Climate Change Is Extremely Political And Agenda Serving, Unfortunately It Is Also True

[David1701]

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Pangea might not be a complete explanation, but look at the edges of many of these land masses. They fit like puzzle pieces. 

At one point It would appear much of this land was joined. We have a resident geologist here and I would take his word on this.

Test all things...

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, Sparks said:

It does not even remotely fit.  I posted about this in another thread.  Click the link next to my avatar to see the real size of Africa.

@Starise I am breaking my rule to myself by quoting Sparks, but this linked post needing addressing because I'm not sure what he's attempting to demonstrate.

Africa on many world maps may appear shrunken with respect to northern and southern latitudes because of the projection the map is created in. Many world maps you might see are Mercator projection which fit nicely in a rectangle, but because it creates equal longitudinal distances from pole-to-pole, the land in those areas has to be stretched, while in the topical latitudes are more accurately reflected because there is less distortion. Mercator projection is best used on a smaller scale, the most common being Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) you would see in most maps less than 1:100,000 scale. Once you get to a larger scale, you would switch the various other projections or just latitude-longitude.

On no globe is Africa shrunken down. On a globe, land position and sizes can be accurately reflected (other than the earth is not exactly spheroidal. To make the claim that Africa is shrunken down because it makes it fit with Plate Tectonic theory and Pangaea is completely laughable and I am amazed such a claim was made. This is a matter of cartography, not geology.

I'm not sure what the second image of Africa is about other than demonstrating it's size using a variety of countries as a reference to its size but does nothing to negate the idea of Pangaea. One has to look at the continental cores or cratons, plus the multiple other strands of corroborating evidence, some of which I discussed in that thread, linked below.

 

[Starise]

4 minutes ago, teddyv said:

@Starise I am breaking my rule to myself by quoting Sparks, but this linked post needing addressing because I'm not sure what he's attempting to demonstrate.

Africa on many world maps may appear shrunken with respect to northern and southern latitudes because of the projection the map is created in. Many world maps you might see are Mercator projection which fit nicely in a rectangle, but because it creates equal longitudinal distances from pole-to-pole, the land in those areas has to be stretched, while in the topical latitudes are more accurately reflected because there is less distortion. Mercator projection is best used on a smaller scale, the most common being Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) you would see in most maps less than 1:100,000 scale. Once you get to a larger scale, you would switch the various other projections or just latitude-longitude.

On no globe is Africa shrunken down. On a globe, land position and sizes can be accurately reflected (other than the earth is not exactly spheroidal. To make the claim that Africa is shrunken down because it makes it fit with Plate Tectonic theory and Pangaea is completely laughable and I am amazed such a claim was made. This is a matter of cartography, not geology.

I'm not sure what the second image of Africa is about other than demonstrating it's size using a variety of countries as a reference to its size but does nothing to negate the idea of Pangaea. One has to look at the continental cores or cratons, plus the multiple other strands of corroborating evidence, some of which I discussed in that thread, linked below.

 

I will admit this is not my area of expertise and so I won't claim to know all about it.

My limited exposure to cartographic methods means I probably lean more on the words of scientists who are believers like yourself. Not that others can't have objective valuable opinions about the unknowns.

This would seem like one of those basic things that is apparent where everyone sees very similar who knows anything about it at all. The biggest hurdle is probably that no one was here when a lot of it probably happened other than God Himself, so there is a lot of room to argue over those details.

Back before I had even heard the word Pangea I looked at the maps of the world and said to myself, " Hey, they look as if they were together at one time".

I can't say what transpired to cause it or how long it took. Only that it sure seems to have happened.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

On no globe is Africa shrunken down. On a globe, land position and sizes can be accurately reflected (other than the earth is not exactly spheroidal. To make the claim that Africa is shrunken down because it makes it fit with Plate Tectonic theory and Pangaea is completely laughable and I am amazed such a claim was made. This is a matter of cartography, not geology.

So, you have seen every globe on Earth, and you have made the determination that not one has a smaller Africa? 

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/21/2022 at 8:57 AM, The Barbarian said:

I've heard that said before.   Always without checkable data.   What do you have?

 

You read that correct. The United States has 10% of the global forests, and it has more trees than it did 100 years ago. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that forest growth in the country has surpassed harvest since the 1930s. By 1998, tree growth exceeded harvest by 43% and the forest cover was 380% more than it had been in the 1920s.https://8billiontrees.com/trees/how-many-trees-are-in-the-united-states/

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/15/2022 at 9:54 AM, JimmyB said:

Single-source propaganda that conflicts with the overwhelming scientific information doesn't mean a thing.

"scientific" data that is skewed by funding directing at attaining a desired result can hardly be called science.  Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

[RV_Wizard]

On 10/28/2022 at 1:55 PM, Starise said:

Nature can rebuild itself to a large extent, however in using deforestation as one example, a shortage of trees has a huge impact on climate. Contrary to the opinion that trees can all grow back relatively quickly. This is true of small landscape trees, but not true of the super tall trees in the rain forests of the world that took hundreds of years to grow.

Old trees are very inefficient at scrubbing C02 and releasing oxygen.  Better to clear cut them and plant new, rapidly growing trees that will do a far better job at it.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

You read that correct. The United States has 10% of the global forests, and it has more trees than it did 100 years ago.

From your source:

While the forest cover has been stable for the past 100 years, there have been huge shifts in the composition and area coverage of the country’s forests.

Apparently they don't think so.

 

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Old trees are very inefficient at scrubbing C02 and releasing oxygen.  Better to clear cut them and plant new, rapidly growing trees that will do a far better job at it.

Actually it is the opposite, true older trees are a bit Less efficient with age but old trees are larger and have more cover to absorb CO2. 70% of the carbon the tree will scrub in its lifetime is done at the half age mark and beyond. Ironically about 70% of the earth's breathable oxygen comes from the ocean.

Edited October 31, 2022 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

16 hours ago, Starise said:

Pangea might not be a complete explanation, but look at the edges of many of these land masses. They fit like puzzle pieces. 

At one point It would appear much of this land was joined. We have a resident geologist here and I would take his word on this.

Land movement can be physically measured. the Atlantic Ocean is growing by around 5 centimeters a year and the pacific ocean is shrinking about the same rate. Continents collide and break apart its the norm but at a tortoise pace. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by BeyondET