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

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Another accompanying theory is the idea that oxygen content was much higher in the air in early times with no winters, and this is why 2ft wingspan dragon flies have been found fossilized. Living things were in an ideal environment with no strikes against them, so they grew and grew.

Large insects would need a higher O2 environment because of the way they transfer oxygen.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

I don't disagree with the idea, I mean, it surely looks like these land masses were joined. Maybe not all on one piece of land standing in the ocean. I don't think geology supports a model like that, neither does the geology on the planets we are aware of.

There is certainly good evidence that they were all together.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Instead of millions of years for the land to drift, it could have been a much faster process if activity under the mantle was out of control. I believe I recently read the contents are indeed drifting now but ever so slowly ay only inches or less per year.

You can't really speed that up, at least in a naturalistic sense. There have been a couple YEC models, like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Hydroplate Theory, that present a rapid movement of the plates during and after the Flood. The latter may not be considered valid anymore.

Regardless, either scenario would require such an enormous amount of energy that the crust would likely melt.

Plate Tectonic theory is a remarkably elegant explanation of the the geomorphological character of the earth, both through history and today.

[Starise]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

There is certainly good evidence that they were all together.

Do we see examples of  planets with only one large land mass on the planet? I don't doubt they were all together, but it seems to me, coming from a limited view, that a better word might be 'intact' but not one lump of land. 

If I had to guess at how it all happened, it seems to me the earth was completely covered in water as the bible says. Then at some point due to an internal change, land masses that were highest in elevation on the ocean floor would have been the first to peak above the waves. At the same time a separation was happening. Best way to say it for me is the earth split apart from the inside out. So much material continued to be replaced between these land masses through volcanic and sub geologic activity that we began to get drifting and continents. In order for that much material to be disassembled and re solidified into solid ground there had to be a LOT of energy involved. Too much and the earth would explode literally into space or come apart into multiple pieces.

10 hours ago, teddyv said:

You can't really speed that up, at least in a naturalistic sense. There have been a couple YEC models, like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Hydroplate Theory, that present a rapid movement of the plates during and after the Flood. The latter may not be considered valid anymore.

Regardless, either scenario would require such an enormous amount of energy that the crust would likely melt.

Plate Tectonic theory is a remarkably elegant explanation of the the geomorphological character of the earth, both through history and today.

I guess the idea of speeding something up isn't really as important as doing it correctly. I am not attempting to make a case either for or against YEC. I will say that I believe the initial creation happened fairly fast as the bible says it did. Things could have continued to drift and change after that time.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Do we see examples of  planets with only one large land mass on the planet? I don't doubt they were all together, but it seems to me, coming from a limited view, that a better word might be 'intact' but not one lump of land. 

We can only resolve planets within our solar system of course. As I recall Venus has two "continental" type areas, but without oceans to define it, that may not be a proper analogy (at least without some looking into it).

1 hour ago, Starise said:

If I had to guess at how it all happened, it seems to me the earth was completely covered in water as the bible says. Then at some point due to an internal change, land masses that were highest in elevation on the ocean floor would have been the first to peak above the waves. At the same time a separation was happening. Best way to say it for me is the earth split apart from the inside out. So much material continued to be replaced between these land masses through volcanic and sub geologic activity that we began to get drifting and continents. In order for that much material to be disassembled and re solidified into solid ground there had to be a LOT of energy involved. Too much and the earth would explode literally into space or come apart into multiple pieces.

That would be one reading I suppose. The Bible is pretty silent on the mechanics.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I guess the idea of speeding something up isn't really as important as doing it correctly. I am not attempting to make a case either for or against YEC. I will say that I believe the initial creation happened fairly fast as the bible says it did. Things could have continued to drift and change after that time.

I was not really making a case for either (although I reject YEC), just bringing up some of the young earth hypotheses that attempt to explain plate tectonics. It's an undeniable reality that the plates are moving, so it must be accommodated into whatever interpretation is being presented.

Current plate velocities are on the order of a few cm per year, up to 10cm/yr for the Pacific Plate.  

[Space_Karen]

Alaska snow crab season canceled as officials investigate disappearance of an estimated 1 billion crabs

An estimated one billion crabs have mysteriously disappeared in two years, state officials said. It marks a 90% drop in their population.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alaska is the fastest warming state in the country, and is losing billions of tons of ice each year — critical for crabs that need cold water to survive. 

When asked what fishermen can do in this situation, with their livelihoods dependent on the ocean, Prout responded, "Hope and pray. I guess that's the best way to say it."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fishing-alaska-snow-crab-season-canceled-investigation-climate-change/

 

1 billion crabs in alaska have gone missing.

90% decline in population.

Crab fishing season for 2022 is canceled.

Could climate change be responsible?

Edited October 19, 2022 by Space_Karen

[Dennis1209]

12 hours ago, Space_Karen said:

Alaska snow crab season canceled as officials investigate disappearance of an estimated 1 billion crabs

An estimated one billion crabs have mysteriously disappeared in two years, state officials said. It marks a 90% drop in their population.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Alaska is the fastest warming state in the country, and is losing billions of tons of ice each year — critical for crabs that need cold water to survive. 

When asked what fishermen can do in this situation, with their livelihoods dependent on the ocean, Prout responded, "Hope and pray. I guess that's the best way to say it."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fishing-alaska-snow-crab-season-canceled-investigation-climate-change/

 

1 billion crabs in alaska have gone missing.

90% decline in population.

Crab fishing season for 2022 is canceled.

Could climate change be responsible?

Here is something interesting about climate change, how do we reconcile this?

Ancient Map Shows Antarctica Coastline Without Ice | History Daily

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Here is something interesting about climate change, how do we reconcile this?

Ancient Map Shows Antarctica Coastline Without Ice | History Daily

I'm not sure how they are making the claim that there is no ice along the coast. Also, this is a very early map and very few voyages would have reached this area.

[Space_Karen]

7 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Here is something interesting about climate change, how do we reconcile this?

Ancient Map Shows Antarctica Coastline Without Ice | History Daily

 

Initial kneejerk response:

The map isn't old enough to show what it claims.

[AnOrangeCat]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:45 PM, Dennis1209 said:

We all know we are to be good stewards of the Lord's creation and what He blesses us. However, and this is a biggie, I suspect we are close to the Tribulation based on scripture. The book of Revelation contains what I would call serious climate change, a real climate catastrophe of mega proportions. 

This is pretty much my stance on the matter as well. God gave man dominion over the planet and said to replenish the earth and subdue it. So sure, God has ultimate control, but scripturally speaking humanity has been given a measure of authority over it. The thing is that we have to live with the consequences of that, and those consequences have been foretold.

[Sparks]

On 10/18/2022 at 12:04 AM, teddyv said:

Large insects would need a higher O2 environment because of the way they transfer oxygen.

Insects were larger in the distant past, but that distant past didn't have to be trillions of years, it was simply before the flood.  There are several theories why there was more oxygen.   

[Hobie_]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:45 PM, Space_Karen said:

An attempt at proving climate change true in 3 parts.

1. Over the last 2,000 years humans have cut down more than 50% of natural forests on the planet to make way for highways, shopping malls, real estate development, factories and farmland. 

2. The hardness of a diamond comes from its carbon content. Likewise the hardness of wood and trees comes from carbon they absorb from the soil and atmosphere. A single acre of forest can store (sequester) tons of carbon over time. 

3. People having chopped down more than 50% of forests in the world. Should it have a negative effect on the planet's capacity to absorb and store carbon? What would we expect to happen to a human populated base on mars with a small forest of plants and trees to generate oxygen and scrub carbon from breathable air, if more than 50% of their plants and trees were lost? 

 

Even if climate change is real.

I'm not a fan of Greta Thunberg. Not a fan of protestors blocking roads and highways in protest of climate change. Not a fan of politicians and activists using climate change as an excuse to push agendas. 

That said.

Imagine the audacity of people thinking they're entitled to chop down more than half of the forests on their planet, without it having any consequences or negative effects whatsoever. 

Think how many trees the flood wiped out. It's all relative...