Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
    I've mentioned this before, that the earth's iron or magnetic core is causing the poles to switch sides. It's been documented as actually happening over the recent decade or so, in many scientific magazine articles. Something inside the earth is swishing around at the core and moving the polar fields ever so slightly back towards the equator, thus the poles are warming and the equator region .. well, we don't know if that will get colder yet or not. But just imagine the polar ends of the earth to drop down about 45 degrees in each hemisphere.. Oh my, how/what will the world react with if that happens?
    I hate to be the one to tell you but it looks like you didn't quite understand what they were talking about, because that up there makes little to no sense to me. However, I looked it up because we're all fans of flipping the polarity of the magnetic fields on occasion, in scifi at least:

    2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time
    Source: NASA

    Scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia. In other words, if you were alive about 800,000 years ago, and facing what we call north with a magnetic compass in your hand, the needle would point to 'south.' This is because a magnetic compass is calibrated based on Earth's poles. The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today's magnetic field were reversed.

    Therefore, the poles as we call them North Pole and South Pole will still be North Pole and South Pole except that due to a reversal of the polarity, the magnetic North will be South and the magnetic South will be North.

    The Earth as a slightly elliptical ball still very much up the way it's always been. It won't suddenly turn upside down.

    Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth's magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record.

    Thus has no effect on the climate or causes it to change.

    However...

    Climate Change Is Moving the North Pole
    Source: National Geographic Society

    As ice melts and aquifers are drained, Earth's distribution of mass is changing—and with it the position of the planet's spin axis.

    [...]

    Earth turns around an axis like a giant spinning top. The places where that invisible axis intersects with the planet's surface are the north and south rotational poles. Due to Earth's wobble on its axis, these spots drift in roughly decade-long cycles. (All this motion is a completely separate mechanism from the behavior of the planet's magnetic poles, which also reverse periodically over the course of millions of years.)

    [...]

    For at least a decade, scientists have suspected that the massive amounts of melting taking place in glaciers around the world could significantly redistribute mass on Earth. That's particularly true when it comes to the huge ice sheets over Greenland and in the West Antarctic.

    If ice disappears from one part of the spinning Earth and resettles elsewhere as water, the planet shifts on its axis toward the place where it lost mass.


    Basically, the magnetic poles do not impact climate or the change thereof, so you are wrong there.

    The melting of the icesheets does impact the pole-axis on which the Earth spins, which impacts climate models across the globe, and can give scientist a better look at the change happening.

    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
    I don't put dates on such things, because I wasn't around back in those years.. Accepting what someone else declares as truth *card blanch* or without question, just because the education system teaches it that way doesn't mean it contains the correct answers.
    I wasn't asking you, I was asking Annoyed, but since you answer:

    Ever hear of Carbon-14 dating? It's pretty nifty.
    Accuracy is iffy sure. I mean, it's impossible to put an exact age on stuff but I'm fairly certain the dates we do get are pretty accurate. The dating science has come a long way since the first days of its use.

    And I don't necessarily have to know dates. You could easily have said Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age. Or if you like it better 10.000 BC or 5000 BC. I'm fairly well known with those timeframes and who was running around where, doing what. I mean, we do have a lot of material at our disposal to form a pretty interesting image of the period.

    Even what our forefathers/mothers had for breakfast. Or better how they buried their dead.

    Just last week, learned about a new group of people living on Mallorca between 1500 BC and approximately 200 AD. They sped through the Bronze and Iron Age, thanks to their interactions with the Phoenicians and Punics. And then the Romans came and they disappeared.

    Sadly, they left no markings or writing.

    Anyhoodle... what I wanted to know was, how far do I encompass mankind since the earliest polution occured during the Stone Age -- I kid you not -- by burning fires inside caves.
    However, that was nothing compared to the industrial age, or the Romans hacking their way through every forest in Europe.

    I mean, Stonehenge is now situated, in the middle (sort of) of a large empty plane. There used to be forests there. Lots of trees -- all gone though. The Celts also helped obviously.

    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
    Exactly (see highlighted blue text). We didn't live back in prehistoric times, so we don't know exactly what happened.
    Prehistory -- usually the period when the first humans appear on the scene, a date which constantly changes the more discoveries are made. The more we learn.

