Climatechangevangelistas! Please explain this...

[fncceo]

You do realize that humans were not there for a reason right?

Border wall?

 

[healthmyths]

The tectonic plate that currently sits at the North Pole was NOT sitting at the North Pole 55 million years ago. The world's average temperature has risen and fallen but the poles have always been the coldest places on the planet.

Where is your proof?
Who are YOU and what are your sources?
But more importantly who are YOU to say the poles have ALWAYS been the coldest places?
Then why are there 90 billion barrels of oil from animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years!" And here is my source, not my uninformed opinion! Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?
North Pole
The Arctic Ocean used to be so warm it was practically Mediterranean, an international drilling team has found. Although the Earth was known to have warmed rapidly 55 million years ago, no one had expected to find evidence of such high temperatures so close to the North Pole

North Pole once enjoyed Mediterranean climate - Nature

Arctic ocean drilling reveals bygone greenhouse world.

www.nature.com

South Pole...
Antarctica hasn't always been covered with ice – the continent lay over the south pole without freezing over for almost 100 million years.
Then, about 34 million years ago, a dramatic shift in climate happened at the boundary between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs.

When Antarctica went into the deep freeze

. . . . Scientists from Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales and Cardiff Univ...

museum.wales

Again... where is YOUR proof ...."poles have always been the coldest places on the planet."

 

[Stryder50]

Excrete it? They consume it. They enzymatically use chlorophyll and sunlight to create sugar from CO2 and water. Plants excrete oxygen.

EXACTLY!
The point we "Deniers" have been making for some time now.
99+% of Life on this Planet ~ Plants; need CO2 to exist and thrive, and we humans and other animals need plants to exist.
300ppm is barely enough to keep from starving Plants.
400ppm is a slim margin of extra to bank, but won't sustain for long if any other major factor~impact reduces global CO2 levels/percentages

 

[Stryder50]

Where is your proof?
Who are YOU and what are your sources?
But more importantly who are YOU to say the poles have ALWAYS been the coldest places?
Then why are there 90 billion barrels of oil from animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years!" And here is my source, not my uninformed opinion! Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?
North Pole
The Arctic Ocean used to be so warm it was practically Mediterranean, an international drilling team has found. Although the Earth was known to have warmed rapidly 55 million years ago, no one had expected to find evidence of such high temperatures so close to the North Pole

North Pole once enjoyed Mediterranean climate - Nature

Arctic ocean drilling reveals bygone greenhouse world.

www.nature.com

South Pole...
Antarctica hasn't always been covered with ice – the continent lay over the south pole without freezing over for almost 100 million years.
Then, about 34 million years ago, a dramatic shift in climate happened at the boundary between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs.

When Antarctica went into the deep freeze

. . . . Scientists from Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales and Cardiff Univ...

museum.wales

Again... where is YOUR proof ...."poles have always been the coldest places on the planet."

One possible factor many are reluctant to consider or include, is that the tectonic plates mught shift over time relative to the rotational axis of planet Earth.

Hence a crustal/tectonic plate that once was at the north rotational polar position, might have since then moved "Southward" and another tectonic plate will have taken it's position at the North rotational(pole) axis.

 

[healthmyths]

One possible factor many are reluctant to consider or include, is that the tectonic plates mught shift over time relative to the rotational axis of planet Earth.

Hence a crustal/tectonic plate that once was at the north rotational polar position, might have since then moved "Southward" and another tectonic plate will have taken it's position at the North rotational(pole) axis.

BUT NO PROOF! Where is the link?

 

[Stryder50]

BUT NO PROOF! Where is the link?

This is basic geological and Earth science history.
If you don't know such, than proof you couldn't know or understand "PROOF!" if it bit you in the arse.

The following are conjectural and the real pattrens and movements could have been different, but those shown are believed to be the more probable placements and shifts;

About 170 million years ago.
Though this one shows a "future" movement, such being cyclic it also applies into the past;

50 million years ago;

OR ...

