Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

Antarctica portion rotated to align with modern map below.

Actual locations of Antarctic mountains.

Notice that the ancient map shows moutains everywhere they were found except under the central ice cap and on the penensula, which for some reason was missing from the ancient map. Notice also that modern research has actually found mountains under the ice in most of the places the ancient map shows them.

It doesn't align at all! Is this the best you can do?
Even a schoolkid should be able to point out that, just like in Seaseme Street, "Two of these things are doing their own thing, Two of these things are NOT the same!"

Just LOOK at the 2 maps (turned the 'right way').



They:-

• *ignored* Antarctica's massive peninsula to the top left,
• and *added* a mountain range ringing the right and right base of Antarctica where there is none.

Other than the fact that they guessed the 'Great Southern Land' would roughly hug the bottom of the planet, and be 'around' there somewhere, it's completely different. It's guesswork.

"The unknown great Southern land mass was referred to as 'Terra Australis Incognita'. This imaginary land appeared on European maps from the 15th to the 18th centuries. The concept was first introduced in ancient times by the Greek cartographer Ptolemy and since Renaissance cartographers adopted Ptolemy's work as their main source of information, during this period the Great Southern Landmass appeared on maps. 106"
Captain James Cook and his Voyages

In other words, the reason they didn't draw Antarctica covered in ice is because THEY DIDN'T GO THERE!

We know from science that the ice there is old, really old.

I put to you that the bay which 'apparently' shows the Ross Sea without ice is actually just their decoration, and that had they actually visited Antarctica they would have drawn it covered! In other words, drawn Antarctica as actually having a large Peninsula at the top left, and NOT having a bay on the bottom!

 

[Biblewriter]

It doesn't align at all! Is this the best you can do?
Even a schoolkid should be able to point out that, just like in Seaseme Street, "Two of these things are doing their own thing, Two of these things are NOT the same!"

Just LOOK at the 2 maps (turned the 'right way').



They:-

• *ignored* Antarctica's massive peninsula to the top left,
• and *added* a mountain range ringing the right and right base of Antarctica where there is none.

Other than the fact that they guessed the 'Great Southern Land' would roughly hug the bottom of the planet, and be 'around' there somewhere, it's completely different. It's guesswork.

"The unknown great Southern land mass was referred to as 'Terra Australis Incognita'. This imaginary land appeared on European maps from the 15th to the 18th centuries. The concept was first introduced in ancient times by the Greek cartographer Ptolemy and since Renaissance cartographers adopted Ptolemy's work as their main source of information, during this period the Great Southern Landmass appeared on maps. 106"
Captain James Cook and his Voyages

In other words, the reason they didn't draw Antarctica covered in ice is because THEY DIDN'T GO THERE!

We know from science that the ice there is old, really old.

I put to you that the bay which 'apparently' shows the Ross Sea without ice is actually just their decoration, and that had they actually visited Antarctica they would have drawn it covered! In other words, drawn Antarctica as actually having a large Peninsula at the top left, and NOT having a bay on the bottom!

You are truly grasping at straws. The map indeed does not show the peninsula, for what reason I have no explanation, but you are quite mistaken about the mountain ranges. The map of Antarctica without ice indeed shows mountain ranges everywhere the ancient map does.

You are forgetting that the ancient map includes zero information about how high the noted mountains are. Some of them are shown in red surrounded by yellow. These are indeed high mountains. But the ones you denied are there are shown in yellow surrounded by blue. These are also mountains, just not as high as the others.

But the most ridiculous part of your argument is that you imagine that the remarkable accuracy of this map could have even possibly have come about through "guesswork." Guesswork would have shown a landmass that did not even approximately resemble the actual shape of the landmass.

In addition to accurately showing the bays without ice, it also shows rivers at the actual locations of passes in the mountains shown on the modern map.

It is utter nonsense, suitable only for someone who would drink the global warming kool-aid, to imagine that such an accurate map could have come about through "guesswork."

And by the way, the fact that the map proves that there was no ice around the edges of Antarctica when the original was drawn does not in any way contradict ice cores taken further inland.

