On Nov 9, 8:20 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 8:18 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 8:09 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 9, 8:05 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > you cannot answer a single question > > > > for your *soi-dissant* theory of every thing. > > > > > thus: > > > > I only found one thing, that relates the continuing rate > > > > of supply of meltwater, compared to the recent *surge*; > > > > "surge" is really the only applicable term, and > > > > it could be because of "not the very first thing > > > > that a French glacialologist thinks of." > > > > > there was a good survey article about this subject, > > > > re Alaskan glaciers, in Eos, a few months ago; > > > > totally non-extremist, Denierist or Confirmerist format. > > > > > thus quoth: > > > > Because the amount of precipitation has not changed much over the > > > > past > > > > few decades, researchers blame rising temperatures for the glacial > > > > retreat > > > > Three-quarters of the Earth is ocean. If ocean temperatures are > > > rising- that should be a major red flag! That should be the canary in > > > a coal mine. > > > Or, maybe, there is no controlling ourselves. > > Or, maybe this is just a 100 year weather cycle for which we are so > ignorant of?
Maybe, we could consider a 100 or 1000 times of human population for Earth so easily to take? Maybe not. How do we begin to measure what the Earth can take?