Re: St. Severinus Day : November 19
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:56 pm
Super Hurricanes would leave all sorts of other effects.
Probably not. But shores remodel themselves very quickly over geological time spans.geckzilla wrote:One wonders if the shore itself would survive such pulverization capable of hurling 1000 ton boulders.
geckzilla wrote:
One wonders if the shore itself would survive such pulverization capable of hurling 1000 ton boulders.
geckzilla wrote:
The boat floats even though it's heavy and big, though. Sloshing, hurling, whatever you want to call it—the force required to move the boulder should destroy whatever is underneath it, especially if what is underneath it is already eroding. I don't see that boat on top of a cliff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat wrote:
<<In naval terms, a boat is a vessel small enough to be carried aboard another vessel (a ship). Another less restrictive definition is a vessel that can be lifted out of the water. For reasons of naval tradition, submarines are usually referred to as 'boats' rather than 'ships', regardless of their size and shape.>>
Actually James Hansen's hypothesis alludes more to hurling and less to sloshingneufer wrote:Click to play embedded YouTube video.geckzilla wrote:
One wonders if the shore itself would survive such pulverization capable of hurling 1000 ton boulders.No one said anything about hurling.
- Good Reef
Surely the boulders would only have been "sloshed."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic- ... story.htmlELEUTHERA, Bahamas — Standing atop a 60-foot cliff overlooking the Atlantic, James Hansen — the retired NASA scientist sometimes dubbed the “father of global warming” — examines two small rocks through a magnifying glass. Towering above him is the source of one of the shards: a huge boulder from a pair locals call “the Cow and the Bull,” the largest of which is estimated to weigh more than 1,000 tons.
The two giants have long been tourist attractions along this rocky coast. Perched not far from the edge of a steep cliff that plunges down into blue water, they raise an obvious question: How did they get up here?
Compounding the mystery, these two are among a series of giant boulders arranged in an almost perfect line across a narrow part of this 110-mile-long, wishbone-shaped island.
[The world’s most famous climate scientist’s alarming scenario]
Hansen and Paul Hearty — a wiry, hammer-slinging geologist from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington who has joined him here as a guide — have a theory about these rocks. It’s so provocative — and, frankly, terrifying — that some critics wonder whether the man who helped spawn the whole debate about the dangers of climate change has finally gone too far.
The idea is that Earth’s climate went through a warming period just over 100,000 years ago that was similar in many ways to the warming now attributed to the actions of man. And the changes during that period were so catastrophic, they spawned massively powerful superstorms, causing violent ocean waves that simply lifted the boulders from below and deposited them atop this cliff
I was shocked to read about [the world’s most famous climate scientist] James Hansen's crazy hypothesis on the front page of the Washington Post the other day.BMAONE23 wrote:
Actually James Hansen's hypothesis alludes more to hurling and less to sloshing
BMAONE23 wrote:
He seems to have redirected his energies away from legitimate Climate Science
and into the realm of possible ecological extremism
We've had snow on and off the last few days. And temperatures in the single digits today (but sunny). Not like the east coast.orin stepanek wrote:Tonight is Christmas Eve! It is snowing so we will have a White Christmas! :cry: I don't like snow! I say "let it snow; let it snow; let it snow somewhere else please! :mrgreen:
At least it's not nitrogen or carbon monoxide snow.orin stepanek wrote:
Tonight is Christmas Eve! It is snowing so we will have a White Christmas! I don't like snow! I say "let it snow; let it snow; let it snow somewhere else please!
It can get cold enough for radon to precipitate out of the atmosphere as a liquid or even as snow. That seems like it would be a bad thing. Luckily, it only gets that cold in the Antarctic, and there's damn little radon in the atmosphere to begin with.neufer wrote:At least it's not nitrogen or carbon monoxide snow.orin stepanek wrote:Tonight is Christmas Eve! It is snowing so we will have a White Christmas! :cry: I don't like snow! I say "let it snow; let it snow; let it snow somewhere else please! :mrgreen:
Chris Peterson wrote:It can get cold enough for radon to precipitate out of the atmosphere as a liquid or even as snow. That seems like it would be a bad thing. Luckily, it only gets that cold in the Antarctic, and there's damn little radon in the atmosphere to begin with.neufer wrote:At least it's not nitrogen or carbon monoxide snow.orin stepanek wrote:
Tonight is Christmas Eve! It is snowing so we will have a White Christmas! I don't like snow! I say "let it snow; let it snow; let it snow somewhere else please!
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/P-T/Radon.html wrote:
<<Radon is a colorless, odorless gas with a boiling point of -61.8°C. Its density is 9.72 grams per liter, making it about seven times as dense as air. It is the densest gas known. Radon dissolves in water and becomes a clear, colorless liquid below its boiling point. At even lower temperature, liquid radon freezes. As a solid, its color changes from yellow to orangish-red as the temperature is lowered even further. It is a dramatic sight since it also glows because of the intense radiation being produced.>>
Well, if I ever get the urge to eat orangish-red snow... glowing orangish-red snow, just think of it as an example of evolution in action.neufer wrote:Nevertheless... it is a good idea to avoid eating the yellow to orangish-red snow when in Antarctica: