens when the sun burns up all of its fuel? that won't be for a very long time ... but still, if a scientist came forward and claimed we had 15 years left, he would fall for it I would think.
 
Steinhauer said:
There are about 15 different ongoing theories. It's anyone's guess. I think the one about maunder minimum is close. The sun also has a cycle.

I will occasionally read this site ( Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Homepage ) and anyone who keeps up with it, quickly discovers that not much is really known about the sun. Well, other than it has a differential rotation.

A better question for Foxrac is ... what happens when the sun burns up all of its fuel? that won't be for a very long time ... but still, if a scientist came forward and claimed we had 15 years left, he would fall for it I would think.
Click to expand...

what would happen? simple - super nova!

hang on and brace for impact!
tumblr_ljkahzoZ671qanb21o1_500.gif
 
Jiro said:
what would happen? simple - super nova!

hang on and brace for impact!
tumblr_ljkahzoZ671qanb21o1_500.gif
Click to expand...

Every once in a while, a claim is made that a gigantic meteor will hit the earth and instant destruction is imminent - the next one is due in 2017.

Oh well ... I used to panic. Then a follow up report usually claims "oops, we are sorry, we were off by about several thousand miles".

So ... I choose not to hit the panic button, and I put my copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy away.
 
TXgolfer said:
You still didn't see it? Probably best to move on then. Others can judge for themselves.
Click to expand...

ah yes... your usual quibbling. well I asked you a simple question so I can see what mistake I have made but I guess you just had to be vague and argumentative like that. oh well. moving on.
 
Steinhauer said:
I am only trying to point out that it has already happened before. That was why I posted the link about the tropical forest that used to be under all the ice in the Antarctic.

What caused that? CO2 emissions?

Nope.

(just a side note here) I found it interesting to read about the autopsy of the Wooly Mammoths. They died suddenly, they were not driven, slowly, into extinction by a slow gradual climate change. Their bodies had been crushed, and some were reported to have died from asphyxiation. Some even had perfectly preserved and frozen vegetation in their bowels (bacteria had not even begun to break down the vegetation when they died).
Click to expand...

I already know tropical forest that under ice in Antarctica wasn't caused by CO2 emission - how did you think about I believe? Global warming and climate change are not same definition.

I'm more worried about my families get displaced by extreme weather for unknown reason - undetermined. There is more evidence needed to determine whichever CO2 cause or not.

In LA, they have smog problem because of emission in air.
 
We do get really good pictures of the Sun now:




Do you see the tornado?
 
Jiro said:
ah yes... your usual quibbling. well I asked you a simple question so I can see what mistake I have made but I guess you just had to be vague and confrontational like that. oh well. moving on.
Click to expand...

Yes, that why I ignore his post nowadays and I think he is joke.
 
Foxrac said:
I already know tropical forest that under ice in Antarctica wasn't caused by CO2 emission - how did you think about I believe? Global warming and climate change are not same definition.

I'm more worried about my families get displaced by extreme weather for unknown reason - undetermined. There is more evidence needed to determine whichever CO2 cause or not.

In LA, they have smog problem because of emission in air.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, now I remember talking about that. LA needs to plant a lot of high CO2 consuming plant life and trees - line highways with them too.

The hi-res picture of Tokyo I put up - remember? Look at the city rooftops for all the gardens. there is a lot of greenspace in Tokyo.
 
kokonut said:
Yeah, however, Mt. Everest was the result of plates ramming into each other uplifting the sedimentary layer that was once at the bottom of the ocean 400 million years ago now sits 29,000 feet high above sea elevation.
Click to expand...

Some of the fossils were found under layers and layers of sedimentary rock on top of those mountains.

Seafaring creature fossils can be found just about anywhere there is land.
 
TXgolfer said:
You understand what "underestimated" mean, yes?
Click to expand...
Yay!!! "Under" and not "over"-estimated. At least somebody was paying attention. We could actually have more ice than what was estimated. Then again who knows? Each of the succeeding year they apply that same caveat yet the ice extent now is at the same ice extent 8 years ago.
 
Back
Top