sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 123,245
- 21,901
We know eventually the world will be uninhabitable. Do you prefer 5000 years from now or 5 million? Do you prefer by our doing or Mother Nature?
Who knows how the martians went out
you have absolutely no proof of any of that dim wit
Not true. I can't find it now but I read last week where scientists put in all the information into a computer and they know how long the world will last. If we end it ourselves it could be 5000 years from now but if we went green like Avatar it could be millions of years.
Who knows if the Martians prematurely killed themselves off or if it happened naturally.
I wonder if they warred with each other rather than build a ship they could live on until earth became habitable.
--LOL
what an idiot like any of the models have had any accuracy
--LOL
like i said before
you have absolutely no proof dim wit
--LOL
Ok pal, you argue with the scientists like you rwnj's always do.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have made their best estimate for how much longer the Earth will be habitable for human life, barring nuclear war, rogue asteroids, or being destroyed to make room for a hyperspace bypass. Fortunately, you don't need to put your affairs in order any time soon. The researchers estimate that the Earth will remain habitable for another 1.75 to 3.25 billion years.
Their research, which has been published in the journal Astrobiology, is part of the bigger project of looking for life outside of our own solar system. Over the past few years, astronomers have discovered a number of planets that exist within the habitable zones of their stars - meaning that their orbits place them not too far, but not too close, so that temperatures on the surface are just right for life to develop.
But with so many planets in potentially habitable zones, there has to be some priority in trying to determine which planets are most likely to contain life and are therefore more worth devoting additional resources to observing. That's where this research comes in.
Since life took hundreds of millions of years to evolve on Earth, the researchers reason that the best candidates for observation are those with the longest habitable zone lifetimes.
The researchers then studied 34 planets, including Earth, that are thought to exist within the habitable zones of their stars. They then used observations of their orbits and their stars' to arrive at estimates of each planets habitable zone lifetime. There is an astounding range of possibilities - ranging "from significantly less than that of Earth to over five times Earth's HZ lifetime," they wrote.
See, if it were up to you we wouldn't even do this research and we would never learn anything. Just like the Martians.
Scientists Estimate How Much Longer The Earth Can Support Life
so far all models have been proven wrong
why would this one be any different
making a model is not research
it is guess work at best
You've been making these bad arguments for a mighty long time
This discrepancy was a prime argument Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) used in his famed 2003 speech when he referred to the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has probably more Congressional testimony about global warming under his belt than any other scientist, headlines his website with the quote, "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty." Michael Crichton also used the tropospheric warming discrepancy to give climate models a bad rap in his State of Fear novel. (Remarkably, Crichton--a science fiction writer--was summoned by Sen. Inhofe in September of 2005 to testify before Congress on the issue of climate change.) However, the arguments of these global warming skeptics were dealt a major blow with the issuance this week of a press release by NOAA's Climate Change Science Program refuting their main argument.
Main argument against climate models proven incorrect | Weather Underground
The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error.
So now you guys aren't denying GW, now you say we are exxaggerating the results. Got it.