    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
    I keep seeing POVs changing on what the dinosaurs looked like. Just because the T-Rex had giant teeth, was it like a shark on land, devouring food like a scavenger vulture, or did it kill its prey and then eat it like the grizzy bears and lion families..? I used to think of the T-Rex as a giant and ferocious crocodile, but with the short arms and long tail, it seems more like a reptiled kangeroo with chicken feet.
    Dinosaurs are not classified as prehistoric creatures. They fit in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods.
    Well, you know, palaeontologically speaking...

    Sidenote: Was my first choice, and then Archaeology. Equally fascinating.

    And much like in other fields, the more dinosaur skeletons we find, or stuck in something somewhere. The more we learn about them.

    They had feathers, which is sooooooo cool.
    Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

    Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

    Comment


      Then riddle me this, Batman.
      Why do their solutions always seem to involve transferring wealth? Carbon taxes, credits, and whatnot.
      Think about it. They're effectively saying that it's harmful for the US, its companies, or its citizens to burn things that emit carbon dioxide, but it's ok as long as those companies or citizens pay taxes or fees to some deserving authority, or pay some other company who doesn't need to burn so much for the right to burn what has been established as that company's allotment as well as their own?

      Does it matter to the environment whether the fuel is burned in the US or some other nation? How does paying carbon taxes to some deserving authority mitigate whatever damage may allegedly be done?

      I've said this before around here. You youngsters seem to have no capability whatsoever to look at something, assuming that they're not giving you the straight skinny and figuring it out with whatever else you can learn, from their behavior, what they don't say, or whatever else you can find out. You folks take things as they are told to you as gospel.

      Comment


        You aren't any different in your belief in the conspiracy theories that support your paranoia
        Originally posted by aretood2
        Jelgate is right

        Comment


          Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
          Why do their solutions always seem to involve transferring wealth? Carbon taxes, credits, and whatnot.
          For the record, a carbon tax is not a solution:

          Currently, the prices of electricity, gasoline and other fuels reflect little or none of the long-term costs from climate change or even the near-term health costs of burning fossil fuels. This immense “market failure” suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption.

          Taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every link in the chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation.

          A carbon tax won’t stop global climate disruption by itself — other, synergistic actions are required as well. But without a carbon tax, even the most aggressive regulatory regime (e.g., high-mileage cars) and “enlightened” subsidies (e.g., tax credits for efficiency and renewables) will fall woefully short of the necessary reductions in carbon burning and emissions.
          Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

          Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

          Comment


            Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
            For the record, a carbon tax is not a solution:

            Currently, the prices of electricity, gasoline and other fuels reflect little or none of the long-term costs from climate change or even the near-term health costs of burning fossil fuels. This immense “market failure” suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption.

            Taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every link in the chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation.

            A carbon tax won’t stop global climate disruption by itself — other, synergistic actions are required as well. But without a carbon tax, even the most aggressive regulatory regime (e.g., high-mileage cars) and “enlightened” subsidies (e.g., tax credits for efficiency and renewables) will fall woefully short of the necessary reductions in carbon burning and emissions.
            Then why do they want to impose one?

            Your entire post is just a bunch of gobbledygook which boils down to one thing. We want to tax fuels burned. Period. So someone gets that money. Transfer of wealth. Game over, you lose.
            Really? "Market failure"? It's not the market's place to determine what people use for fuel.
            Really, I hope you wiped your feet after stepping in wherever you got that from.

            If the proverbial "you" wants to change people's behavior, you have to offer them something that make your offering better than what they are already using. If you come up with a fuel which contains more energy per gallon than gasoline, it will become dominant on the market WITHOUT anyone forcing its use, unlike ethanol blended fuels which contain less energy.

            Oh, and that's a really good bit of thinking there. Ethanol contains about 33% less energy than straight gas. So, as I understand it, E85 fuels which contain as much as 15% ethanol contains about 5% less energy than straight gas, so you have to burn 5% more of it to do the same work. How does that reduce emissions?
            Follow the money again, and you'll see who really benefits from it. Corn farmers. And sure enough, their lobby is instrumental in pressing for its use.

            I'm not opposed to different choices IF they do the job better or provide other benefits. For example, I've recently had to purchase a chainsaw. Chainsaws have to lubricate their bar & chain with a constant flow of oil, which gets flung around the area you're working with. The OEM of the chainsaw offers and approves of vegetable oil based bar/chain lube. This oil still gets flung around, but it is biodegradable in about 3 weeks.

