October 29, 200916 yr I think the sun goes through cycles that cause ice ages/warm ages. So think of it like the stock market. There are ups and downs that occur on a daily basis, and if you zoom out, you'll see even bigger ups and downs. And you can keep zooming out to see huge ups and downs (recessions). So there can be rallies within recessions. It depends on the length of time you're talking about. But the theory with complex systems like the stock market or weather is that there is a "regression to the mean" which means data tends to return to the average over time. It's hard for an outlier to continue for very long. This is why in stock trading, we have what's called "stochastics", you can see it on the bottom of this chart here: The smoother wavy line near the bottom represents the change in the stock price versus its immediate previous moving-average. So when the line is near the top, that means the stock is more likely to fall in value. When it's near the bottom, that means it's more likely to become more expensive. This is just based on probability, so it's not always an accurate indicator of the future.
October 29, 200916 yr Obviously its not natural, if it wre the proccess would be much slower PS Jay your Voltaire quite = so much win
October 29, 200916 yr The reason they don't believe it is because their head stuck in a toilet. Please pull your heads out of your toilets.
October 29, 200916 yr Obviously its not natural, if it wre the proccess would be much slower PS Jay your Voltaire quite = so much win What evidence do you have of the speeds of global warming or cooling that is caused naturally?
October 29, 200916 yr Geology has taught that, and paleontology, in addition, temperature started raising before the sun started with those explotions
October 30, 200916 yr The reason they don't believe it is because their head stuck in a toilet. Please pull your heads out of your toilets. But it was cleaned recently
October 30, 200916 yr You will drown soon. Worry not. A growing number of scientist have said if the ice melts it still won't be enough to actually change sea levels that much.
October 30, 200916 yr A growing number of scientist have said if the ice melts it still won't be enough to actually change sea levels that much. Depends on what ice you're talking about. If the ice at the North Pole melts, it won't affect sea levels at all because the ice there is floating in the water. If on the other hand the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melts, it will affect sea levels massively. We're not talking about a few metres of ice here, the average thickness of ice in Antarctica 2000 metres, in Greenland it isn't much less.
Create an account or sign in to comment