Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 7:11 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, PaulK (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,343 Year: 15,379/19,786 Month: 2,102/3,058 Week: 476/404 Day: 80/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 276 (729825)
06-19-2014 1:08 PM


Your math is sort of correct, but you have assumed an inexhaustible supply of water to form rain. T'ain't so and t'wasn't so. All the water in the atmosphere today is 3,095 cubic miles (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). The Earth's surface area is 196,900,000 square miles. Dividing one by the other we see that if we took all the water out of the atmosphere and deposited it as liquid on the Earth's surface it would be 0.00016 miles thick, or approximately 1 inch thick. Not much of a fludde.

Oh, but it was different back then, right? Well, water was water and conservation of energy was conservation of energy and thermodynamics was thermodynamics or else life anything like we know it would be impossible. The most promising calculations by a YEC for shoving more water into the atmosphere (and unavoidably raising the temperature and pressure at the Earth's surface) were Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles. The abstract says:

quote:
Temperature profiles under a water vapor canopy were studied to determine their sensitivity to variations in factors other than water vapor content. The solar constant, albedo, solar zenith angle, cirrus cloud thickness, and cirrus cloud base height were each varied independently from about 50% to 200% of their normal values and the equilibrium vertical temperature profiles determined. A vapor canopy containing about 0.1 meters of precipitable water was assumed in all cases. Surface temperatures were affected most strongly by changes in the solar constant. A 50% reduction in the solar constant reduced the surface temperature under the canopy from 335 K to 240 K. Changes in albedo, solar zenith angle, and cirrus cloud thickness also produced strong effects on surface temperature. However, none of the effects were so dramatic that the concern over limitation on water content in the canopy by hot surface temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were to be introduced into the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized, it is estimated that the precipitable water content of the canopy could possibly be raised to as much as 2.0 meters.

So if everything were carefully tuned for maximum atmospheric water content without destroying all life and then all that water rained out it would cover the Earth to a depth of 6.6 feet! Wowie kerzowie, that''s a fludde-and-a-half, huh?

In fairness the same author published Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy in 2003. The abstract:

quote:
Calculations of equilibrium temperatures under a water vapor canopy which minimizes the greenhouse effect show that if the solar constant was less than 25% of today’s value the surface temperature would be livable. In fact, for a solar constant approaching 1% of today’s value it appears that a dense water vapor canopy would be necessary to avoid the entire atmosphere, including the oxygen and nitrogen, from precipitating to the surface as snow. If appropriate conditions can be demonstrated which justify the assumption of a much lower solar constant than typically studied, these calculations could revive consideration of an early Earth covered by a water vapor canopy.

But he neglected one importing item: how much water could be contained in the atmosphere in any of his scenarios? Nobody cares if you think lots more water could be held in the atmosphere unless you can demonstrate how much more. All his modeling in that paper was based on holding enough water in the atmosphere to cover the Earth by 10 cm (4 inches). Hardly worth the bother, right?


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 27 of 276 (729855)
06-20-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-19-2014 7:11 PM


Water was water, conservation of energy was conservation of energy, and thermodynamics was thermodynamics or else life anything like we know it would be impossible.

You are invoking magic again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-19-2014 7:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 30 of 276 (729859)
06-20-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
06-20-2014 10:26 AM


Re: why not miracle
Remember, Faith knows the Mind of God. She's infallible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 10:26 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 39 of 276 (729870)
06-20-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
06-20-2014 11:56 AM


Re: why not miracle
The water being suspended above the earth, on the other hand, is understood to...

...be in violation of natural laws; i.e. requiring a miracle. And getting it down to Earth's surface without killing Noah & crew would require another miracle.

We agree that life as we know it existed 5000-6000 years ago. That means that atoms had the same properties and conservation of energy was in force. Given that your rainfall scenario is impossible.

just a small part of the huge changes that can be biblically inferred to have accompanied the Flood and given us in many ways a different world to live in

Life anywhere near as we know it could not exist in a world where your water is suspended in the atmosphere or in orbit in space. Life anywhere near as we know it could not exist in a world where such water was transported to the Earth's surface as a liquid.

