Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming & the Flood
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 164 (226384)
07-26-2005 4:46 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 7:04 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2005 7:52 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 07-27-2005 12:05 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 12 by MangyTiger, posted 07-27-2005 1:11 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 127 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-29-2005 5:43 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 164 (226670)
07-27-2005 6:35 AM


Nature of this Topic
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
This is not a coffee house topic. It is one directly concerned with the intention of this site. It is also not worth bothering with unless it is to be treated as science.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-27-2005 06:37 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-27-2005 6:55 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 164 (226677)
07-27-2005 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
07-27-2005 6:35 AM


Re: Nature of this Topic
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 07-27-2005 6:35 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-27-2005 11:44 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 07-27-2005 1:26 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 164 (226678)
07-27-2005 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 4:46 AM


Charles the non-scientist.
WHEN was the ice age? how long did it last in your view?
ABE
quote:
The water (and debris) shoots into orbit (and some goes beyond).
Beyond? That means it traveled more than 62 miles (using the boundaries set by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale) straight up.
See any problems with that? What happens to the bits that fall down to earth? What sort of energy is required to get large chucks of matter to go into outer space?
quote:
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.
And this just shows why you would be better off getting a basic science textbook.
Look... here I am one of the low-level generalists, I have a little bit of knowledge about most of the sciences but nothing major. If I think this is rubbish, I dread to think what happens when the big guns see it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:32 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 4:46 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 7:49 AM CK has not replied
 Message 26 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 1:35 AM CK has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 164 (226683)
07-27-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
07-27-2005 7:04 AM


Further to my own point : Space flight
If we pop over to Wikipedia, we can find the following:
quote:
That said, typical sub-orbital craft need go only just past the accepted edge of space at 100 km (62.5 miles) for the flight to be a spaceflight. At this arbitrary boundary there is still too much atmosphere present for a long term stable low earth orbit (LEO). In order to be stable for more than just a few weeks or months the satellite or spacecraft is placed in orbit at an altitude where drag from the atmosphere truly is negligible. A stable LEO is usually at least 350 km up.
But again, the difference in height should not be overemphasized: Whether the altitude is 100 km or 350 km the distance from the centre of the Earth is only different by less than four percent.
The difference between the lowest speeds required for orbital and sub-orbital space flights is substantial: a spacecraft must reach about 29,000 km/h (18,000 mph) to attain orbit. This compares to the relatively modest 4,000-4,800 km/h (2,500-3,000 mph) typically attained for sub-orbital crafts.
18,000mph! And some of this material fall back down onto the planet because it does not quite reach that speed!
and what happens to the bits that fall back down to earth?
quote:
When an object moves through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound, it also generates shockwaves in front of it as it "collides" with particles and compresses them faster than they can be moved out of its path.
Now some of this many be vaporized or burnt off - but with my limited knowledge you still seem to be "nuking" the planet from orbit!
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:56 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 7:04 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 12:25 AM CK has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 164 (226686)
07-27-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 4:46 AM


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.
That's because it doesn't rain from orbit. You know how the shuttle comes back down super-hot? Every single raindrop is going to be like that if you have it raining from orbit.
I think the most glaring flaw in your model is that you completely ignore the most important, largest source of energy in your system - the kinetic energy you've used to propel an astronomical amount of water into orbit, which you have to do something with when you bring it back down. (It turns into heat, no matter what you do.) In order to orbit the Earth something has to move at least eight miles a second, as I recall. Generally much faster. (You'd have to ask the physics wonks.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 4:46 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 8:00 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 20 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 12:12 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 25 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 1:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 164 (226690)
07-27-2005 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
07-27-2005 7:52 AM


ARGGG it burns! (Physic wonk needed)
Crash - I don't want to die! Please tell me this is a theory and not a fact
ABE:
quote:
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).
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?
Phew, that failing rain is not going to kill me after all - sure is hot however...ARGGG it burns! (where are all the lazy physics wonks? - building timemachines and the like I bet).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27-Jul-2005 08:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2005 7:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 12:54 AM CK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 8 of 164 (226746)
07-27-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by TheLiteralist
07-27-2005 6:55 AM


Re: Nature of this Topic
TheLiteralist writes:
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 you're asking the wrong question.
If enough heat could be removed, yes, of course it could cause an Ice Age. But you might as well ask, "If the world was turned inside out...?" or "If pigs could fly...?"
The "if" is so big that it makes the rest of the question irrelevant.
You need to look at if the "fountains of the deep" scenario is possible before you can detail its consequences.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-27-2005 6:55 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 12:01 PM ringo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 164 (226749)
07-27-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
07-27-2005 11:44 AM


