Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

There is a lot of water vapor in our atmosphere, limited in extent by the tropopause, but this tropopause can vary in height according to temperatures. Colder temperatures mean higher tropopause and more water vapor in the air. A sudden increase in atmospheric temperature, as occurred during the volcanic Siberian Traps, would lower the tropopause releasing huge amounts of precipitation from the atmosphere. The seeding and air circulation caused by the volcanic activity would have contributed towards excessive rainfalls.

Thus the source of water for the flood was from the continental changes during the PT boundary, combined with precipitation from a lowered tropopause and volcanic activity, and also from the melting of the ice caps and melting of glaciation caused by the increased temperatures from the Siberian traps.

The flood water most likely receded when water flowed into the great chasm when Pangea first split.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Show your working.

1) The tropopause is temperature sensitive and it will drop in height at low temperatures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropopause
" Since the tropopause responds to the average temperature of the entire layer that lies underneath it, it is at its peak levels over the Equator, and reaches minimum heights over the poles."

2) Water vapor is mainly limited beneath the tropopause
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Approximately 99.13% of it is contained in the troposphere.

Moving continental crust about does not reduce its volume. The rifting of Panagea would indeed have created an chasm into which water could flow, but it would also have made the Panthalassic Ocean smaller by a corresponding amount. It would also have created a mid-ocean ridge which would have raised sea levels, not lowered them.

It didnt necessarily occur simultaneously. The chasm can be created in the midst of a landmass and then spread and widen BEFORE reaching oceans. Thus we have a reduction in the size of the Panthalassic ocean before the water reaches the chasm. This would add to the flooding effect because of the reduced size of the ocean during the creation of the dry chasm. The moment the chasm reaches the ocean, water would start pouring in, which is consistent with records of a marine regression during the PT boundary.

I said, show your working.

I haven't got exact working. I would assume the bulk of the water came from the melting ice caps and melting glaciation and from the reduced ocean size during the break up of Pangea, and NOT the water vapor, but the water vapor levels and seeding from volcanoes could explain the extensive rainfalls, even if the rainfalls were not the bulk of the water. If you feel this is impossible, show your workings, otherwise its a possibility.

But after all this has happened, you have the same volume of water covering the same area as you did when you started.

Exactly, assuming the depth of the new ocean floor is approximately the same as the depth of the ocean, which is highly likely. After the flood, waters then recede to approximately pre-flood levels.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

No, no. You produce a hypothesis, then I'll look at it. Otherwise your answer to the question posed in the OP is that you don't know. In which case this would be a good time for you to stop posting on this thread. But surely you cannot expect that I should form your hypothesis for you. If you want me to do your thinking for you, then here's my thinking: the flood described in Genesis didn't happen. You're welcome.

To say it didn't happen, you would have to disprove all reasonable possibilities presented. I have presented a reasonable hypothesis if you think the hypothesis unreasonable , present your case why you think so.

As you explain it, it appears that we have the same amount of water before the flood and after the flood. So the extra water that caused the flood is ... where?

I'm not following you, why the need for "extra water". I believe sea levels would have risen from the melted glaciation and melted ice caps, and also the compressed oceans from tectonic activity, with maybe a slight rainfall effect too. They would have receded when the new oceans opened up, and ice caps started re-forming.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

hmmmm ok, that's your view

Maybe someone else will be prepared to discuss the validity of the claim of Siberian Trap related melting of ice caps/glaciation at the end Permian/PT boundary causing rising sea levels? I do think this is on topic for the thread, which is asking for claims of where the flood waters came from.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

And it is gratifying to see that you find it unanswerable.

Not at all.

The PT boundary is famous for what is known as the Siberian Traps. This was a period of extreme volcanic activity in northern Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

http://palaeoentomolog.ru/Lib/Chumakov3.pdf
"—The Late Permian–initial Triassic was a period of the Earth climate change, as the glacial climate of the Late Paleozoic was replaced by the non-glacial one of the Mesozoic"

The continental land mass of Pangea peaked at the end Paleozoic
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/permian_period.html
For most of the Permian, life on Earth was much like it had been in the Carboniferous. Temperatures were cooler because the continent of Pangea was moving northward. Mountains were forming as the supercontinent Pangea moved. When the continent of Siberia collided into the northern part of Euramerica, Pangea was complete. The Ural Mountains were pushed up by this collision.

http://www.episodes.co.in/...s/244/239-244%20Metcalfe%20.pdf
The boundary between the Permian and Triassic periods shows the most significant change in global biota in the Phanerozoic (and perhaps in the entire history of life on earth) and marks the boundary between the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Eras. More than 90% of shelly marine genera were wiped out in this event and approximately 70% of animals and plants on land suffered similarly. Possible global catastrophic events suggested as causes of the P-T mass extinction include bolide impact, melting of gas hydrates flooding the world's atmosphere with methane, major marine regression, massive volcanism, oceanic anoxia and overturn of stagnant deep ocean waters

The end -Permian is well known for an extensive marine transgression
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionSeaLevel.pdf
The relationship between transgression and anoxia is frequently seen in the geological record Hallam, 1981; Wignall, 1994 , but the lethality of the end Permian event may be because of the exceptionally shallow-water development of anoxic conditions during this event

If anyone is interested I can show evidence for widespread mass movements of sedimentation during the PT boundary as well.

I am not saying I have proved a flood at the PT boundary, just supporting a hypothesis that there were factors contributing towards a worldwide marine transgression then. Volcanic activity, melting glaciation, melting ice caps, huge landmass of Pangea established.

but in other threads it has been pointed out that even at 100% humidity the atmosphere can contain just a fraction of a percent of the world's total water, nowhere near enough to significantly affect sea levels.

Completely agree. That is why my focus for the source of flooding is the melting glaciation and melting ice caps, sea levels often changed by a couple of hundred meters in ages past. Contributing factor is the expansion of the land mass to a peak at the formation of Pangea., continental masses and movements contributing towards changes in sea levels as well.

As you know I've been discussing this on the "Portillo" thread, so I feel there has already been sufficient back and forth on the subject, its not as if these threads reach consensus so I don't really see the need to carry on the discussion further in yet a third thread. Those in the other thread seemed too distracted by side issues to really challenge the basic hypothesis that in fact the PT boundary is an extreme situation involving a marine transgression, marine regression and vast sediment movements. Enough evidence for a valid hypothesis already exists, sure its not proven, its an evidence based hypothesis awaiting futher proof.