I already noted that ocean floor cores clearly show alternate layers of riverflow type silt deposits and galacial type gravel deposits. These cores clearly show alternate warm and cold periods off the shores of Antarctica.You just need to study a little more science.

 

[eclipsenow]

You are truly grasping at straws. The map indeed does not show the peninsula, for what reason I have no explanation, but you are quite mistaken about the mountain ranges. The map of Antarctica without ice indeed shows mountain ranges everywhere the ancient map does.

Yeah, like the modern Antarctic mountain range all the way around the right-hand side of Antarctica, exactly as the ancient map!

 

[eclipsenow]

It is utter nonsense, suitable only for someone who would drink the global warming kool-aid, to imagine that such an accurate map could have come about through "guesswork."

1. Ancients draw a roughly round squiggle with a few mountains and a bay.
2. Modern creationists rotated the squiggle until the bays lined up, and then radically exaggerate the way the mountain ranges 'line up'. They don't.

Also, your excuse for the mountains was a bit sad. They DO try to indicate height by the size of the mountains they drew. Look at the original, 'uncorrected' map.

The mountains are all over the shop. The mountains near the 'Ross sea' bay are few and far between, and the mountains across the left (right in the modern image below) are far thicker, far higher, and in EXACTLY THE WRONG SPOT!

See the bottom right of the modern image here? Where are all the mountains? According to the ancient map, they should be all over the bottom right here. What's there in the real world? Nothing! The mountains on the hypothetical, guesswork ancient map are LARGER and more frequent in this location than they are next to the ancient map's Ross Sea.

If this is the state of modern creationism, I want nothing to do with it.

 

[eclipsenow]

Back on topic....

Calvin wrote:

"The earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation... The custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition that, being content with the frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence, but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits, that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits it to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let everyone regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved."
- John Calvin on Genesis 2.15 in "Commentary on Genesis" (1554).​

 

[Biblewriter]

[/i][/b]

1. Ancients draw a roughly round squiggle with a few mountains and a bay.
2. Modern creationists rotated the squiggle until the bays lined up, and then radically exaggerate the way the mountain ranges 'line up'. They don't.

Also, your excuse for the mountains was a bit sad. They DO try to indicate height by the size of the mountains they drew. Look at the original, 'uncorrected' map.

The mountains are all over the shop. The mountains near the 'Ross sea' bay are few and far between, and the mountains across the left (right in the modern image below) are far thicker, far higher, and in EXACTLY THE WRONG SPOT!

See the bottom right of the modern image here? Where are all the mountains? According to the ancient map, they should be all over the bottom right here. What's there in the real world? Nothing! The mountains on the hypothetical, guesswork ancient map are LARGER and more frequent in this location than they are next to the ancient map's Ross Sea.

If this is the state of modern creationism, I want nothing to do with it.

In the first place, this has nothing to do with creationism. This is an entirely different question, and as I already pointed out and you missed it, Hapgood, who brought this to public attention, was not even a creationist.

But, as I also already pointed out, the modern map indeed shows mountains in exactly the place where you say it does not. If you look at the color code on the map, the red peaks in a yellow area are about the same distance above the surrounding region as the yellow peaks in a blue area. So the mountains shown all around the modern map are all about the same height above the surrounding regions, which is exactly what the ancient map shows.

And this is not just a matter of rotating a squiggle until the bays line up. it is a matter of rotating a map drawn with one orientation into the orientation of a different map. You can mock, and call these "squiggles," but you simply cannot escape the fact that the ancient map contained no error greater than around a hundred miles. This is physically impossible to accomplish by "guesswork," As you irrationally call it.

You can mock, you can rail, you can deny. But you cannot escape the fact that this map is conclusive proof that there was a time since mankind learned how to draw accurate maps when the coastline of Antarctica was not covered by ice.

 

[eclipsenow]

In the first place, this has nothing to do with creationism. This is an entirely different question, and as I already pointed out and you missed it, Hapgood, who brought this to public attention, was not even a creationist.