You can cry "different back then!" as much as you want, but the fact is that back then had to be compatible with life as we know it. That places lots of constraints on how different it could be, and we know a lot of those constraints. Water was water, gravity was gravity, energy was conserved. Your claims require miracles.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 42 of 276 (729873)
06-20-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
06-20-2014 1:01 PM


Re: why not miracle
OK, so you explicitly reject reality. Good to know.

Life anywhere near to as we know it could not exist under those conditions, and I've linked to reasons why exclusively from YECs. That scenario just cannot work without multiple miracles. NO matter how infallible you are with God in yuour pocket doing whatever you tell him to.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 06-20-2014 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 160 of 276 (730019)
06-23-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
06-22-2014 11:08 PM


Re: Working with real data
This thread is about the rain measurements I made to see if the Biblical methods of producing the water provided enough to cover the mountains.

You have made no measurements. You made a calculation based on the risibly false assumption of infinite water available to produce rain.

Since you have no support for that assumption, your calculation is meaningless.

Things weren't all that different back then Life as we know it existed. Therefore the laws of physics and chemistry were the same as now, and the environment (temperature, pressure, ...) was about the same. Therefore your infinite water supply assumption is incompatible with life as we know it and can be (and has been) discarded.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 06-22-2014 11:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 10:40 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 203 of 276 (730069)
06-23-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
06-23-2014 10:40 AM


Re: Working with real data
The idea is that the rain was part of it, the fountains of the deep the other part of it, and all that interested me was finding out that at a rate of rainfall that is extremely heavy but not impossible by today's measurements the depth of the Flood could have been achieved without any other source involved.

That rate of rainfall from vapor in the atmosphere is incompatible with human (or pretty much any) life. Bit of a problem for you.

I don't assume any change in the basic laws of physics and nothing anyone has said about that is more than wild conjecture since you have nothing you can measure to prove anything about it.

Simple and correct logical and mathematical deductions from the basic laws of physics show that your scenario is incompatible with life as we know it. We know the properties of water. We know basic geometry. That's all we need. The temperature and pressure would have been way too high. Your choice is between no life as we know it before the fludde and no vapor canopy.

Walt Brown, he who is so loony that most loonies consider him loony, occasionally can to a correct calculation such as at Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy. If your canopy only held 40 feet of water, the temperature on the Earth's surface required to maintain it as vapor would be about 200 °F. Fundamental property of water and fundamental physics. Condensing one gram of water from a canopy with 40 feet of water would release 510 calories of heat. Fundamental physical fact. As Brown showed, that would raise the temperature at the Earth's surface by about 810 °F. I.e a vapor canopy with 40 feet of water in it would have raised the Earth's surface temperature to about 1,000 °F when it condensed. Not compatible with life anywhere near to as we know it.

Just for laughs let's work with your 4,800 or 60 feet of water in a vapor canopy. The radius of the Earth is constant. The density (pounds per cubic foot) of liquid water doesn't change much with changes in temperature or pressure, so I'll assume it's constant. Current atmospheric pressure is about 15 pounds per square foot. The properties of water in various forms are well known and widely available, including an Excel spreadsheet, and those properties won't change unless some really fundamental physics and chemistry changes. Those facts, conservation of energy, and a few constant units conversion factors are all we need. See below, especially the red rectangles:

So, before your canopy condensed the Earth's surface temperature would have between a balmy 266 (60 feet of water) to 634 (4800 feet of water) degrees Fahrenheit. Good luck with humans living in that.

Using Brown's formula, referenced above, for the temperature rise required to condense that vapor into liquid would be between 885 (60 feet of water) to 1,001 (4800 feet of water) degrees Fahrenheit for a total between 1,151 to 1,635 degrees Fahrenheit. Noah wouldn't have lasted an instant!

Of course that temperature increase would require a humongous pressure increase to maintain the condensed water as liquid. Here the steam tables fail us; the temperature is way above the point at which any table I've tried cuts off. But a tremendous pressure would have been required and pressure at the Earth's surface is a result of the weight of the atmosphere. You are going to have to come up with a scenario in which all that water is removed from the atmosphere but something weighing much much more was added to the atmosphere. Good luck with that!

