Global Warming & the Flood

I tried something similar to this...and it petered out without me learning much. I would like to try it again...perhaps I can express my idea more clearly this time.Not only do I have what I feel may be an explanation for polar ice caps, the Ice Age, and global warming in my mind, but the idea might also help explain why the Flood didn't poach everything on the earth.But maybe not. This IS something I've thought of on my own...so please don't blame the other creationists with this. I did want to put the idea out for examination here, though.Here's the basics.1. Fountains of the deep erupt. These are hot and do release much energy as heat. It doesn't poach everything on the earth, but does kill everything nearby...not only because of the heat but also because of many other factors. Places where these fountains of the deep might have been...mid atlantic ridge...san andreas fault (I am thinking specifically of the diatomaceous earth deposits in Lompoc, California).2. The water (and debris) shoots into orbit (and some goes beyond). In orbit it supercools. It gradually (over 40 days) returns to the earth as rain. People keep saying all that energy from the falling rain would have poached everything, but I've seen rain...seen it rain for days and days without raising the local temperature any...even lowers it sometimes.3. If this is the case (or something kind of similar) then the earth lost a lot of geothermal heat energy to space (let us skip the giant "what is heat" debate)...the water brought the heat up to space and left it there (so to speak). I think this is similar to how an air conditioning unit works...the refrigerant continually takes heat out of the environment.4. The ice age began right on the heels of the Flood because the earth had a significantly less geothermal energy. The closer to the equator, the less this mattered, though (due to the sun, of course).5. The earth receives more heat from the sun than it loses to space, so over the last 5000 years its been heating up and the ice caps have continually shrunk and the oceans have continually risen to current levels.Not wanting to get into a big "Is the Flood even possible?" discussion. Assume that it IS. From that point, what are the merits, flaws of my ideas.--Jason***also note, that I am not saying that the Bible says this is the way things happened.(I think this is a coffee house topic, but wasn't sure, so I submitted it here)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-26-2005 04:48 AM

Last time the topic was in the coffee house...I think it must have dealt only with the idea that global warming might be caused by the earth recieving a net gain of energy (or something like that). Now that I think about it...my "original" topic probably didn't mention the Flood at all or the ideas about how the Ice Age got started...so that would make it a non-evc (i.e., coffee house) topic.But this clearly brings in the Flood...anyways, that's why I submitted it to PNT and didn't just throw it up in the Coffee House.If the Fountains of the Deep did and could shoot upwards with such force that the water went into near-space or orbit or almost into orbit, would that remove a large quantity of "heat" from the earth (and put into space) and thus cool the earth enough to have an "Ice Age?"I think that is the gist of what I am wanting to see discussed.If the topic doesn't meet (now or later) the EvC guidelines, I won't be offended if it gets closed (not that anyone would care if I would).

it is this I particularly dont understand. I could be wrong, but I think water, if it could and did go into orbit (or was already in orbit -- aka, the canopy theory), would not fall back to earth like rocks do. Water doesn't do a straight descent fall, it atomizes, makes clouds, blows around, coalesces, etc. I imagine the "rain" is not from orbit, but rather like we see today...it's just that the water from which the rain was made had to come from further up than usual (and in the process removed heat from the earth).Therefore, so far, I don't think we would see this "poach the world" type heat from the Flood waters raining down over a 40 day period.AbE: I am not proposing the canopy theory, though...that would NOT remove heat from the earth. I am merely pointing out that I fail to see how water coming from a great height (no matter the theory) would do the "poach the earth" thing because water doesn't fall like rocks.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:13 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:45 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:51 AM

But wasn't that the purpose of the Flood...to destroy the earth and almost every living thing on it?Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.AbE: I guess this is off-topic, though -- i.e., the purpose of the Flood as opposed to the mechanics/effects of the Flood.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:56 AM

Assuming that any of my ideas are correct, these "bits" fall back and the larger "bits" would produce disastrous results, but the purpose of the Flood was to destroy.

From approximately what height have you seen rain fall?
--I don't know really...I believe (from what I can remember from highschool science) that it does not come from too high up, actually)From approximately what height are you proposing the flood waters fell?
--when those waters fell as rain? the same height as normal rain, the water would coalesce where it does now for rain.Approximately what volume of water have you seen fall as rain?(You might want to look at The wettest place).
--me personally? not too much, not too little -- I live in the panhandle of Florida. But are the people in the "wettest place" getting poached? What about the people in Vietnam, during the monsoons -- do they get poached...or even a little hotter than usual due to all the energy released from the falling rain?Approximately what volume of water are you proposing fell as flood waters?
--I have not proposed any volume. I really wouldn't know where to begin to arrive at even an approximation. I believe, currently, that most of the oceans and ice caps were the Flood waters, but I do not believe all the Flood waters came in the form of rain. But, for my ideas about the Ice Age to be correct, a certain volume of water would be required to reduce the internal energy of the earth enough to cause an Ice Age (if that basic idea has any merit at all, and it might not).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:48 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 12:57 AM

quote:

---

And I'm not a physics wonk but it occurs to me - at the speeds we are discussing - would the water not just turn straight to steam anyway?