But, as I also already pointed out, the modern map indeed shows mountains in exactly the place where you say it does not. If you look at the color code on the map, the red peaks in a yellow area are about the same distance above the surrounding region as the yellow peaks in a blue area. So the mountains shown all around the modern map are all about the same height above the surrounding regions, which is exactly what the ancient map shows.

Incorrect dude... read the legend! The red mountains are 2.5 KILOMETRES high. The green and yellow? Roughly ground level. That's no mountains, especially when one takes into account that the ice fozen around there cancels out any perceived 'depth' of the very light blue.

And this is not just a matter of rotating a squiggle until the bays line up. it is a matter of rotating a map drawn with one orientation into the orientation of a different map. You can mock, and call these "squiggles," but you simply cannot escape the fact that the ancient map contained no error greater than around a hundred miles. This is physically impossible to accomplish by "guesswork," As you irrationally call it.

And that orientation involves lining up a whole Peninsula that doesn't exist on the ancient map, hey?

You can mock, you can rail, you can deny. But you cannot escape the fact that this map is conclusive proof that there was a time since mankind learned how to draw accurate maps when the coastline of Antarctica was not covered by ice.

You're denying that the ice core samples we have can scientifically tell us how old the ice is, and you're denying the fact that history tells us this map was an ancient Greek invention to 'balance' the globe. You're doing both bad science and bad history. Professional cartographers point this out!

"
Antarctica

Amateur historian Gavin Menzies claims in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered America that the southern landmass is indeed the Antarctic coastline and was based on earlier Chinese maps. According to Menzies, Admiral Hong Bao charted the coast over 70 years before Columbus as part of a larger expedition under the famous Chinese explorer and admiral Zheng He to bring the world under China's tribute system.
Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous. For centuries before the actual discovery of Antarctica, cartographers had been depicting a massive southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption by some that one must exist, if only to balance the landmass of the North. It was widely believed that South America and, once its northern coastline was discovered, Australia, must be joined to this land mass, which was thought to be very much bigger than the real Antarctica. This theoretical southern continent, the Great Southern Land or Terra Australis Incognita (literally Unknown Southern Land), in various configurations, was usually shown on maps until the 18th century. An alternate view is that the "Antarctic" coast is simply the eastern coastline of South America skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longitude or to fit it on the page.[36]
Hapgood suggests that the Antarctic section of the map was copied at an incorrect scale to the rest of the map and resulted in the distortion and enlargement of the continent on several ancient maps. This would explain why there is no waterway between South America and Antarctica. He suggests several points of continuity between the Piri Reis Map and modern maps of the continent below the ice sheets. Since the Antarctic continent was not officially sighted until 1820[37][38] and its full coastline was not known until much later; this claim, if true, would require major revisions to the history of exploration, settlement, evolution, and technological advancements of the time.[39]"
Piri Reis map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Biblewriter]

Incorrect dude... read the legend! The red mountains are 2.5 KILOMETRES high. The green and yellow? Roughly ground level. That's no mountains, especially when one takes into account that the ice fozen around there cancels out any perceived 'depth' of the very light blue.

If you had taken the trouble to actually read the legend, you would have seen that the distance from the blue to the yellow was about the same as the distance from the yellow to the red. That clearly shows, to anyone who knows how to read maps, that the height difference between the bue and the yellow is about the same as the height difference between the yellow and the red.

And that orientation involves lining up a whole Peninsula that doesn't exist on the ancient map, hey?

I actually suspect that the reason the ap shows no peninsula is because there was no peninsula there when the original of this map was drawn. But that is of no matter, Everything except the missing peninsula lines up surprisingly well, in spite of all your scoffing.

You're denying that the ice core samples we have can scientifically tell us how old the ice is,

O said no such thing, indeed, if you go back and read, you will see that I said the very opposite. But aside from that, as a real scientist, instead of a fan of "scientists," I personally know that every dating system in use, other than tree ring dating and the dating of igneous rocks, is based on at least one rank assumption.

and you're denying the fact that history tells us this map was an ancient Greek invention to 'balance' the globe.