For your convenience I have placed the Excel spreadsheet on the Web. If yuo don't have Excel the free Libre Office will open it (it may not do the temperature-required-to-support-the-vapor calculations because those are VBA macros, but Saturated Water Line - Steam Table will do it for you if you paste in the pressure).

Bottom line: a vapor canopy of any significant extent is incompatible with anything close to life as we know it. Your choice is a vapor canopy with no human life or no vapor canopy and a miraculous creation of water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 10:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 2:23 PM JonF has responded
 Message 261 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2014 1:26 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 215 of 276 (730092)
06-23-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
06-23-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Working with real data
All your calculations mean nothing though since there is no way to check any of it.

No need to check any of it, although you are welcome to do so. If water was water back then, and if spheres were spheres, your vapor canopy is impossible. Those are the only assumptions. If there was a vapor canopy, its existence was a miracle and it's condensation was another miracle.

Do you agree that water back then was like water today? Or are you going to argue that back then the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry were wildly different and water was something totally unlike water today?

Or perhaps the formulas for the surface area and its volume were different?

Maybe energy wasn't conserved? Magically heat energy disappeared?

That's all that my analysis is based on. It's valid and correct until you come up with some valid issue {hah!}

The Bible indicates the existence of something like a vapor canopy,...

The Bible indicate the existence of something totally unlike a vapor canopy.

... if there is another viable interpretation...

There are no interpretations of that reference that are viable other than a miracle. Or a universe totally unlike the one in which we live.

...of that reference we can consider it, but it seems to fit what is required for the forty days and nights of rain so one has to assume that it couldn't have been such a dangerous thing,...

Oh, it could rain for forty days and nights. Just not enough to make any significant contribution to a global fludde.

...or there were some mitigating factors you aren't considering.

The analysis is simple and based on fundamental physical and geometrical properties. If you can come up with a mitigating factor that might (hah!) make the vapor canopy viable. However, the lack of any possible non-miraculous mitigating factor has led YECs to abandon the vapor canopy, except for the looniest of the looniest of the ignorant loons. Anyone who's actually investigated it, and there have been lots of YECs who have, has given up on the idea. Just ain't viable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 2:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 216 of 276 (730093)
06-23-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-23-2014 2:39 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Some physicalistic picture of actual openings in the sky as "windows" is the literalistic rendering I'd object to

Yeah, God couldn't do that, create water and pour it down on the Earth. He's far too impotent. I guess we know that because you told him he couldn't and he does whatever you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 2:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 3:32 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 230 of 276 (730139)
06-24-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
06-23-2014 3:32 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
What?!

What I wrote was pretty simple

Some physicalistic picture of actual openings in the sky as "windows" is the literalistic rendering I'd object to

Yeah, God couldn't do that, create water and pour it down on the Earth. He's far too impotent. I guess we know that because you told him he couldn't and he does whatever you say?

You are always in favor of a simple literal reading of a passage except where it's obviously (to you) poetry. I think that a possible interpretation is that God opened some holes in the sky (nothing like rain clouds) and created water and poured it through the holes. It appears that you don't like this interpretation because it's literal. Or maybe because you think God is not capable of doing something like that. Either way, you are telling God what he may or may not do by adding to the text.

{ABE} I see you have no response to my latest message about the impossibility (absent miracles) of a vapor canopy. Very telling. When you have nothing, just deny, deny, deny.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 3:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 237 of 276 (730151)
06-24-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-24-2014 9:39 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
The vapor canopy makes the best sense of the Biblical terminology and the amount of water that flooded the earth, that's all.

The vapor canopy makes no sense whatsoever in any paradigm.

I notice that you are running from answering my questions:

quote:
Do you agree that water back then was like water today? Or are you going to argue that back then the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry were wildly different and water was something totally unlike water today?

Or perhaps the formulas for the surface area and its volume were different?