Then there is this;

While actual timeline and movements remain disputed, that the tectonic lates have moved significantly over past @150 million years (+/-) is rather accepted.

 

[ding]

This is basic geological and Earth science history.
If you don't know such, than proof you couldn't know or understand "PROOF!" if it bit you in the arse.

The following are conjectural and the real pattrens and movements could have been different, but those shown are believed to be the more probable placements and shifts;

About 170 million years ago.
Though this one shows a "future" movement, such being cyclic it also applies into the past;

50 million years ago;

OR ...

Then there is this;

While actual timeline and movements remain disputed, that the tectonic lates have moved significantly over past @150 million years (+/-) is rather accepted.

Yep, plate tectonics led to thermally isolated polar regions and bipolar glaciation. The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

 

[jc456]

Another know-it-all who knows absolutely NOTHING. And you NEVER provide FACTS, only out of context half-truths strung together to deliberately mislead,
You can pretend never to have heard of plate tectonics, but the rest of us know that 50 million years ago the landmass that today is the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia and the collision changed the configuration of the continents and altered global climate.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

how is it you know the plates are not still moving? I'd say they are.

Where is there waterskiing being done in the Arctic?

Why do you supposed only main ice in the poles? I know.

 

[healthmyths]

This is basic geological and Earth science history.
If you don't know such, than proof you couldn't know or understand "PROOF!" if it bit you in the arse.

The following are conjectural and the real pattrens and movements could have been different, but those shown are believed to be the more probable placements and shifts;

About 170 million years ago.
Though this one shows a "future" movement, such being cyclic it also applies into the past;

50 million years ago;

OR ...

Then there is this;

While actual timeline and movements remain disputed, that the tectonic lates have moved significantly over past @150 million years (+/-) is rather accepted.

Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be! You may have been taught to just take the word of the teacher, but I wasn't! Remember the phrase..."Trust but verify"?
I am not the expert YOU claim to be by making comments with no sources but here are some skeptics about tectonic plate movement.

Skepticism Persists as Plate Tectonic Answers Come Harder​

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.199.4326.283

‘Theory of Plate Tectonics’ began to gain momentum. Hess was able to convince the government and his fellow scientists, despite the fact that many scientists debated over this theory and several demanded to know what forces drove these so-called ‘plates’

Plate Tectonics is a Hoax!!!

Lawmakers in Washington and in state governments across the United States have officially labeled earthquake damage as preventable. They have enacted laws that tax citizens for new building strateg…

laboutloud.com

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus...

skepticalscience.com

Now there was a majority of people that thought the earth was flat.
People in Europe probably did believe that the earth was flat at one stage, but that was in the very early ancient period, possible before the 4th century BCE, the very early phases of European civilization. It was around this date that Greek thinkers began to not only realize the earth was a globe but calculated the precise dimensions of our planet. Medieval Times and the Flat Earth Theory

My point for making the"flat earth believers" comment is that holds true for the "THEORY of plate tectonics"
Exactly what is a "Theory" versus a "FACT".
A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact. When does a theory become a fact and who decides?

So being a pompous and evidently disciple of "everything-said-by-a-scientist is a FACT" maybe you should at the MINIMUM at least provide links!

 

[Crick]

EXACTLY!
The point we "Deniers" have been making for some time now.
99+% of Life on this Planet ~ Plants; need CO2 to exist and thrive, and we humans and other animals need plants to exist.
300ppm is barely enough to keep from starving Plants.
400ppm is a slim margin of extra to bank, but won't sustain for long if any other major factor~impact reduces global CO2 levels/percentages

The flora of this planet did just fine for several MILLION years at or below 300 ppm; there is NO evidence that plants were starving for CO2 during that period.

 

[jc456]

The flora of this planet did just fine for several MILLION years at or below 300 ppm; there is NO evidence that plants were starving for CO2 during that period.

it also did well over 1000PPM. so what?