"History" said no such thing about this particular map. Your amature historical sources say that some such maps were based on an ancient Greek "invention." But it is physically impossible for such an "invention" to result in such an accurate map. This is the one undeniable fact that you simply refuse to admit.

You're doing both bad science and bad history. Professional cartographers point this out!

"
Antarctica

Amateur historian Gavin Menzies claims in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered America that the southern landmass is indeed the Antarctic coastline and was based on earlier Chinese maps. According to Menzies, Admiral Hong Bao charted the coast over 70 years before Columbus as part of a larger expedition under the famous Chinese explorer and admiral Zheng He to bring the world under China's tribute system.
Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous. For centuries before the actual discovery of Antarctica, cartographers had been depicting a massive southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption by some that one must exist, if only to balance the landmass of the North. It was widely believed that South America and, once its northern coastline was discovered, Australia, must be joined to this land mass, which was thought to be very much bigger than the real Antarctica. This theoretical southern continent, the Great Southern Land or Terra Australis Incognita (literally Unknown Southern Land), in various configurations, was usually shown on maps until the 18th century. An alternate view is that the "Antarctic" coast is simply the eastern coastline of South America skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longitude or to fit it on the page.[36]
Hapgood suggests that the Antarctic section of the map was copied at an incorrect scale to the rest of the map and resulted in the distortion and enlargement of the continent on several ancient maps. This would explain why there is no waterway between South America and Antarctica. He suggests several points of continuity between the Piri Reis Map and modern maps of the continent below the ice sheets. Since the Antarctic continent was not officially sighted until 1820[37][38] and its full coastline was not known until much later; this claim, if true, would require major revisions to the history of exploration, settlement, evolution, and technological advancements of the time.[39]"
Piri Reis map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are arguing about a completely different map. I knew about the Piri Reis Map, and did not cite it because I am not confident it actually shows Antarctica. So instead I cited two that unquestionably sow it, and show it accurately.

I also have Chinese maps of the Americas, and they are grossly inaccurate, so much so that they could not even possibly have been thesource of either the Hadji Ahmed map or the Orenteus Finaeus Map. And if their source had been the Chinese expedition referenced, it would not have shown Antarctica's cosatland without ice.

But this is not your real error. You are quoting admitted suppositions as if they were actual facts. (Just read the article carefully and you will see that the opinions cited were admitted to be suppositions.)

 

[eclipsenow]

If you had taken the trouble to actually read the legend, you would have seen that the distance from the blue to the yellow was about the same as the distance from the yellow to the red.

Except that where it's red, there's also the distance from the blue to the RED to consider, isn't there? Remember that one 'story' about this hypothetical early discovery of Antarctica is that they went around by boat... and so the distance from the sea remains the same! So stop trying to cloud the issue about the distance from the YELLOW, as that's just dishonest of you!

That clearly shows, to anyone who knows how to read maps, that the height difference between the bue and the yellow is about the same as the height difference between the yellow and the red.

Yeah, it's all so obvious that professional cartographers agree with you! ( Not!)

I actually suspect that the reason the ap shows no peninsula is because there was no peninsula there when the original of this map was drawn. But that is of no matter,

No matter to a creationist who habitually spits on anything 'sciencey' that smacks of an old earth, like climate science does. Funny that!

Everything except the missing peninsula lines up surprisingly well, in spite of all your scoffing.

It's not my scoffing that matters, but that of professional cartographers, of which you are NOT and I have been!

O said no such thing, indeed, if you go back and read, you will see that I said the very opposite. But aside from that, as a real scientist, instead of a fan of "scientists," I personally know that every dating system in use, other than tree ring dating and the dating of igneous rocks, is based on at least one rank assumption.

How like a creationist.

"History" said no such thing about this particular map. Your amature historical sources say that some such maps were based on an ancient Greek "invention." But it is physically impossible for such an "invention" to result in such an accurate map. This is the one undeniable fact that you simply refuse to admit.

1. It's not accurate as the mountains are WAY off.
2. So it's not physically impossible and
3. It was a guess. History shows so.