Maybe energy wasn't conserved? Magically heat energy disappeared?


If you have a better idea that fits the Bible I'm all ears.

I've already given it. Miracles. (Assuming for the sake of argument that there was actually a fludde)

As for the word "windows" the Bible uses metaphors frequently (God's "hands" for instance, or "Lamb of God," or "Bride of Christ" and so on) and the ancients could see there are no holes in the sky same as we can.

And the Bible often uses literal meanings. I could accept no actual holes in the solid (as the Hebrews thought of it) sky, but an inundation of miraculously produced water could easily be ascribed to holes in the solid sky even if they couldn't be seen in the rain. Or do you think they could see the sky during the rain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 238 of 276 (730152)
06-24-2014 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 9:42 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Principal --> principle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 9:42 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 10:56 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 272 of 276 (730258)
06-26-2014 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by herebedragons
06-25-2014 1:26 PM


Re: Working with real data
Jon, I was fooling around with your spreadsheet and I tried to figure out what the smallest amount of water that could be plugged in and get a livable temperature. Even at very, very low numbers (10^-24) the temperature still needs to 100C

I'll check, but I think you are taking it outside the valid range. But the calculations are correct. I'll put a more complete answer together, hopefully today.

{ABE} I started on the full explanation, and figured out where you are going wrong. See the first word in cell B12. The pressure under consideration is normal atmospheric pressure (assumed due solely to oxygen and nitrogen and argon and a few trace gasses) *plus* the pressure due to water vapor in the atmosphere. (Actually it could be partly liquid, clouds, above the Earth's surface without affecting the result as long as it's all vapor at the Earth's surface).

The boiling point of water at 15 psi is 100 C. The boiling point of water at (15 + ε ) psi, where ε is small compared to 15 is 100 C within the precision we need here.

And we are looking at pure vapor. Vapor can obviously exist at temperatures lower than 100 C and pressure 15 psi, since humidity exists, but water can also exist; it depends on other factors. But for just vapor no matter what other factors you have to be in the vapor area.

A Pascal (Pa) is 6,895 psi and a Kelvin (K) (not degrees K, just K) is C + 273.15. The red dots are "critical points". The brownish area to the right of the liquid area is "supercritical fluid", both liquid-ish and vapor-ish. The point where all three phases touch is a "triple point" where the three phases are indistinguishable. The little blue X is standard temperature and pressure. If you move right from the blue X you get to the vapor/liquid line at (surprise) 373 K or 100 C.

It's clearer on a pressure-enthalpy diagram with lines of constant temperature, from STEAM P-H DIAGRAM:

The purple-bounded "bell" area is mixed liquid and vapor. To the left of the bell is liquid, to the right of the bell is vapor. The triple point is at the top of the bell Note that the lines of constant temperature are horizontal within the "bell". When a system is mixed water and steam, somewhere along one of those horizontal lines, the percentage of how far along that line it is is the "quality" of the steam. My spreadsheet is calculating the temperature where a line of constant pressure intersects the right edge of the "bell". That's the minimum temperature at which you can have pure vapor. Increase the temperature by the eentsiest bit or more and you must have pure vapor.

Clear as mud?

{ABE2}Cells A12, A13, and A14 should be set to display two figures to the right of the decimal point.

{ABE3} The C to F conversions are correct, multiplication and division take precedence over addition. See the online calculator at http://www.onlineconversion.com/temperature.htm.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2014 1:26 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by herebedragons, posted 06-27-2014 7:03 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 274 of 276 (730465)
06-28-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by herebedragons
06-27-2014 7:03 PM


Re: Working with real data
I'll go into this more, but my spreadsheet is not saying that it must be 100 C to have any water vapor in the atmosphere. It must be 100C for liquid water to not exist in the atmosphere. The initial condition was solely vapor in the atmosphere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by herebedragons, posted 06-27-2014 7:03 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 5:06 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5365
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 276 of 276 (730584)
06-29-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by herebedragons
06-28-2014 5:06 PM


OK.

You are correct about the delta T conversions, I've fixed it and updated the online copy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 5:06 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019