            This offers advantages to me. Easier cleanup, easier to clean clothing and it doesn't spray petroleum based oil all over the yard or work area, and it does the job of lubrication equally well. But it is more expensive.

            Guess which I use in that chainsaw, petrol or vegetable based?

            Comment


              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              For the record, a carbon tax is not a solution...
              We *know* that, but Al Gore apparently doesn't -- or maybe he does know and realized he could con the world into parting with more money by creating that financial disaster termed as "Carbon Tax". Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton were pro-pushing that particular TAX, because (it would put more money into their kitty pocket...)----?? In other words, they don't really care about the environment----they're just using the environment falling apart, as an excuse so they can gobble up whatever money (generic) you have to head into their direction.


              Grant it, the Bible DOES state in the book of revelation that a third of (each) the earth's land, waters, and creatures would die off as the result of some catastrophic event(s) that contributed to this tragic moment in time. It was believed to be caused by some nuclear/radioactive situation that would spread into the sea... and guess what? -- our marine life is dying in significant numbers already.

              So where are we currently on the biblical scale, IF the "end times" or end of this age is nearly upon our little earth..? 1/5 of the planet or have we already reached that dreaded, magic 1/3 number yet? Ten years ago, I would have believed that earth hasn't reached that point yet, but now-- with the Japan reactor failing and marine life dying off in increasingly significant numbers, washing ashore either dying or already dead.. I'm not so sure about that any more.

              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              ...However, I looked it up because we're all fans of flipping the polarity of the magnetic fields on occasion, in scifi at least:

              2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time
              Source: NASA

              Scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia. In other words, if you were alive about 800,000 years ago, and facing what we call north with a magnetic compass in your hand, the needle would point to 'south.' This is because a magnetic compass is calibrated based on Earth's poles. The N-S markings of a compass would be 180 degrees wrong if the polarity of today's magnetic field were reversed.

              Therefore, the poles as we call them North Pole and South Pole will still be North Pole and South Pole except that due to a reversal of the polarity, the magnetic North will be South and the magnetic South will be North.

              The Earth as a slightly elliptical ball still very much up the way it's always been. It won't suddenly turn upside down.
              I am aware of how that flipping works. I saw the wavy pattern of how the magnetic fields were flowing since records began to track it. It formed a sort of wavy pattern, and the projected trackline rarely dipped below the equator line. If it did, it moved back up to the pole it came from.

              So, actually, the poles don't really flip completely if the pattern remained true to the projected tracking pattern. It just *seems* to flip when the poles overlap and head into the other pole's general territory. That is how I basically visualize it.

              BTW, even if studying geographical core samples for magnetic reasons, how in the world would the scientists know that iron ore from Iceland ended up in Australia via volcanic or earthquake action? Are the minerals in our earth's soil that different from north to south or south to north?


              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              I wasn't asking you, I was asking Annoyed, but since you answer...
              Sorry.. But I often read these forum topics like the ancient Greek forum circles, where --depending on the subject matter-- everyone ends up participating in the discussions.


              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              Ever hear of Carbon-14 dating? It's pretty nifty.
              Accuracy is iffy sure.
              Exactly.. Carbon-14 is iffy and merely guess work, therefore it fails to be pass my accuracy level of testing from ancient millions and billions of years ago.

              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              I mean, it's impossible to put an exact age on stuff but I'm fairly certain the dates we do get are pretty accurate. The dating science has come a long way since the first days of its use.
              I never agreed to the scientific logic that was printed in our school books, ever. Just because I "yes'd" the exams according to the education system's standard of measurement, doesn't translate that I agreed with any of it.

              That is *why* I never pursued archeology or studies of ancient history. Too many opinionated variables that if a person didn't agree with, then your (generic) POV's weren't considered valuable enough for the world's scientific community. End of POV. End of that potential career move. So, it's rather pointless to pursue that general direction.

              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              Dinosaurs are not classified as prehistoric creatures. They fit in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods.
              . . .
              And much like in other fields, the more dinosaur skeletons we find, or stuck in something somewhere. The more we learn about them.

              They had feathers, which is sooooooo cool.
              Feathers are intriguing.. Tastes just like "chicken".. maybe because some of them actually *were* a giant version of the chicken/bird family...

              Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post
              Basically, the magnetic poles do not impact climate or the change thereof, so you are wrong there.

              The melting of the icesheets does impact the pole-axis on which the Earth spins, which impacts climate models across the globe, and can give scientist a better look at the change happening.
              Maybe I'm wrong there.. by scientific studies. So, what brilliant events caused global warming in Iceland and turned it GREEN for farming, several centuries ago? Was the earth enveloped in a greenhouse type of effect during the ages of the dinosaurs, or did the climates contain all 4 seasons in the extreme hot/cold zones, as we know of those regions now. If there was a SHIFT in climate temperatures on a global scale centuries ago, *what* exactly caused it?

              These are questions that seem to get pushed aside, when contrasted with current events and global temperatures that exist now. This is what buggers people who disagree with the whole
              "OMG--global warming, we're all gonna drown from the earth getting hotter..!!" frenzy.

              As far as a HOT earth.. here is the Biblical POV--
              THE Bible reveals a possible global warming (or massive heating up)... where?
              The following details will occur on a GLOBAL sized scale, apparently.

              In the "great and terrible Day of the Lord (God)" the earth WILL get hotter. The book of Joel describes the earth's fruit withering and drying up.. fires consume the grain fields, because the ground has dried up--even the streams of water will dry up due to the heat destroying the earth (See Joel 1-3).

              And... BINGO!!!! Surprise!!!
              ~~~~ NATIONS will be in great distress ~~~~!!!
              It is theorized that other Bible verses describes that "nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea" (Luke 21:25-26, NIV), and people's hearts will fail them from being in great distress, has more to do with an increase in population waves more than actual ocean water levels. HOWEVER, if the bible verses DO relate to global warming, then it is VERY *possible* that the oceans will rise from the earth becoming hotter and hotter; or, the roaring/tossing of the sea could relate to both.

              Solution? Certainly NOT a Carbon Tax. So, try again with a better suggestion, because if the Bible is TRUE in what it claims to have recorded as genuine historic events, this warming situation is going to happen and continue and there isNOT a soul on this planet who can stop it. (Only the promised "Messiah" will be able to stop it and resolve it.)
              Otherwise, believe whatever (generic) you want, and keep trying to stop the sun from drying up the lands and tossing of the sea(s)/waters.

              Sadly, TPTB in gov't positions can wreck havoc on the general populations with heavy taxes and other unbearable burdens weighing the rest of us living at that particular time, but biblically speaking----TPTB canNOT stop the *event(s)* that describes what Joel and Luke have listed that will (or have already) put earth's NATIONS into great distress, which has not occurred since the days of Noah, and will never happen again after...

              Comment


                Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                Then why do they want to impose one?

                Your entire post is just a bunch of gobbledygook which boils down to one thing. We want to tax fuels burned. Period. So someone gets that money. Transfer of wealth. Game over, you lose.
                Really? "Market failure"? It's not the market's place to determine what people use for fuel.
                Really, I hope you wiped your feet after stepping in wherever you got that from.

                If the proverbial "you" wants to change people's behavior, you have to offer them something that make your offering better than what they are already using. If you come up with a fuel which contains more energy per gallon than gasoline, it will become dominant on the market WITHOUT anyone forcing its use, unlike ethanol blended fuels which contain less energy.

                Oh, and that's a really good bit of thinking there. Ethanol contains about 33% less energy than straight gas. So, as I understand it, E85 fuels which contain as much as 15% ethanol contains about 5% less energy than straight gas, so you have to burn 5% more of it to do the same work. How does that reduce emissions?
                Follow the money again, and you'll see who really benefits from it. Corn farmers. And sure enough, their lobby is instrumental in pressing for its use.

                I'm not opposed to different choices IF they do the job better or provide other benefits. For example, I've recently had to purchase a chainsaw. Chainsaws have to lubricate their bar & chain with a constant flow of oil, which gets flung around the area you're working with. The OEM of the chainsaw offers and approves of vegetable oil based bar/chain lube. This oil still gets flung around, but it is biodegradable in about 3 weeks.

                This offers advantages to me. Easier cleanup, easier to clean clothing and it doesn't spray petroleum based oil all over the yard or work area, and it does the job of lubrication equally well. But it is more expensive.