 

[Stryder50]

The flora of this planet did just fine for several MILLION years at or below 300 ppm; there is NO evidence that plants were starving for CO2 during that period.

We only have the fossil "record" to consider, not any actual living plants from then. So it's hard to say exactly, one way or the other how well plants were doing, or not doing.

"record" because fossils form as a freak event and may not be inclusive of all species and conditions at their time of formation.

Since most plants today derive from those in the past, and many are the types that existed in the past, we know that they thrive exceptionally well once above 300ppm. This is why many greenhouse growing operations run at between 800-1200 ppm.

Since plants grow slower and less when CO2 now-a-days drops below 300ppm, we can extrapolate what to expect at various ranges below and above the average threshold of 300ppm .

 

[Stryder50]

The flora of this planet did just fine for several MILLION years at or below 300 ppm; there is NO evidence that plants were starving for CO2 during that period.

As this chart (and many others like it) show, the CO2 level at or below 300ppm is fairly rare. Only within the past @25 million years has it been declining towards and/or below 300ppm, along with a brief (relative) period from @250-350 million years ago.

Over the past 600 million years it has been substantially higher, going as high as 7000 ppm, yet fossil record suggests that such higher ranges had little to no negative effect upon Flora or Fauna. Nor that those higher levels were a main or key factor in "climate change" such as the cycles of ice ages/glaciation.

 

[bripat9643]

The flora of this planet did just fine for several MILLION years at or below 300 ppm; there is NO evidence that plants were starving for CO2 during that period.

That's wrong, it didn't do "just fine." Plants do much better when you add a little CO2 to the air they are growing in. That shows they are starved for CO2

 

[Stryder50]

Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be! You may have been taught to just take the word of the teacher, but I wasn't! Remember the phrase..."Trust but verify"?
I am not the expert YOU claim to be by making comments with no sources but here are some skeptics about tectonic plate movement.

Skepticism Persists as Plate Tectonic Answers Come Harder​

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.199.4326.283

‘Theory of Plate Tectonics’ began to gain momentum. Hess was able to convince the government and his fellow scientists, despite the fact that many scientists debated over this theory and several demanded to know what forces drove these so-called ‘plates’

Plate Tectonics is a Hoax!!!

Lawmakers in Washington and in state governments across the United States have officially labeled earthquake damage as preventable. They have enacted laws that tax citizens for new building strateg…

laboutloud.com

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus...

skepticalscience.com

Now there was a majority of people that thought the earth was flat.
People in Europe probably did believe that the earth was flat at one stage, but that was in the very early ancient period, possible before the 4th century BCE, the very early phases of European civilization. It was around this date that Greek thinkers began to not only realize the earth was a globe but calculated the precise dimensions of our planet. Medieval Times and the Flat Earth Theory

My point for making the"flat earth believers" comment is that holds true for the "THEORY of plate tectonics"
Exactly what is a "Theory" versus a "FACT".
A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact. When does a theory become a fact and who decides?

So being a pompous and evidently disciple of "everything-said-by-a-scientist is a FACT" maybe you should at the MINIMUM at least provide links!

Quote from "healthmyths";
"Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be!"
........
If you click on my username icon, it will take you to a page of my content, and username data. Look below my username and notice a bar with a few click links in it.

Click the one "About" and you will get a brief commentary from me on my background/experience/and credentials.

Now do the same with your username and NOTE that we get NOTHING!
NADA!
Seems you lack guts, integrity, or ability to do as I've done; give a slight hint on whom and what you are.

So if anyone here is shy to lacking on presenting their "expertise" it is YOU!
Furthermore, since you are likely an ignorant, gutless, integrity lacking, internet troll, I see no reason to give you credibility or response. Especially since you aren't paying me.

BTW, the rest of the quoted post shows how much your ignorance (or stupidity) is beyond what you are aware of.

Never-the-less, for the sake of other readers, I'll expound a slight bit more ...