---

It might at that...or a lot of it anyways. (AbE: after thinking through this a bit more...I am, for the time being, changing "a lot of it" to "some of it")I wonder, could steam even be propelled into orbit? If so, would the energy requirements to do so be reduced, increased, or would they remain unchanged (since a certain volume of water is a certain volume of water)?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:18 AM

I know that if you propel an object upwards, energy must be added to the object to overcome the gravity. I also know that the object -- a cue ball, for instance -- will return with the same velocity it had when it left (talking about an instance of velocity, here, because the object will actually be accelerating -- that is, the velocity will be changing with time -- in both directions). In other words, the initial kinetic energy turns into potential energy. At a certain time, the ball stops moving upward -- at that point all kinetic energy has beens converted to potential energy. Then the potential energy becomes kinetic energy as the cue ball returns toward the earth.(AbE: It's been awhile since physics in highschool. Kinetic energy, IIRC, is energy of motion -- like falling -- while Potential energy would be related to the mass and height of an object and exists because of gravity -- at least in this case.Also, it is important to note that an intial amount of kinetic energy is added to the object...the kinetic energy is converted more and more into potential energy on the way up. That is, the higher the object goes, the more potential energy it has and the less kinetic energy. At the peak, the object has only potential energy and no kinetic energy. During the return, the opposite happens. The potential energy decreases while kinetic energy increases until contact with the earth is made. At that point all the energy is kinetic energy and none is potential...impact brings in a different set of problems, which have no bearing on the discussion and which I probably dont remember too well anyways)So, no...not all the kinetic energy is converted to heat. It is converted to potential energy, which is converted back into kinetic energy on the way back down. It is friction -- resistance to motion (specifically air resistance, in this case) -- which causes objects returning from orbit -- like the shuttle -- to become super hot. Friction converts some -- not nearly all -- the kinetic energy into heat.However, water particles usually don't fall straight down because they cannot overcome the air resistance and air currents very easily; so, water droplets would not get superheated on the way down.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:22 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:27 AM

WHEN was the ice age? how long did it last in your view?Okay. Very good questions.When: If I stick with my current the-earth-is-about-6000-years-old view, and with my current the-Flood-occurred-about-5000-years-ago view, that would put the Ice Age at about 5000 years ago.How Long: I've never thought about it at all...so I really can't give an answer to that one. But I think the question is very interesting.(AbE for the purpose of levity: it ended sometime before I was
born...I am certain of that.)(AbE: Just thinking about it for a few seconds, I am thinking of a nearly constant retreat of the ice caps over the last 5000 years...I wonder if that would make the "end" of the Ice Age hard to determine? It is also beginning to dawn on me that I have actually started a topic with too many sub-topics...oops!)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 01:39 AM

When something is propelled upwards, it stops momentarily at the peak before returning towards the earth. At this point ALL kinetic energy has been turned into potential energy (potential energy is related to mass and distance fromt the earth). If something can prevent gravity from turning the potential energy back into kinetic energy, then the object will stay motionless at the peak. There is no need to release heat or anything...the kinetic energy became potential energy.When the shuttle lands, it is converting potential energy into kinetic energy (this is called "falling" in everyday language). If there were no air molecules in the atmosphere, then the shuttle would never get hot. It is the air molecules brushing across the shuttle that cause SOME (not very much) of the kinetic energy to become heat. The air molecules doing this is called air resistance (not air pressure) -- the air molecules are resisting the downward motion of the shuttle -- it is a type of friction, which is a very common converter of kinetic energy to heat energy.To get hot during a fall, an object must have a high velocity through air molecules. But, these same air molecules prevent water drops from attaining very great downward velocities and, thus, prevent the water drops from generating much heat.--Jason

