wrote
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.

A meter is not the same as 10 feet. Not even close.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN NN

"Tunderbar" wrote
The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an
ice sheet in Antarctica.

Impossible. Denialist KKKonservatives claim that the world is only 6,000
years old.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN NNN

2.46 mm/yr

Ya think we can run fast enough to get out of the way of the deluge?
How does this fit into Al Gores predictions of an impending, what was
it, 20 feet sea level rise?


"Tunderbar" wrote
Just about 1/100th of an inch per year. 9.6 inches in 100 years.

With a warming of .75'C

And what will be the rate of melting when the earth's temperature reaches
the predicted 4'C to 9'C rise?

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

"Talk-n-Dog" wrote
because of the evidence that shows the rocks and carved earth where the
ice receded?

But dozens of KKKonservativre Creationist scientists claim that God made
them that way.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:56 am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 26/03/08 20:35, in article
,

" wrote:
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.
A meter is about 3 feet. Rises of one meter per 20 years have been
seen in the last 15,000 years, at one time the levels were going
up at the rate of 3 meters/century.

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.
When was this?

On 27/03/08 14:48, in article , "dave"
wrote:

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.
When was this?


About 650 million years ago, and on several other occasions but not
recently (since life has become "complicated").

For a short discussion see

http://www.snowballearth.org/

Note while there is evidence of such occurrences and the explanations
are plausible there are lacking details. Part of the "proof" lies
in the geochemistry. We also know from simple physics that if the
earth had no or little CO2 the average temperatures would be below 0°C.
Even without photosynthesis, weathering constantly removes CO2
from the air, if it were not returned via volcanic action, it would
be all removed.

Earl Evleth wrote:
On 27/03/08 14:48, in article , "dave"
wrote:

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.
When was this?


About 650 million years ago, and on several other occasions but not
recently (since life has become "complicated").

For a short discussion see

http://www.snowballearth.org/

Note while there is evidence of such occurrences and the explanations
are plausible there are lacking details. Part of the "proof" lies
in the geochemistry. We also know from simple physics that if the
earth had no or little CO2 the average temperatures would be below 0°C.
Even without photosynthesis, weathering constantly removes CO2
from the air, if it were not returned via volcanic action, it would
be all removed.

That's pretty flimsy.

On 28/03/08 13:42, in article , "dave"
wrote:

That's pretty flimsy.

I advise reading up a bit before jumping to conclusions.

First, the standard name for the period, Cryogenian
should send you some sort of message.

Are you receiving?

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 28/03/08 13:42, in article , "dave"
wrote:

That's pretty flimsy.

I advise reading up a bit before jumping to conclusions.

First, the standard name for the period, Cryogenian
should send you some sort of message.

Are you receiving?

You aren't sending anything extraordinary,
the presumption of cryogenic glaciation at low
latitudes is based on flimsy evidence, geologic
evidence below 33 degrees latitude is not at all
spectacular, it could have resulted from sliding
ice sheets, the present flooding problems in
Indiana at present occurs because a sliding ice
sheet from Canada made the land very flat.

Considering the temperature of the deep
ocean, floating ice from the poles would not
be spectacular at any latitude.


The silly aspect of a "snowball Earth"
is that any cause of ice at low latitudes may
be totally different from what is speculated.

On 29/03/08 1:28, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:


First, the standard name for the period, Cryogenian
should send you some sort of message.

Are you receiving?

You aren't sending anything extraordinary,
the presumption of cryogenic glaciation at low
latitudes is based on flimsy evidence, geologic
evidence below 33 degrees latitude is not at all
spectacular,

Why did the community label the period "Cryogenian"!

Considering the temperature of the deep
ocean, floating ice from the poles would not
be spectacular at any latitude.

We are talking about the land mass being covered
by ice and snow, permanently for part of the period.

"The Cryogenian (from Greek cryos "cold" and genesis "birth") is a geologic
period that spanning from 850 to 635*million years ago. The greatest ice
ages known to have occurred on Earth at this time, the Sturtian and Marinoan
glaciations, which may have covered the entire planet, occurred during this
period. It was the second geologic period of the Neoproterozoic Era,"

The only question is whether it covered the "entire" planet.

"The name refers to the very cold global climate of the Cryogenian:
characteristic glacial deposits indicate that Earth suffered the most severe
ice ages in its history during this period. Glaciers extended and contracted
in a series of rhythmic pulses, possibly reaching as far as the equator.[1]

The silly aspect of a "snowball Earth"
is that any cause of ice at low latitudes may
be totally different from what is speculated.

What is your alternate explanation! Blather alone is
not persuasive. You are thrashing around.