Most evidence of ice is for the last glaciation as it obliterated the evidence of previous glaciations.
Most of Britain was covered in ice although it stopped to the north of London. The evidence is found in the large areas of glacial till, (loose sediment with lots of different sizes and types of stones without any sorting into layers), striations on smooth outcrops of rock caused by ice grinding over it and erratics, (boulders from other parts of the country left isolated in areas where they would not normally be found). Also "U" shaped valleys carved by glaciers and ice-dammed lakes now only shown by former shorelines along valleys.
Ice cores help us see what the temperature used to be like milllions of years ago so using them now we can predict what the temperature will be like in the future.
They think that earth fills up on gases which block the sun's rays and lower the temp.
layers of glacial till deposited on top of each other.
Scientist have found what looks to be a place were there was once water so there is a big possibility.
It can provide evidence of the environment the area was in in the past. For example, if you found a fossil with tentacles, you could guarantee that it is a marine creature (as tentacles are useless on land). You can then go on to imply that the rock was also formed in a marine environment. An example is shale, which is formed in a tranquil marine environment. This gives evidence of the past environment and also climate. Coal is also a fossil. A coal seam is sure evidence of a warm climate and a deltaic/marshy landscape.
Because all of our knowledge of the past is based of of their evidence and damaging anything not only is equivalent to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, it is also a irretrievable loss of knowledge. Furthermore, carelessness may result in misinterpretation of the evidence and/or contamination of the evidence which is even worse than loss, as it may cause incorrect conclusions to be drawn.
True
They shouldn't.
Scientists can see th fossils and the living organisms.
Because there is no credible evidence to indicate they have.
true
the difference is that Primary evidence is took from that moment and secondary is a piece of evidence found from the past.
Most scientists that contributed to biology were of the past, and the only evidence of evolution is in the past. History is a completely different aspect, though, and has little to do with biology.
Because is gives evidence for the Scientists that want to know more about the past. :)
what are two ways scientists use evidence of past environments preserved in rock?
Australia has no glaciers currently, though it had some in past ages.
Scientists that learn about the past are called historians because they learn about history/past.
Scientists have worked together in many ways in the past.
We don't know that they do. Evidence of running water some time in the past has been found on the surface of Mars, but as yet no direct evidence of the past or present existence of micro-organisms.
Scientists can use fossils to learn about what happened about what Earth was like in the past. A fossil is any evidence A fossil is any evidence that life once existed in a place.