|
July 17, 2009
A recently discovered and publicized ancient map of the globe disproves the theory of man-made global warming. The enormous significance of the map has only now become apparent as Congress considers sweeping legislation intended to combat global warming supposedly caused by human activity.
Â
The map was discovered in the Library of Congress, Washington DC, in 1960 by Charles Hapgood. It was drawn by well-known French cartographer, Oronteus Finaeus, in 1531. There is no serious question about the authenticity of the map. Finaeus was a well-known scholar and was an expert in cartography, astronomy, mathematics and military weaponry. The map is based on numerous source maps, some of them going back to the time of Alexander the Great (335 BC).
Â
One section of the map pictures the globe from the perspective of the South Pole. Antarctica is clearly shown on this map and is pictured as being largely ice-free with flowing rivers and a clean coastline. Some of the mountain ranges pictured on the map have only been recently discovered. Photographs of the map can be found on numerous websites; one such photograph appears below:Â
Â
Â
 The other half of the map, which is not shown, pictures the globe from the perspective of the North Pole. Continents and islands clearly pictured on the map above include Antarctica (center), South America (lower right), Africa (lower left), Madagascar (left of center) and Australia (upper left).Â
Â
There are numerous sensational features of the map-one of them being the reality that it clearly pictures Antarctica long before it was "discovered" in 1820. Also significant is the fact that Antarctica is depicted as largely free of ice, at least in the coastal areas. This means that some of the source-maps were drawn before the mile-thick ice-cap covered the continent. This is not surprising because it is well-known that when the Vikings settled Greenland in 980 AD, it too was much warmer than today. The Vikings in Greenland numbered about 5,000 by 1200AD, but as the earth cooled, the settlers died off or moved away.
Â
The Finaeus depiction of Antarctica is extraordinarily accurate-so much so that modern cartographers are mystified as to how it could have been drawn with such amazing accuracy. The mapmaking ability of earlier people (perhaps the Phoenicians), including their abilities in mathematics and geometry, must have been far superior to what has recently been imagined.
Â
The map demonstrates that Antarctica had been extensively explored and mapped long before it was known to the Western world. Since Antarctica was much warmer when some of the source-maps were drawn than it is today, the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change must be given up.
Â
How can the accuracy of this map be explained? One of the earliest authorities on mapmaking was Claudius Ptolemaeus (referred to in the West as "Ptolemy") who lived from about AD 85-168. Ptolemy was a cartographer, mathematician, astronomer and geographer. He lived in Alexandria under the Roman Empire.
Â
Ptolemy wrote a monumental work on mapmaking, Guide to Geography, also known as Geographia, in about 150 AD. Geographia was lost to most of the civilized world for more than a thousand years until it was re-discovered around 1300 AD. The book demonstrates that Mediterranean people of 2,000 years ago had the knowledge and expertise to sail far and wide and to make accurate maps of their travels.Â
Â
Ptolemy's book describes longitudinal and latitudinal lines and how they are drawn. The book identifies the location of numerous geographical sites by means of those lines. The book additionally specifies how important locations can be accurately placed on maps by means of celestial observations. That is, the book explains how accurate maps can be made and how to navigate based on those maps by means of celestial navigation relying on the perceived locations of the sun, moon, planets and stars.
When Ptolemy's Geographia was translated from Greek into Latin in Western Europe in 1406, its global coordinate and navigational system revolutionized European sailing and mapmaking abilities-putting them on a previously unknown scientific basis. The knowledge Europeans gained from Ptolemy enabled them to engage in their own explosion of exploration and cartography beginning in the 15th Century.
|
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Finae...
Â
Gavin Mendies has written and stimulated lots of research about Chinese maritime expeditions of the Ming dynasty around 1421, some 80 years before Columbus sailed.
He documents the work of fleet sub-commanders that mapped the Antarctic, Australia, both the East and West the coasts of N and S America, found the "Magellan Passage"  and the Arctic Ocean.
Several Chinese expeditions circumnavigated the Earth, found the "Straights of Magellan", long before. Indeed Magellan had a copy of these  Chinese maps that showed him the passage way long before he reached S. America.
The source for this map may be the Chinese maps from the Ming Dynasty brought to Europe by Arab traders.
CO2 isn't the leading greenhouse gas. Water vapor contributes much more.