 

[Stryder50]

Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be! You may have been taught to just take the word of the teacher, but I wasn't! Remember the phrase..."Trust but verify"?
I am not the expert YOU claim to be by making comments with no sources but here are some skeptics about tectonic plate movement.

Skepticism Persists as Plate Tectonic Answers Come Harder​

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.199.4326.283

‘Theory of Plate Tectonics’ began to gain momentum. Hess was able to convince the government and his fellow scientists, despite the fact that many scientists debated over this theory and several demanded to know what forces drove these so-called ‘plates’

Plate Tectonics is a Hoax!!!

Lawmakers in Washington and in state governments across the United States have officially labeled earthquake damage as preventable. They have enacted laws that tax citizens for new building strateg…

laboutloud.com

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus...

skepticalscience.com

Now there was a majority of people that thought the earth was flat.
People in Europe probably did believe that the earth was flat at one stage, but that was in the very early ancient period, possible before the 4th century BCE, the very early phases of European civilization. It was around this date that Greek thinkers began to not only realize the earth was a globe but calculated the precise dimensions of our planet. Medieval Times and the Flat Earth Theory

My point for making the"flat earth believers" comment is that holds true for the "THEORY of plate tectonics"
Exactly what is a "Theory" versus a "FACT".
A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact. When does a theory become a fact and who decides?

So being a pompous and evidently disciple of "everything-said-by-a-scientist is a FACT" maybe you should at the MINIMUM at least provide links!

"Plate Tectonics" has been disputed by some for quite a while now.
EXCERPT:
"
Continental drift is the hypothesis that the Earth's continents have moved over geologic time relative to each other, thus appearing to have "drifted" across the ocean bed.[1] The idea of continental drift has been subsumed into the science of plate tectonics, which studies the movement of the continents as they ride on plates of the Earth's lithosphere.[2]

The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. A pioneer of the modern view of mobilism was the Austrian geologist Otto Ampferer.[3][4] The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but the hypothesis was rejected by many for lack of any motive mechanism. The English geologist Arthur Holmes later proposed mantle convection for that mechanism. "
...

Continental drift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~
As we see, under another name, whether we call it "Continental Drift" or "Plate Tectonics", the hypothesis/theory has been around for some time now.

While Wegener was ridiculed about a century ago, seems by the late 1940s, due greatly to sonar technology and mapping of the ocean's bottoms, among other bits of evidence, the idea began to get much traction. Along with geological matching of trans-ocean coastlines, Plate Tectonics(Continental Drift) is getting closer to out of the theory classification and closer to the "Law" one.

As for the images/maps I presented; I haven't time to spend crafting such. I merely selected from the many a web-search will produce. I prefer to use "duckduckgo" and with something like; "Images of continental drift" I got a page with many options like this;

images of continental drift at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

An alternate route would be;
"images of continental drift" which yields this alternate selection;

images of plate tectonics at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

I merely copy-paste some of the more informative and interesting maps available.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If you were familiar with my history here, you'd know I'm also one whom engages ""Trust but verify"" only with a bit less "Trust ...".
I prefer to go where the data leads which is one reason I don't do "consensus of opinion" no matter how learned, or how many initials are after the name. If the data doesn't support, and/or there has been no "in the lab" experiments to validate, it likely don't get my support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, the couple links you provided are highly questionable on accuracy of completeness of knowledge on the subjects, so I'm not accepting such on "just your word" (especially since "your word" isn't worth squat!)

 

[Stryder50]

Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be! You may have been taught to just take the word of the teacher, but I wasn't! Remember the phrase..."Trust but verify"?
I am not the expert YOU claim to be by making comments with no sources but here are some skeptics about tectonic plate movement.

Skepticism Persists as Plate Tectonic Answers Come Harder​

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.199.4326.283

‘Theory of Plate Tectonics’ began to gain momentum. Hess was able to convince the government and his fellow scientists, despite the fact that many scientists debated over this theory and several demanded to know what forces drove these so-called ‘plates’

Plate Tectonics is a Hoax!!!