You are arguing about a completely different map. I knew about the Piri Reis Map, and did not cite it because I am not confident it actually shows Antarctica. So instead I cited two that unquestionably sow it, and show it accurately.

Sorry, but the maps you did cite were based on this one.

 

[Biblewriter]

Except that where it's red, there's also the distance from the blue to the RED to consider, isn't there? Remember that one 'story' about this hypothetical early discovery of Antarctica is that they went around by boat... and so the distance from the sea remains the same! So stop trying to cloud the issue about the distance from the YELLOW, as that's just dishonest of you!

A person who does not have modern instruments cannot determine the actual height of a mountain peak above sea level. He can only judge the height of a peak relative to the surrounding area. I have demonstrated that the modern map shows that a yellow peak surrounded by blue is about as high above the surrounding area as a red peak surrounded by yellow.

Yeah, it's all so obvious that professional cartographers agree with you! ( Not!)


No matter to a creationist who habitually spits on anything 'sciencey' that smacks of an old earth, like climate science does. Funny that!


It's not my scoffing that matters, but that of professional cartographers, of which you are NOT and I have been!

If that were even partially true, you would never have made the ridiculous arguments you have made about these maps. You have demonstrated that you do not even understand projections, which are the first beginning of cartographic science. You may have worked in an office that draws maps. But you unquestionably were never "a professional cartographer." I, on the other hand, have personally constructed numerous maps for publication. These maps covered areas ranging from several hundred miles to many thousand miles. These would have been physical impossible to draw without an intimate knowledge of cartographic science.

How like a creationist.


1. It's not accurate as the mountains are WAY off.
2. So it's not physically impossible and
3. It was a guess. History shows so.


Sorry, but the maps you did cite were based on this one.

It is unbelievably irrational to claim that a map of the entire coast of Antarctica could be based on a map that might show a small portion of that coast. Even as it is highly irrational to argue that a reasonably accurate map of any portion of the earth could have been drawn based on"guesswork."

I am through here, as I have proved my case to any rational lurker, and nothing will even change your prejudiced mind.

For your mind is made up, and you do not want to be confused by facts.

 

[eclipsenow]

A person who does not have modern instruments cannot determine the actual height of a mountain peak above sea level. He can only judge the height of a peak relative to the surrounding area. I have demonstrated that the modern map shows that a yellow peak surrounded by blue is about as high above the surrounding area as a red peak surrounded by yellow.

Fail! A person from a boat can tell the difference between moutains that are 2km high and a landmass that is just above seawater.

It is unbelievably irrational to claim that a map of the entire coast of Antarctica could be based on a map that might show a small portion of that coast. Even as it is highly irrational to argue that a reasonably accurate map of any portion of the earth could have been drawn based on"guesswork."

It is unbelievably irrational to claim you are CERTAIN of an early human contact with an ICE FREE Antarctica that undermines modern ice core science showing the ice sheets to be extremely old, based on evidence that is so speculative and flimsy. It's unbelievably dishonest to pretend 4km high mountains look the same as land (the green edge across the base of this map!) Remember, the darker the green, the closer to ZERO HEIGHT or sea-level these precious 'mountains' of yours are!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

And it's self-deception to pretend that all of this somehow disproves modern climate science and demonstrable atmospheric physics and the photographable evidence of reducing glaciers, shrinking Arctic ice-sheets, and changing seasons. I was done here about 10 posts ago when you first asserted this absurd business, but you stubbornly insisted on this madness.

 

[Zanting]

How long is this scam going to continue???

Scalise: 'We're Setting Up A Global Warming Gestapo!' (Full) - YouTube and this is old news!

Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming - YouTube and so is this!

Here is Global Warming and how it fits in with end times...

Climate Change - An Anti-Human Movement Based on Lies and False Science - YouTube like it or not!

One sided casual reading without looking at all the counter evidence does not a balanced argument make...there is indeed much evidence that Co2 is only a small, very minor contributor to global warming.





Just saying

 

[Quantum Paradise]

One sided casual reading without looking at all the counter evidence does not a balanced argument make...there is indeed much evidence that Co2 is only a small, very minor contributor to global warming.

