I am trying to find it but I know (because it has been thrown in our faces before) that during the Early Cretaceous when there were Dinosaurs in Antarctica that research has shown the tropics were deserts - which is bloody worrying if the climate goes more out of whack
Proof? You have none. The fact is that warming affects the upper latitudes more than the tropics. Show us where the tropics were deserts.
thrown in face? There are dinosaur fossils in Antarctica. But antarctica was not where it is now, then. Oz was a seabed. Kansas and Everest were seabed. Things change! but yes, I do think we may find that changes of unimaginable impact may take place, and that its humans who set it off.
Over very long periods of time, plate tectonics makes a difference. Water vapor tends to rise in the tropics (warm air holds more water), coriolis force causes "trade winds" that move this air north and south. Eventually cooler temperatures at higher latitudes causes the water to precipitate out. So look at a globe of the planet, and what you find is that the tropics are very wet, immediately north and south of the tropics we find deserts, and further north and south beyond the deserts we find lush temperate zones. Look at Africa, with extremely dry deserts in Nairobi and the Sahara, but as far as South Africa we again see rainfall, as we do in Europe. Same pattern in Australia and Mongolia. And so on. NOW, picture the land masses moving around. The Sahara was lush a million years ago, because it was well south of where it is today. We find huge oil deposits on the north slope of Alaska, because a couple million years ago that was well south of where it is now. Climate is closely tied to latitude, and shifting plates moves their latitude.
That is the meme, though there is no proof of such. - - - Updated - - - Plate tectonics are assumed to be the reason we have been in a 2.5 million year ice age due to shifting of the ocean currents.
Actually Antarctica seems to have been fairly stable at that latitude - but Aus was attached - in fact most of the continents ware part of "Pangea" - - - Updated - - - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14355-missing-fossils-could-warn-of-extreme-climate-to-come.html#.UvbTMP2Aw4Y
nope, that wont do at all...a christian website that discusses the "flood" as if was historical fact...history according to christians leaves a lot to be desired.... Ireally doubt mammoths lived in warm/tropical regions, more likely those regions were colder at those times ... Of course there is possibilty you're being sarcastic...
LOL. Yep, everything is known and CAGW marches on despite evidence to the contrary Gosh, it didn't even include CAGW!
There are specious claims that the arctic was tropical at that time. Of course it wasnt. - - - Updated - - - you arent worth answering.
Just did a search into elephant diet they eat grass but it isnt their preferred food...like the research into mammoth diet, elephants prefer broadleaf plants...so maybe the mammoths environment wasnt all grassy as often depicted...maybe grass doesnt provide enough nutrion for a grazzer as large as a mammoth...
I guess I was replying to the post you were replying to, and snagged you by mistake. The dinosaurs in antarctica were there when that continent wasn't at the poles, the "tropical desert" wasn't in the tropics when it was desert, etc. I see you've covered this also, thanks.
Grassland isnt all grass. There is plenty of nutrition in grass, and with it growing 3 ft tall as it does in Alaska today, I'd think they could get enough. Willows and other trees grow well above the arctic circle. In any case, the vegetation of the time is well known from pollen and preserved plants.. permafrost, ya know! In any case, what I said about the fauna affecting the flora is true, and what one sees now in the absence of the large herbivores is not what was there then, despite the similar climate.
Of course not, because your fantasy is much more appealing to you than the truth. - - - Updated - - - Ah, so you are saying natural variability makes a big difference. Thanks for agreeing.
that doesn't agree with the what the most recent research suggests... news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140205-mammoth-grass-clover-food-ice-age/
not what I disagree with but the link (which doesn't work, sorry) suggests, grass wasn't the primary food source...
You offered what you said was a League of Nations quote. I responded that the quote was accurate for the 1920s if the quote was indeed from the LON - League of Nations.
I read years ago about scientists finding Mammoths flash frozen with buttercups still fresh in their mouths. They were trying to understand how they were frozen so quickly...a Readers Digest article I think. They may have been forager and may have had a variety of green food.
In which case, the quote would also be true for its time. But I doubt the Triple Alliance would have issued such a quote. Any chance at all that you simply made it up? The give-away was the "A recent letter....." (emphasis added)
Linking to a site that speculates on the president's origins and links the Hawaiian Department of Vital Statistics to a Muslim cult, very credible.......
read the same article, I doubt they were flash frozen there's probably a more plausible explanation ...like being trapped in bottomless muskeg/bogs that are common in northern canada and russia, once they drown there is very little decay, and permafrost would complete the mummification...