                Guess which I use in that chainsaw, petrol or vegetable based?
                Funny, you don't seem to take this free market approach with other matters...
                By Nolamom
                sigpic


                Comment


                  Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                  We *know* that, but Al Gore apparently doesn't -- or maybe he does know and realized he could con the world into parting with more money by creating that financial disaster termed as "Carbon Tax". Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton were pro-pushing that particular TAX, because (it would put more money into their kitty pocket...)----?? In other words, they don't really care about the environment----they're just using the environment falling apart, as an excuse so they can gobble up whatever money (generic) you have to head into their direction.


                  Grant it, the Bible DOES state in the book of revelation that a third of (each) the earth's land, waters, and creatures would die off as the result of some catastrophic event(s) that contributed to this tragic moment in time. It was believed to be caused by some nuclear/radioactive situation that would spread into the sea... and guess what? -- our marine life is dying in significant numbers already.

                  So where are we currently on the biblical scale, IF the "end times" or end of this age is nearly upon our little earth..? 1/5 of the planet or have we already reached that dreaded, magic 1/3 number yet? Ten years ago, I would have believed that earth hasn't reached that point yet, but now-- with the Japan reactor failing and marine life dying off in increasingly significant numbers, washing ashore either dying or already dead.. I'm not so sure about that any more.



                  I am aware of how that flipping works. I saw the wavy pattern of how the magnetic fields were flowing since records began to track it. It formed a sort of wavy pattern, and the projected trackline rarely dipped below the equator line. If it did, it moved back up to the pole it came from.

                  So, actually, the poles don't really flip completely if the pattern remained true to the projected tracking pattern. It just *seems* to flip when the poles overlap and head into the other pole's general territory. That is how I basically visualize it.

                  BTW, even if studying geographical core samples for magnetic reasons, how in the world would the scientists know that iron ore from Iceland ended up in Australia via volcanic or earthquake action? Are the minerals in our earth's soil that different from north to south or south to north?




                  Sorry.. But I often read these forum topics like the ancient Greek forum circles, where --depending on the subject matter-- everyone ends up participating in the discussions.




                  Exactly.. Carbon-14 is iffy and merely guess work, therefore it fails to be pass my accuracy level of testing from ancient millions and billions of years ago.



                  I never agreed to the scientific logic that was printed in our school books, ever. Just because I "yes'd" the exams according to the education system's standard of measurement, doesn't translate that I agreed with any of it.

                  That is *why* I never pursued archeology or studies of ancient history. Too many opinionated variables that if a person didn't agree with, then your (generic) POV's weren't considered valuable enough for the world's scientific community. End of POV. End of that potential career move. So, it's rather pointless to pursue that general direction.



                  Feathers are intriguing.. Tastes just like "chicken".. maybe because some of them actually *were* a giant version of the chicken/bird family...



                  Maybe I'm wrong there.. by scientific studies. So, what brilliant events caused global warming in Iceland and turned it GREEN for farming, several centuries ago? Was the earth enveloped in a greenhouse type of effect during the ages of the dinosaurs, or did the climates contain all 4 seasons in the extreme hot/cold zones, as we know of those regions now. If there was a SHIFT in climate temperatures on a global scale centuries ago, *what* exactly caused it?

                  These are questions that seem to get pushed aside, when contrasted with current events and global temperatures that exist now. This is what buggers people who disagree with the whole
                  "OMG--global warming, we're all gonna drown from the earth getting hotter..!!" frenzy.

                  As far as a HOT earth.. here is the Biblical POV--
                  THE Bible reveals a possible global warming (or massive heating up)... where?
                  The following details will occur on a GLOBAL sized scale, apparently.

                  In the "great and terrible Day of the Lord (God)" the earth WILL get hotter. The book of Joel describes the earth's fruit withering and drying up.. fires consume the grain fields, because the ground has dried up--even the streams of water will dry up due to the heat destroying the earth (See Joel 1-3).

                  And... BINGO!!!! Surprise!!!
                  ~~~~ NATIONS will be in great distress ~~~~!!!
                  It is theorized that other Bible verses describes that "nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea" (Luke 21:25-26, NIV), and people's hearts will fail them from being in great distress, has more to do with an increase in population waves more than actual ocean water levels. HOWEVER, if the bible verses DO relate to global warming, then it is VERY *possible* that the oceans will rise from the earth becoming hotter and hotter; or, the roaring/tossing of the sea could relate to both.

                  Solution? Certainly NOT a Carbon Tax. So, try again with a better suggestion, because if the Bible is TRUE in what it claims to have recorded as genuine historic events, this warming situation is going to happen and continue and there isNOT a soul on this planet who can stop it. (Only the promised "Messiah" will be able to stop it and resolve it.)
                  Otherwise, believe whatever (generic) you want, and keep trying to stop the sun from drying up the lands and tossing of the sea(s)/waters.

                  Sadly, TPTB in gov't positions can wreck havoc on the general populations with heavy taxes and other unbearable burdens weighing the rest of us living at that particular time, but biblically speaking----TPTB canNOT stop the *event(s)* that describes what Joel and Luke have listed that will (or have already) put earth's NATIONS into great distress, which has not occurred since the days of Noah, and will never happen again after...
                  This is -why- "people" equate everything you say to a biblical perspective. It is also a prime example of "god of the gaps" thinking applied to objective reality.
                  sigpic
                  ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                  A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                  The truth isn't the truth

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                    ...So, what brilliant events caused global warming in Iceland and turned it GREEN for farming, several centuries ago? Was the earth enveloped in a greenhouse type of effect during the ages of the dinosaurs, or did the climates contain all 4 seasons in the extreme hot/cold zones, as we know of those regions now. If there was a SHIFT in climate temperatures on a global scale centuries ago, *what* exactly caused it?
                    Actually, that should have shown further northbound and instead read as Greenland, instead of Iceland. The Nordic / Viking folks specifically named Greenland, what it is today, because according to historical accounts, at the time that they landed there, the country was GREEN, in some sort of mini-warming event, and lush enough for fertile farming.

                    Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                    This is -why- "people" equate everything you say to a biblical perspective. It is also a prime example of "god of the gaps" thinking applied to objective reality.
                    Here, in this topic, the Biblical references fit.. Whenever I end up referencing such info into especially the political topic(s), I do so with *caution* because the refs don't always apply or fit. Sure there will be wars and rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes in diverse places. However, there will also be world politics leading up to a global gov't, which means that someone will be leading at the top.

                    When the day comes where current events align with bible scriptures -- such a unifying and charasmatic leader will appear on the world scene and somehow gets involved in permitting Jewish Israel to rebuild their sacred Temple, and then s/he betrays them by breaking the covenant or contract or peace treaty/agreement (whatever it is). Christian theologians refer to that one persona who ends up being the Anti-Christ (see Daniel 9:27 for details regarding that situation).

                    This "Tracking Earth's Future..." topic was designed to adjust for these sorts of details as a potential possibility. Hence the following commentary in spoiler quotes (for space) as quoted earlier..

                    Spoiler:
                    Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                    ...If there was a SHIFT in climate temperatures on a global scale centuries ago, *what* exactly caused it?

                    These are questions that seem to get pushed aside, when contrasted with current events and global temperatures that exist now. This is what buggers people who disagree with the whole
                    "OMG--global warming, we're all gonna drown from the earth getting hotter..!!" frenzy.

                    As far as a HOT earth.. here is the Biblical POV--
                    THE Bible reveals a possible global warming (or massive heating up)... where?
                    The following details will occur on a GLOBAL sized scale, apparently.

                    In the "great and terrible Day of the Lord (God)" the earth WILL get hotter. The book of Joel describes the earth's fruit withering and drying up.. fires consume the grain fields, because the ground has dried up--even the streams of water will dry up due to the heat destroying the earth (See Joel 1-3).

                    And... BINGO!!!! Surprise!!!
                    ~~~~ NATIONS will be in great distress ~~~~!!!
                    It is theorized that other Bible verses describes that "nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea" (Luke 21:25-26, NIV), and people's hearts will fail them from being in great distress, has more to do with an increase in population waves more than actual ocean water levels. HOWEVER, if the bible verses DO relate to global warming, then it is VERY *possible* that the oceans will rise from the earth becoming hotter and hotter; or, the roaring/tossing of the sea could relate to both.

                    Solution? Certainly NOT a Carbon Tax. So, try again with a better suggestion, because if the Bible is TRUE in what it claims to have recorded as genuine historic events, this warming situation is going to happen and continue and there isNOT a soul on this planet who can stop it. (Only the promised "Messiah" will be able to stop it and resolve it.)
                    Otherwise, believe whatever (generic) you want, and keep trying to stop the sun from drying up the lands and tossing of the sea(s)/waters.

                    Sadly, TPTB in gov't positions can wreck havoc on the general populations with heavy taxes and other unbearable burdens weighing the rest of us living at that particular time, but biblically speaking----TPTB canNOT stop the *event(s)* that describes what Joel and Luke have listed that will (or have already) put earth's NATIONS into great distress, which has not occurred since the days of Noah, and will never happen again after...


                    Anywho...
                    For folks like me who have studied this info for several decades, these details are not easy to forgot, especially *if* they succeed in coming true. Moreso, if they happen within my lifetime! Do I really want this to happen that soon? No. But since I am not a divine entity with god-like powers, I have no control over what events happen upon this little blue planet called *earth*..

                    Comment


                      In this thread, yes, it fits, but it bleeds into every other topic. Note I did not say anything negative, or say "off topic", or "irrelevant", I was merely showing you -WHY- people say everything you write IS taken with a biblical slant, no matter the thread.

                      If in the last days, the world gets hotter, -why- would you support someone like trump who wants to barrel onwards towards that reality?
                      sigpic
                      ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                      A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                      The truth isn't the truth

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                        In this thread, yes, it fits, but it bleeds into every other topic. Note I did not say anything negative, or say "off topic", or "irrelevant", I was merely showing you -WHY- people say everything you write IS taken with a biblical slant, no matter the thread.

                        If in the last days, the world gets hotter, -why- would you support someone like trump who wants to barrel onwards towards that reality?
                        Well, if it's a religious prophecy, it's gonna happen regardless of the who is in the white house, isn't it? Trump doesn't matter in this situation.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                          Well, if it's a religious prophecy, it's gonna happen regardless of the who is in the white house, isn't it? Trump doesn't matter in this situation.
                          Yes, he does. It is the basis of the entire concept of free will. Does God allow free will or not? Put your agnosticism to the side for a moment and consider that God promises free will, but free will has consequences. Then consider that -IF- we have free will, yet we choose to rush towards Revelations, what does that make us? Remember, no one is supposed to know the hour or the time of revelations, but we can see this coming.
                          sigpic
                          ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                          A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                          The truth isn't the truth

                          Comment


                            RE: Carbon Tax

                            If you read the text, and I think I copied that bit as well, the carbon tax is created as an incentive for big and small polluters to go green of sorts. To switch over a period of time to more sustainable energy sources, to adjust their processes so less polution goes up in the air, less polution of the soil and water.

                            You (as in Annoyed and SGAlisa in this case) may not believe in climate change or global warming but pollution is real. We do not need a gazillion scientific studies to tell us that or to educate the masses. The masses have eyes of their own (unless they're blind - literally blind, I mean).

                            You see the junk floating in rivers, the plastic pulled from beached animals. The oilspills which kill animals and plants alike, and polute soil and water for decades to come. The chemical spills which are reported on, or sometimes not reported on until people get sick. Insecticides, poisoning the food supply and killing every and all insect no matter they are important to the pollenization process.

                            The carbon tax is an incentive to clean up our act!

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            ...our marine life is dying in significant numbers already.
                            And whose fault is that?

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            So, actually, the poles don't really flip completely if the pattern remained true to the projected tracking pattern. It just *seems* to flip when the poles overlap and head into the other pole's general territory. That is how I basically visualize it.
                            Only the magnetic field's flip (which is a good thing for compass builders ), not the physical poles (whether landmass or icesheets).

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            BTW, even if studying geographical core samples for magnetic reasons, how in the world would the scientists know that iron ore from Iceland ended up in Australia via volcanic or earthquake action? Are the minerals in our earth's soil that different from north to south or south to north?
                            It's called geology. It's how they know where stones from old buildings come from. They match the geological composition of the rocks and soil with each other. There's a whole scientific community out there who does nothing else but compare soilsamples.
                            Must be fascinating if you're into that kind of thing.

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            Exactly.. Carbon-14 is iffy and merely guess work, therefore it fails to be pass my accuracy level of testing from ancient millions and billions of years ago.
                            Millions of years -- when we're talking dinosaurs and the likes.
                            Thousands when we're talking hominids.



                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            I never agreed to the scientific logic that was printed in our school books, ever.
                            So, you don't agree with E = MC²? Or gravity? Or the theory of relativity? Lightspeed?
                            Or the written history? American history? Biology? Chemistry experiments (the more boom, the better )? Boiling temperature of water?

                            To be fair, a scientist asks questions, forms theories and does research. They experiment, fail and try again. They learn, they adjust. They proof themselves right, or wrong.

                            Science can be fun, boring and saddening. And scary too.

                            I have to admit it: I LOVE SCIENCE! Science matters.

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            That is *why* I never pursued archeology or studies of ancient history. Too many opinionated variables that if a person didn't agree with, then your (generic) POV's weren't considered valuable enough for the world's scientific community. End of POV. End of that potential career move. So, it's rather pointless to pursue that general direction.
                            I'm guessing that's not the only reason why, but that's beside the point, really.

                            If you don't like being challenged on a theory you are absolutely, positively sure is true, (and when proven wrong, adjust to accomodate this new data and expand). then there's no scientific field in which you would have fit.

                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            So, what brilliant events caused global warming in Greenland and turned it GREEN for farming, several centuries ago? Was the earth enveloped in a greenhouse type of effect during the ages of the dinosaurs, or did the climates contain all 4 seasons in the extreme hot/cold zones, as we know of those regions now. If there was a SHIFT in climate temperatures on a global scale centuries ago, *what* exactly caused it?
                            Originally posted by SGalisa View Post
                            The Nordic / Viking folks specifically named Greenland, what it is today, because according to historical accounts, at the time that they landed there, the country was GREEN, in some sort of mini-warming event, and lush enough for fertile farming.
                            Fixed the original quote with Greenland, so we do not get confused on landmasses.

                            *stretches fingers* Challenge accepted!

                            Greenland -- so named after Eric the Red landed on its shores and tried to attract other Vikings to join him in this lush new land. One problem, it wasn't lush and fertile at all. On the contrary...

                            ‘Greenland used to be green’–Don’t judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name

                            (Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

                            Objection: When the Vikings settled it, Greenland was a lovely, hospitable island, not the frozen wasteland it is today. It was not until the Little Ice Age that it got so cold they abandoned it.

                            Answer: First, Greenland is part of a single region. It can not be necessarily taken to represent a global climate shift. See the post on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. Briefly, the available proxy evidence indicates that global warmth during this period was not particularly pronounced, though some regions may have experienced greater warming than others.

                            Second, a quick reality check shows that Greenland’s ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of the island. The vast majority of land not under the ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north.

                            Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red, who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

                            But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish!

                            Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, they farmed cattle, goats, and sheep — despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year. It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. Grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over-production of pastures, erosion, and the need to go further and further afield to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates. After a couple of centuries, it led to such desperate measures as cutting precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.

                            When finally confronted with several severe winters in a row, they, along with the little remaining livestock, simply starved before spring arrived.

                            The moral of the story for the climate controversy? Much as you can not judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge the climate of Greenland by its name.

                            A bit of related trivia, and further indication of the Vikings’ stubborn reluctance to learn from the Inuit: there is no evidence of any trade whatsoever, despite centuries of cohabitation. In fact, the first of only three Norse accounts of encounters with the natives refers to them as “skraelings” (wretches), and describes matter of factly how strangely they bleed when stabbed. How’s that for diplomacy?


                            More on the Medieval warm period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age that followed.
                            Heightmeyer's Lemming -- still the coolest Lemming of the forum

                            Proper Stargate Rewatch -- season 10 of SG-1

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Annoyed View Post
                              Well, if it's a religious prophecy, it's gonna happen regardless of the who is in the white house, isn't it? Trump doesn't matter in this situation.
                              Nineveh was prophesied to be destroyed, they repented, then God didn't destroy them. Prophecy also serves as a warning to prevent it from happening. Just because all well end, it doesn't mean that we must hasten its end.
                              By Nolamom
                              sigpic


                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
                                Yes, he does. It is the basis of the entire concept of free will. Does God allow free will or not? Put your agnosticism to the side for a moment and consider that God promises free will, but free will has consequences. Then consider that -IF- we have free will, yet we choose to rush towards Revelations, what does that make us? Remember, no one is supposed to know the hour or the time of revelations, but we can see this coming.
                                Aren't there other prophecies which state that if a nation falls from the path laid out by God, that nation will fall?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X