lsemmens (02-04-20)
I found an interesting article in todays copy of the Guardian titled
seeAntarctica was warm enough for rainforest near south pole 90m years ago
To find the remains of such plants near the south pole is amazing. Of course this research needs more and the scientists findings may be flawed because it is always possible the Antarctic land mass may not have been located anywhere near the south pole then, but I found the article interesting.The Cretaceous, 145m to 66m years ago, was a warm period during which Earth had a greenhouse climate and vegetation grew in Antarctica.
Scientists say the new discovery not only reveals that swampy rainforests were thriving near the south pole about 90m years ago but that temperatures were higher than expected. Such conditions, they add, could only have been produced if carbon dioxide levels were far higher than previously thought and there were no glaciers in the region.
“We didn’t know that this Cretaceous greenhouse climate was that extreme,” said Dr Johann Klages of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and a co-author of the research. “It shows us what carbon dioxide is able to do.”
PS: I did notice the date on the article, but I think that is a coincidence.
Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 02-04-20 at 11:54 AM.
lsemmens (02-04-20)
Look Here -> |
How odd. I thought everyone already knew this. The positions of the continents were different and sea currents flowed differently. I think Australia was more southerly and joined to Antarctica.
When the bodies of Robert Falcon Scott and his companions were discovered after their ill fated expedition to the south pole, they had plant fossils that they'd collected at or near the pole. That was in 1913.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Tiny (02-04-20)
See! There you have it!Antarctica was warm enough for rainforest near south pole 90m years ago
Proof positive of Globull warming! You can't argue with 99% of scientists and other well worn invented facts!
Oh, wait..... Ummmm, never mind.
:0)
Cheers, Tiny
"You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The information is out there; you just have to let it in."
There's also this relatively new finding.
read more at>>Ice Ages Blamed on Tilted Earth
In the past million years, the Earth experienced a major ice age about every 100,000 years. Scientists have several theories to explain this glacial cycle, but new research suggests the primary driving force is all in how the planet leans.
The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.
But the angle is not constant - it is currently decreasing from a maximum of 24 degrees towards a minimum of 22.5 degrees. This variation goes in a 40,000-year cycle.
Peter Huybers of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have compared the timing of the tilt variations with that of the last seven ice ages. They found that the ends of those periods - called glacial terminations - corresponded to times of greatest tilt.
"The apparent reason for this is that the annual average sunlight in the higher latitudes is greater when the tilt is at maximum," Huybers told LiveScience in a telephone interview.
More sunlight seasonally hitting polar regions would help to melt the ice sheets. This tilt effect seems to explain why ice ages came more quickly - every 40,000 years, just like the tilt variations -- between two and one million years ago.
Last edited by Tiny; 02-04-20 at 01:36 PM.
Cheers, Tiny
"You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The information is out there; you just have to let it in."
allover (02-04-20),enf (02-04-20),RogerTheDoger (02-04-20)
Thanks Tiny, I've seen this one before, it's only a theory that may well be correct however I believe the theory has one big flaw.
The shape of the continents is determined by the present day sea level. The animation has them all neatly joining together based on their shape, however if the sea level was higher or lower many of the continents would be a completely different shape and would not join in the way depicted.
George this is why we call it Climate Change as opposed to Global warming when we are looking at the big picture. Tiny has explained above about the changes leading to periodic ice ages that are caused by the changing tilt of the earths axis.
The current very small variation of the tilt should be taking us towards another ice age, many years hence, however the increase in Greenhouse gasses, principally caused by burning fossil fuels seem to have caused the natural change to have been overcome with the climate heading off in the other direction. ie rather than the earth becoming cooler it seems to be getting warmer. Remember we are talking about a fraction of a degree per year and it will be necessary to look at the big picture many years hence.
However climate scientists have noted the current changes and have issued a word of warning, because many years hence it will be too late to do anything.
Cheers, Tiny
"You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The information is out there; you just have to let it in."
That is correct it's the tectonic plate that moved around, however the animation shows the continents moving and the edge of the continents is determined by the sea level, while the edge of continents does not necessarily align with the edge of the tectonic plates. Also it is possible that over thousands of years tectonic plates may have changed shape, possibly with some breaking into several new plates and others firmly welding themselves together into one new plate.
Some plates may have ridden up over the edges of other plates forcing one higher and the other lower. Such events would change the shape of the continents on those plate as the affected continents would now have a new coastline.
Why is the animation showing a globe ???, I thought it was supposed to be flat ???
hinekadon (04-04-20)
you are quite correct it is flat other wise the water would fall of it , and everyone knows that the magnetic poles change direction if you go under it and comes rite as you come out the other side , not only that when man drew the map of the earth they put the biggest land mass on top which is bull shit as any one will tell you if you drop a handful of sand into a glass of water the sand goes to the bottom so the north pole is closer to us than them
alpha0ne (04-04-20)
Bookmarks