Lawmakers in Washington and in state governments across the United States have officially labeled earthquake damage as preventable. They have enacted laws that tax citizens for new building strateg…

laboutloud.com

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus...

skepticalscience.com

Now there was a majority of people that thought the earth was flat.
People in Europe probably did believe that the earth was flat at one stage, but that was in the very early ancient period, possible before the 4th century BCE, the very early phases of European civilization. It was around this date that Greek thinkers began to not only realize the earth was a globe but calculated the precise dimensions of our planet. Medieval Times and the Flat Earth Theory

My point for making the"flat earth believers" comment is that holds true for the "THEORY of plate tectonics"
Exactly what is a "Theory" versus a "FACT".
A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact. When does a theory become a fact and who decides?

So being a pompous and evidently disciple of "everything-said-by-a-scientist is a FACT" maybe you should at the MINIMUM at least provide links!

Standard theory of tectonic plates(movement) or continental drift might explain some of the geological (and climate) anomolies in the current polar reaches. My point, as suggested in #224 above, was that over the eons, other tectonic plates might have been the ones located in the polar regions/zones of this planet.

In addition to the gradual spread of the tectonic plates from the original 'single' continent of Pangaea there might have been other movements to consider. This is where the concept of "mass crustal displacement" would come into play.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toward a New Theory of Earth Crustal Displacement​

• May 2022
• Journal of Scientific Exploration

...
Snapshot/Lay Summary—
In 1958 Charles Hapgood proposed that mass imbalances created by a buildup of polar ice could displace the earth’s crust over the mantle and that resulting pole shifts were the cause of catastrophic climate changes and ice ages. We contrast the first part of his theory with plate tectonics and true polar wander and propose a new mechanism that is triggered by short-term reversals of the geomagnetic field that “unlock” the crust from the mantle, driven by earth–moon–sun tidal forces, the same forces that move earth’s oceans. It is shown that by combining a modified version of the second part of Hapgood’s theory with elements of existing climate theories it may be possible to account for periodic sea-level changes associated with the buildup and melting of polar ice over past glacial cycles with a combination of Milanković cycles and Hapgood pole shifts.

Abstract—In previous studies of more than two hundred archaeological sites, it was discovered that the alignments of almost half of the sites could not be explained, and about 80% of the unexplained sites appear to reference four locations within 30° of the North Pole. Based on their correlation with Hapgood’s estimated positions of the North Pole over the past 100,000 years, we proposed that, by association, sites aligned to these locations could be tens to hundreds of thousands of years old.

That such an extraordinary claim rests on Hapgood’s unproven theory of earth crustal displacement/pole shifts is problematic, even given the extraordinary number of aligned sites (more than several hundred) that have been discovered thus far. Using a numerical model we test his hypothesis that mass imbalances in the crust due to a buildup of polar ice are sufficient to displace the crust to the extent required in his theory. We discover in the process that the crust is not currently in equilibrium with the whole earth in terms of its moments of inertia.