Steve - very well said, thank you. Natural cycle deniers are proving it to be more about an ideology than science everyday.
It is interesting to me that those who support catastrophic AGW would rather embrace alarmism than healthy debate ?Â
I still have not seen one AGW group willing to openly debate the subject in a public setting. I know all the data is turning against AGW, but why not compare notes and share views unless you have something to hide ?
How can any government take deliberate action (potentially harmful to either humans or the enviroment) without a worldwide open debate over the data for many decades ?Â
Â
Thank you for pointing out that real science is about the scientific method, which includes testing. There is a lot of hot air being circulated that is based on computer modeling with estimates instead of hard data, which really isn't any kind of proof. The science has been co-opted and corrupted. I feel that we should all endeavor to look at the facts rather than allowing our emotions to dictate the terms of the debate.
As you say, this map is based on many previous maps going back for many centuries. I would say, for possibly thousands of years for surely there is no way that Ptolomy would have known even in 150 AD of the Antarctic.  Like the Piri Reis Map, the original cartigrapher of this one must have known the Antarctic at a time when it was ice-free in order to draw it.  And this must have been thousands of years ago -- a geographer would, I'm sure, be able to tell you when.  The interesting thing would be -- in that case, there must have been a remarkable civilisation at whatever time that was in spite of the fact that civilisiation is supposed to only have begun in about 6,000 BC.
Piri Reis has been proven to be a fraud.  If you didn't know that then you are not qualified to make comments on "ancient maps!"
I can't tell by this map that Antarctica is depicted as "ice-free."
Plus, I don't consider this map "extraordinarily accurate."Â To me, it looks like other maps of its time: as if it was drawn by a 5-year-old.
The Sahara Desert used to be a different climate too; it used to be like a tropical jungle. But I don't see how that disproves global climate change.
Sherrie
I believe that the rivers would indicate the ice free status (at least at the coasts. Since water in Antarctica is frozen, there are no rivers).Â
Since this map is from 1531, it isn't like the Sahara which was inhabited approximately 7000 years ago. In this case it wasn't temperature, but the retreat of moonsonal rains that caused it to become desert like.Â
But your comment does have some applicability since the Sahara wasn't caused by anything mankind did and Antarctica, it appears from this map, was much warmer only a few hundred years ago, again without mankind causing it.Â
The real question with global warming is does CO2 explain it all or at least most of it, or is CO2 a minor factor in the climate?
Â
Sherrie,
I see I didn't respond to your last comment about not seeing how this could disprove global climate change.Â
Part of the dogma of man made global climate change was that the climate was cool and stable for the past 1000 years. If Antarctica was warm during this period, it would remove a major tenant of the AGW theory.Â
 Neither this map, nor anything else denialists have come up with, has disproved global warming. Every scientific organization on the planet now accepts AGW theory and expensive mitigation projects have been started all around the globe.
Â
 This argument ended in the late 90's with the advent of satellite sensors for far IR. Modern satellites now show that both polar ice masses as well as Greenland are losing ice at a rapid rate. End of story.
"Modern satellites now show that both polar ice masses as well as Greenland are losing ice at a rapid rate. End of story."
Â
Errr, cmb, I think you need to recheck your information. Antarctica is seeing more snow and more ice formation and it at a 30 year high (it's been 30 years that we've had satellites to meaure it). And the Arctic is seeing a big recovery from the minimum seen in 2007. So perhaps it isn't "end of story."Â
here we go again with the "consensus" argument (jeesh), obviously "cmb" is not a deep thinker. 31,000 actual scientists have signed the oregon petition refuting agw. in fact several scientists listed on the ipcc reports have since sued to have their names removed because they do not agree with its findings. you chicken littles are outnumbered now, wake up. the majority of the us population has moved on. after watching the earth cool over the past 8 years while co2 levels have increased over 5% is enough fo reasoning people to at least have doubts. anyone still buying into agw is either looking to profit from it, forwarding a political agenda or just really ill informed. i conducted my first atmospheric co2 experiments in 1977, how long is your resume?
cmb,
You really do need to update. However, to your points:
Recent global warming is a fact, no debate. Catastrophic AGW has never been proven through observational data (models don't count) so disproving it is not a necessary task.