Just saying

Yet look how adamant they are about introducing carbon taxes. Last time I checked, global warming is more about political activism and lobby groups than it is about actual environmental sciences...

And yet if these same elitist lunatics pushing the global warming propaganda get what they want, the common citizen will have just that: taxation just for living and breathing, being justified by straight-up lies.

Not to mention these Agenda 21 type initiatives threatening to permanently remove any semblance of private ownership, which will result in us being told where we are to live and what we are allowed to have.

Feudalism FTL

 

[eclipsenow]

Yet look how adamant they are about introducing carbon taxes. Last time I checked, global warming is more about political activism and lobby groups than it is about actual environmental sciences...

And yet if these same elitist lunatics pushing the global warming propaganda get what they want, the common citizen will have just that: taxation just for living and breathing, being justified by straight-up lies.

Not to mention these Agenda 21 type initiatives threatening to permanently remove any semblance of private ownership, which will result in us being told where we are to live and what we are allowed to have.

Feudalism FTL

And what do you do about the demonstrable physics of the Radiative Forcing of CO2?

 

[Biblewriter]

And what do you do about the demonstrable physics of the Radiative Forcing of CO2?

We demonstrate how small the overall effect is.

The truth is that increased CO2 on the environment is beneficial, not detrimental.

 

[eclipsenow]

In case anyone is still wondering about the old maps of the 'Great Southern Land' here is proof that Biblewriter's 'Antarctica map' is just a sprawling act of the imagination, then set your eyes on this huge, bloated, sprawling super-continent to the south!
This is Orontius Finnaeus's great work, and the LEGEND even says it includes reference to the recently discovered archipelago of Tierra del Fuego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

On the same map, Fine drew Terra Australis to the south, including the legend "recently discovered but not yet completely explored," by which Finé meant the discovery of Tierra del Fuego by Ferdinand Magellan.[7]
Fine's cosmography was derived from the German mathematician and cosmographer, Johann Schoener.[8] In his study of Schöner's globes, Franz von Wieser, found that the derivation of Fine's mappemonde from them was "unmistakeable (unverkennbar)"; he said, "Orontius Finaeus took from Schöner not only the "Brasilie Regio", but the whole Austral Continent, the Strait of Magellan, and above all the whole arrangement of lands;

Oronce Finé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One has to do all kinds of magic and distortion to reduce the bloated size of this hypothetical Great Southern Land, and IGNORE THE CARTOGRAPHER'S STATED SOURCES OF INSPIRATION FOR HIS CREATION!!!

 

[Zanting]

And what do you do about the demonstrable physics of the Radiative Forcing of CO2?

The same thing you do with demonstrable physics of counter evidence

Besides...this isn't just about science...it's about money and much more.

But then maybe you should have played connect the dots more when you had the chance...then maybe it would start to make sense to you...then again...you poo-poo counter scientific evidence, plus political, social and economical factors...but hey preach on...someone out there is bound to agree with you.

 

[Zanting]

Yet look how adamant they are about introducing carbon taxes. Last time I checked, global warming is more about political activism and lobby groups than it is about actual environmental sciences...

It's more money for them...less for the common folk...

And yet if these same elitist lunatics pushing the global warming propaganda get what they want, the common citizen will have just that: taxation just for living and breathing, being justified by straight-up lies.

The lies...yup...most taxes are based on lies...

Not to mention these Agenda 21 type initiatives threatening to permanently remove any semblance of private ownership, which will result in us being told where we are to live and what we are allowed to have.

etc., etc., etc.,

Feudalism FTL

Well, at least some are getting it...that's better than none.

 

[eclipsenow]

The same thing you do with demonstrable physics of counter evidence

And what evidence would that be? CO2 traps heat. We've known this since the 1820s.

 

[Zanting]

And what evidence would that be? CO2 traps heat. We've known this since the 1820s.

Search for yourself...it's there...lots of it...including your fondness of scientific proof. In fact...only you can do it. Maybe you'll learn something.