Global warming is real


#2771

That depends on what you call significant.

You overlooked my earlier question in your zeal to criticize me … don’t you think that if an object as massive as the one that created the Moon, if it came close but did not collide, would be sufficient to alter Earth’s orbit “significantly”?


#2772

I thought it was a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious and in many ways I’ve answered it ad nauseum.


#2773

Ever find any information on those 75k year astronomical observations?


#2774

What information is it exactly you think is available? What we know is that the alignments are still as accurate today as they were then. The megaliths have not moved, the apertures have not moved, and the same constellations, the sun, and moon still appear in the same manner as they have since the ancient observatories, temples, and pyramids were built.


#2775

I’m looking for a name or location of one of these ancient observatories, temples or pyramids that dates to 75,000 years ago.


#2776

What have you done about it? Have you given up air conditioning, central heat and eating meat yet?


#2777

Did you miss this article being linked?


#2778

I did miss that, thanks for reposting it.

The plan only works if the object passes extremely close many, many times. An object 60 miles across passing 10,000 miles from earth can move our orbit 30 miles.

Which means chance encounters are extremely unlikely to have any significant effect.


#2779

That interesting NASA article addresses an interesting point:

There is also the vexed question of the Moon. As the current issue of Scientific American points out, if Earth was pushed out of its current position it is ‘most likely the Moon would be stripped away from Earth,’ it states, radically upsetting out planet’s climate.

I haven’t been able to follow all the bickering back and forth over orbital this and that and how it may be responsible for periodic climate change, but if the moon is likely to be stripped away in encounters with objects that would meaningfully afflict its orbit enough to effect climate changes why does the earth still have a moon if we accept planet X or NEOs bouncing earth around? I know the scientists said likely and not certainly, but likely indicates a probabilistic outcome. If the likelihood is high for an outcome and that game is repeatedly played, as it seems like it would have to for cyclical climate change as a result of orbital changes to occur, then it seems amazing the moon is still hanging around.


#2780

I’ve done a lot more than you have. The specifics are none of your business.

You, of course, won’t give up anything, so your question comes from hypocrisy.


#2781

You have no idea what I have or haven’t done. I was just pointing out the kind of things that would actually have to happen to have a real impact, and you and I both know, you aren’t up for it.


#2782

How could you possibly know, when you don’t know what I have done?

You arrive at goofy conclusions faster than a Trumpite.


#2783

Well that’s amusing, considering you prior assumption that you have done more than I have.


#2784

Still waiting for the names or locations of these observatories, temples or pyramids that are 75,000 and accurately describe Earth’s orbit.

Thanks.


#2785

I wonder if someone was watching Indiana Jones and had a little too much to drink…


#2786

One of these days, I’m sure @Wildrose will be able to back up his claims.

Someday.


#2787

I just did a quick run through of this topic since I first looked at it and I must say, I haven’t seen so much volleying back and forth since I was taking advanced physics. All I can say is that the Earths climate is ALWAYS in a state of change. Whether it is caused by super volcanos, asteroid impacts ,dinosaur farts or humans burning coal, it is still going to happen. The volcanos and impacts just make it happen a lot faster and will cause much more immediate death. I am more concerned about the decline in the rainforests, especially in the Amazon, because that is where much of our free oxygen is produced. There is a reason why the scientists refer to it as the " lungs of the world".


#2788

Actually the vast majority of oxygen produced on the planet comes from phytoplankton. Maybe 80% or so.


#2789

I will let the experts argue over which source is more important. I just know we need both of them. And just think about how that huge raft of trash and garbage, mostly from China, Southeast Asia, etc, in the Pacific ocean area is helping out the phytoplankton.


#2790

I missed this post since it was never a reply to me. No link here.

The only person who think’s “Adam’s calendar” is 75,000 years old is one guy, a South African pharmacist, who provides no evidence of his claim.

Actually he decided it measured the rise of Orion’s Belt first then back calculated to when Orion’s Belt actually aligned with some of the stones.

This is the kind of junk science that should be ignored.

The next calculation was presented by a ’ master archaeoastronomer ’ ( Bill Hollenbach? (8)) who unsurprisingly, wishes to remain anonymous for ‘fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity’. The calculation was apparently based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years. (2)