The leadership of many, but not all, scientific organizations may indeed accept the theory of catastrophic AGW. That does not mean that they are correct. Nor does it mean that they speak for their rank and file.
Personally, I have no problem with energy production that does not create CO2, so long as people are free to purchase it as desired. Government control of energy production, either in amount or by source, will be economically disasterous, though.
Measurements have indeed shown that the Arctic has lost ice mass from over the last few decades. However, the winter of 08/09 showed a not so surprising recovery. And winter 09/10 looks primed to add even more ice.Â
With regard to Greenland, it has lost ice around its perimeter, but satellite measurements show that the interior has gained mass, resulting in a small ice mass gain. Same for Antarctica. Loss of ice around the perimeter and especially on the western peninsula. But the interior has gained ice mass resulting in a small overall gain.
I do not understand why AGW supporters feel the need to be "right". Science is not about "right". It's about experiments, data collection, and data analysis to generate, in this case, understanding about how the biosphere works. AGW supporters should not feel upset, nor realists boastful, that the data is supporting a less than catastrophic role for CO2. It is what it is and we can/should all be able to put any biases aside, look at the data, discuss what it means, and decide where to go where there. The political posturing, ad hom attacks, and unwillingness to constructively enagage skeptical peers on the part of AGW supporters is unacceptable for the advancement of climate science.
If the data ever shows anything different, I am prepared to change both my opinion and my lifestyle. But, please, enough with the insults. It has no place in scientific discourse. State your case and present your data. If you change a mind, good for you. If you don't, respect the disagreement and move on.
Said this on 7-21-2009 At 06:16 am
"I can't tell by this map that Antarctica is depicted as "ice-free."
Plus, I don't consider this map "extraordinarily accurate."Â To me, it looks like other maps of its time: as if it was drawn by a 5-year-old."
An admittance to a lack of understanding of cartography and oceanic navigation does not make this map dismissable. It was good enough to be copied; more importantly, it was good enough for boatloads of seafarers to risk their lives using it to navigate and to explore.
Quist knows not whereof he writes. Ptolomy may or may not have made latitude and longitude lines but the longitude lines were usless unless they could be calculated accurately on an ocean voyage. Latitude was relatively easy. That's what the astrolabe did. Longitude can only be calculated from celestial observations when a specific event occurs which did not happen often enough to be a practical solution. Accurate measurements of longitude were not possible until 1773 when John Harrison created a clock that kept accurate enough time to make reliable longitude measurements. PBS did a fine documentary on the prize that was offered to the first person who could invent such a clock.Â
If Quist doesn't know about this (or knows and lies about it) he can't be trusted on anything - especially something as technical as Global Climate Change. Consensus is not easy to obtain. Scientists argue and attack other scientists' conclusions for a living. Here's what you need to know about GCC: 1)it's real, 2)it's anthropogenic (caused by us), 3)it's getting worse, 4)every argument put forward by the GCC Deniers has been thoroughly refuted. And BTW, the Oregon statement is a fraud. Signatures were obtained by misrepresentation, most of the legitimate climate scientists have tried to get their names off the list, most of the signers were not credentialed climate scientists. The document is worthless except to the deniers who have to resort to lies to make their case because they have no science on their side.Â
Any notion that the ancient map corresponds to anything like reality can only be taken in conjunction with enormous quantities of mind-altering substances.
The only thing we can glean (if the Finaeus map is genuine) is that somehow people knew there was a continent surrounding the South Pole.
The rest is fantasy. The map shows long rivers in South America emptying west into the Pacific which we know to be impossible because of the Andes, which have been there for tens of millions of years, longer than hominids, let alone humans, have existed on the Earth.
I've put a comparison between the Finaeus map and Antarctica from Google Earth, trying to orient them to approximately the same place for South America and there is very little correspondance.
Here
South America does have an approximately similar shape (although much too close to Antarctica) and the Southern tip of Africa is also very approximately in the same longitude (ditto), but that's about it.
Does this disprove climate change? No.
Does this prove that the ancients had some extraordinary cartographic skills? Not really.
Like the climate models of alarmists, there are people who see extraordinary things in ancient maps and ancient stories that are not there.
I don't want my science mixed with fantasy, I want my facts empirically testable and theories falsifiable.
And this hypothesis doesn't qualify.
Â
Â