Rahvin (and Crash), you guys are dealing with HALF the picture...and reaching incorrect conclusions. No. SOME (not nearly all) would be CONVERTED TO (not released as) heat. The majority of the kinetic energy is TRANSFERRED to the earth, which will react. First of all, the earth will transfer SOME of the kinetic energy right back into the shuttle. And the shuttle will transfer it back again (the shuttle and debris will "bounce"...bouncing is the earth returning kinetic energy back to an object, which had transferred the kinetic energy to the earth in the first place (simply put: it fell, landed, and then bounced). The earth will also bend, break, eject, and the earth as a whole will move in the direction the shuttle was falling (but since the earth is so massive, the earth's movement will barely be noticeable).A good example is two billiard balls. One billiard ball hits another. If the hit is dead on, almost all the kinetic energy of the first ball will be transferred to the second. The first will stop and the second will go in the direction the first had been travelling. A very, teensy-weensy bit of the energy will get converted to heat due to friction -- the force that resists motion.When a raindrop hits the earth, the kinetic energy is also transferred to the earth (and the earth transfers it right back). Since water drops are fluid, the water drop responds by SPLASHING (which is similar to bouncing...sort of). Very small bits of earth (grains of sand) will react to the kinetic energy of the raindrop contacting the earth. Believe it or not, each raindrop that hits the earth MOVES the earth (not by too much, mind you). But since things are hitting the earth on nearly all sides pretty much all the time, and since none of these things hitting the earth have nearly the mass of the earth...the forces fairly balance out...if it doesn't balance out perfectly, well it's such a small force that the earth is in no danger of moving out of its path. If you drop an apple on the ground...the earth moves (just a very, very little bit...it takes a lot of zeros after the decimal to describe the fractional amount of distance the earth moves in response to an apple falling or a raindrop falling...I imagine a micron would be HUGE compared to this distance.)In the case of the rain in Noah's Flood, the rain is hitting all over the globe, the kinetic energies transfered during each individual rain drop's impact will pretty much cancel out.You are welcome to use as much water as you wish...the megatons of kinetic energy do not equal an explosion of heat upon impact (raindrops do not explode upon contact with the earth...they splash). It's rain...just like all rain...the only difference is it continues for 40 days and nights, which is disasterous in other ways, of course.It is friction that usually (if not always) turns SOME of an object's kinetic energy into heat...if it turns ALL the kinetic energy into heat, the object cannot continue moving. However, just because and object with kinetic energy stops moving (i.e., by collision with another object), doesn't mean that all kinetic energy turns to heat at that point, either. No, instead, the kinetic energy gets transferred to the other object. If the other object can move freely it will return very little of the kinetic energy back to the orginal object. If the object (for all practical purposes) cannot move at all, it will return all the kinetic energy back to the original object (a basket ball bouncing on the court). Friction is usually like a pest...eating up SOME of our desired kinetic energy by resisting the motion and converts the kinetic energy into heat.The ground, were the shuttle to impact the earth, WOULD heat up. This would likely be due (I could be wrong, but I think I am right) to the shuttle trying to travel THROUGH the earth: the frictional force to this movement would be tremendous, and thus the heat would be tremendous, too (probably not like a nuclear bomb or anything, though). However, rain drop impacts do not have this problem.--Jason

My mistake, then. I did not mean that the water drops must actually orbit the earth (although, that is exactly what I said), I guess I was trying to give an idea of how high I was thinking of the rain drops going. For my idea about the Ice Age to work, the water needs to go high enough to bring the heat out of the earth system so it can dissapate out into space -- however high that is...somebody might know.Thanks for helping me see how I worded that part poorly.--Jason

I get this stuff, btw, from studying physics voraciously in high school. I still really have only an introductory level. The problem here is not that this is hard to explain without diagrams to show the force vectors.However, a simple example might do the trick.Imagine three billiard balls in a row. The two outer ones (first and third billiard balls) are hit gently -- with the same amount of force (but in opposite directions) toward the center one. What happens? The first billiard ball transfers its kinetic energy to the center one in the direction OPPOSITE of the third billiard ball. The third billiard ball transfer its kinetic energy to the center one in the direction OPPOSITE of the first one. When the two balls collide with the center ball, the forces, being in opposite directions, cancel each other out...and the center ball will just stay right where it was (depending on how good the pool players are, of course...heh).Forces are vectors...they have MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION. You cannot remove the DIRECTION aspect from the force...it is no longer a force if you do. Two forces of equal magnitude but with opposite directions can cancel each other out.Now consider two men. One is standing on the north pole. The other is standing on the south pole. When the man on the north pole drops his apple, the earth will move ever so slightly southwards (the direction the apple was moving). When the man on the south pole drops his apple, the earth will move ever so slightly northward, undoing the effects of the first apple-drop.Rain drops, especially in a world-wide flood, would be hitting the earth from all directions. The effects of a rain drop impact on one side of the earth will be canceled out by the effets of a rain drop impact on the opposite side of the earth. Overall, the net effect of the raining will be zero (if you don't include the devastation that a world-wide flood can do, of course).No megatron bomb blasts of heat, no need to compare rain drop impacts to giant meterorite impacts, or whatever.I reiterate that kinetic energy, during collisions, stays kinetic energy...it transfers among the involved objects (a BIT is converted to heat due to friction).--Jason

Heat is the kinetic energy of MOLECULES in an object. This is very different from the kinetic energy OF the object itself. No. This is the crux of YOUR misunderstanding. Earth is not a wizard among objects with the magical ability to turn kinetic energy into heat when other objects with kinetic energy collide with it.When one object collides with another object it transfers its KINETIC energy to the other object. This is true of all objects...the earth is no exception.The game of pool would be impossible if objects turned the kinetic energy of a colliding object into heat. See?--Jason

Has no one been reading my posts...kinetic energy doesn't equal heat energy and collisions do not convert kinetic energy into heat energy. Friction does that.The water drops transfer KINETIC energy to the earth -- i.e., the rain drop impact actually MOVES the earth a teensy-weensy bit. A raindrop impact on the opposite side of the earth cancels that movement out by moving the earth back.Forces are vectors...they have magnitude and direction...the directions cancel out. When and how does the kinetic energy of the rain drop turn into heat? Explain that, please. I'm sure SOME little bit of the kinetic energy DOES convert to heat, but it wouldn't be ALL the kinetic energy of the rain...not nearly all.--Jason