Based on a review of the literature that reveals a possible connection between the timing of short-term reversals of the geomagnetic field (geomagnetic excursions), super-volcanic eruptions, and glacial events, we hypothesize that crustal displacements might be triggered by geomagnetic excursions that “unlock” the crust from the mantle to the extent that available forces, specifically earth–moon–sun tidal forces, the same forces that move earth’s oceans, can displace the crust over the mantle. It is demonstrated how such a model, when combined with existing climate change theory, may be able to explain periodic changes in sea level associated with the buildup and melting of polar ice over past glacial cycles by a combination of Milanković cycles and Hapgood pole shifts.
...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360787197_Toward_a_New_Theory_of_Earth_Crustal_Displacement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another link to Carlotto's paper;
file:///C:/Users/Acer.Acer-PC/Downloads/1621-Article%20Text-12863-1-10-20220522.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXCERPT:
...
Hapgood’s theory has plenty of evidence to back it up. The last “ice age” was a direct result of the Earth’s tectonic plate realignment. The crust essentially sits on a ball of liquid magma, this was the lubrication for the massive tectonic plate shift which happened around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. There is an astounding amount of evidence to support this occurrence. First, this happened rather rapidly in geological terms. Such a shift of plates would have caused unspeakably tsunamis, flooding, volcanic eruptions etc. This is very likely the flood that occurred around 10 to 12 thousand years ago that was written about in religious texts. Ever hear of the white cliffs of Dover in England? Well guess what, the same white cliffs exist near Calais, France, just sixty miles away. There was once a land bridge between France and England that was wiped out as a result of this mindboggling flood. To support this fact, it is noteworthy to mention that English genomes share French and German DNA while the Romans and Vikings left no trace of their genome whatsoever.

To further support Hapgood’s theory, there are parts of Antartica where the ice is only 10–12 thousand years old, whereas the ice further south is much, much older. This tells us that much of Antartica was further North than it is now. The proposed ice age that covered much of North America was a result of this shift. Everything was moved south. The ice that covered North America receded quickly as a result of being moved into a more temperate climate (Perhaps as much as 2000 miles or more). Of course, if North America moved south, it would logically follow that the other side of the globe would have moved north. In 2013, archaeologists uncovered a well-preserved woolly mammoth from a peat bog in Siberia. The contents of its stomach contained grassland plants such as buttercups and dandelions, which are not found in such cold climates as Siberia. This signifies a massive and rapid movement North. There are many examples of animals in Siberia that were virtually flash frozen as a result of this shift. So, is Hapgood’s theory sound? This geologist would say that this is not a theory, it is fact.
...

How true is the Earth's crust displacement theory?

Answer (1 of 16): Hapgood’s theory has plenty of evidence to back it up. The last “ice age” was a direct result of the Earth’s tectonic plate realignment. The crust essentially sits on a ball of liquid magma, this was the lubrication for the massive tectonic plate shift which happened around 10,0...

www.quora.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Solar Typhoons and Massive Earth Crust Displacement​

Charles Hapgood Theory of Earth Crust Displacement​

For general and further reference sake;

Charles Hapgood - Wikipedia​

Images;

mass crustal displacement at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[healthmyths]

Quote from "healthmyths";
"Did you make these charts or WHO or what created these so I can do a little more research because I have NO idea who you are or what your credentialed expertise might be!"
........
If you click on my username icon, it will take you to a page of my content, and username data. Look below my username and notice a bar with a few click links in it.

Click the one "About" and you will get a brief commentary from me on my background/experience/and credentials.

Now do the same with your username and NOTE that we get NOTHING!
NADA!
Seems you lack guts, integrity, or ability to do as I've done; give a slight hint on whom and what you are.

So if anyone here is shy to lacking on presenting their "expertise" it is YOU!
Furthermore, since you are likely an ignorant, gutless, integrity lacking, internet troll, I see no reason to give you credibility or response. Especially since you aren't paying me.

BTW, the rest of the quoted post shows how much your ignorance (or stupidity) is beyond what you are aware of.

Never-the-less, for the sake of other readers, I'll expound a slight bit more ...

You wrote..."So if anyone here is shy to lacking on presenting their "expertise" it is YOU!"
I totally 100% agree with you!
I am not an expert in any topic that I substantiate with others that ARE!
I am modest enough to almost always investigate using the marvelous tool "Internet" and then I purposely and faithfully put the LINKS to substantiate.
I don't ever intend to expose my very unique knowledge base to anyone especially people that don't seem to comprehend the simple process of substantiation!

 

[surada]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

The continents shifted 50 million years ago. See Pangaea

 

[jc456]

The continents shifted 50 million years ago. See Pangaea

you were there?