Side observation - outcome of creationist theories
Is it just me or do most creationist theories actually destroy the planet and/or most of the life on it when they encounter real physics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-27-2005 11:44 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 07-27-2005 1:06 PM CK has not replied
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 07-27-2005 1:34 PM CK has not replied
 Message 21 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 12:21 AM CK has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 164 (226751)
07-27-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 4:46 AM


This would be a good exercise for you to work out yourself.
From approximately what height have you seen rain fall?
From approximately what height are you proposing the flood waters fell?
Approximately what volume of water have you seen fall as rain? (You might want to look at The wettest place).
Approximately what volume of water are you proposing fell as flood waters?
The energy released in falling is the volume of water times its density (1 gram per cubic centimeter) times the distance that it fell. How does this compare with the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 4:46 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 12:43 AM JonF has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 11 of 164 (226774)
07-27-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
07-27-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Side observation - outcome of creationist theories
Is it just me or do most creationist theories actually destroy the planet and/or most of the life on it when they encounter real physics?
It's not just you.
Since I started coming across Creationist theories it's always seemed to me that they are so desperate to make the Bible scientifically possible that they don't do the most basic sanity check on what they are proposing.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 12:01 PM CK has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 12 of 164 (226777)
07-27-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 4:46 AM


I think you need to read up about potential energy, kinetic energy and the conservation of energy.
When you have a grasp of these try doing the exercise JonF suggests in Message 10 - I think you will find the answer illuminating (and scary as hell ).

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 4:46 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 13 of 164 (226782)
07-27-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TheLiteralist
07-27-2005 6:55 AM


Re: Nature of this Topic
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.
This scenario is far worse than others have mentioned. You are talking about ejecting mass from several miles underwater, and then several miles straight up into space at near escape velocity.
I can't even imagine the amount of force necessary to eject mass from beneath miles of ocean. Volcanoes that are perfectly capable of ejecting mass into space (in extreme eruptions) when on land never even breach the surface when they erupt at the ocean floor. With the amount of matierial you would need to eject in order to flood the world, we are talking about many of these massive super-eruptions happening at once. I'm not sure how to do these calculations (I'd need a measurement of the decelleration of a flow of water from the drag force of a larger containing body of water, and I just don't know where to find that data), but I'm fairly certain the energy you would need to accomplish even the first two stages of your scenario would cause total global devestation on the level of literally melting large portions of the sea floor into magma and flash-boiling the oceans.
That just doesn't seem plausable to me.
Then, as mentioned:
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.
You've seen rain fall from a few thousand feet. You've never seen rain fall from orbit. The kinetic energy of that amount of water falling to the earth from orbit would heat the atmosphere enough to destroy the world. Again. Lets use simple K=1/2mv^2 (measurement for kinetic energy). Terminal velocity for a typical raindrop is roughly 7 m/s. To cover the entire surface of the earth with only 100 meters of water (not nearly enough to cover even a small mountain) would require 31,694,485,109,760,000 metric tons. This comes out to be approximately 5.89e24 megatons of energy! Just the kinetic energy contained by that much water moving at terminal velocity is enough to annihilate all life on earth! For reference, the scale used to determine the deadliness of an asteroid collision only goes up to 1e8 megatons - more than enough to destroy all life.
Your scenario is mathematically impossible without turning the Earth into a barren rock multiple times over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-27-2005 6:55 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2005 1:53 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 164 (226786)
07-27-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
07-27-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Side observation - outcome of creationist theories
I don't know why God couldn't have just snapped his fingers to create the universe -- just make it come into being. No accelerated decay rates, not super-fast light, no red shifts -- none of this weird evidence that seems to indicate an old earth.
Or if it was necessary to flood the earth (and why a flood?) why God couldn't make rain come from no where and drain into no where. This was clearly intended to be a miraculous event -- why are the creationists so intent on finding a scientific explanation for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 12:01 PM CK has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 164 (226796)
07-27-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
07-27-2005 1:26 PM


off topic volcanoes
Volcanoes that are perfectly capable of ejecting mass into space (in extreme eruptions) when on land
off topic, but I just gotta ask for a source for this rather surprising assertion. thx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 07-27-2005 1:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 07-27-2005 2:07 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 07-27-2005 2:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 19 by deerbreh, posted 07-27-2005 4:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024