One link cited the whole southern hemisphere as getting hotter and dryer. That's hardly local.
True, but it's hardly global either, now is it? Even if it's getting hotter and dryer in the southern hemisphere, that just means it's getting more humid in the northern. Hence, record rain/snowfall in a lot of places that have never had that.
My mentioning the space ship this time around was a general statement to show that in rising, the space ship takes less power to move at higher speeds than it takes at lower altitudes and once in space it takes no power to keep it going. You all keep on keeping on ignoring the FACT that the higher vapor rises the more vapor it's going to take to maintain the same pressure at earth's surface, because there's less gravitational pull on it to bring it back the higher it gets, just as with the spacecraft. The spacecraft must use rocket power to lower itself back out of space orbit. Right?
Not to lower itself, to slow itself. We'll cover that in a bit.
2. If you want to respond to my above post objectively, please take each of my statements and refute them if you can rather than taking this space ship thing outa context and applying it to discredit my scientifically factural statements.
Actually, since gravity constitutes the bulk of your inference it's important to get this right, so we're going to stick with this until we feel you've grasped it. don't worry; I have the time.
A spaceship in orbit experiences as much gravitational tug as anything on the surface of the earth. Got that? It sounds weird, and contrary to "common sense" and popular depictions of space travel, but it's true. Being high up doesn't significantly reduce the Earth's gravitational tug. You have to be out beyond the orbit of the moon (some nearly 200,000 miles) before gravity is really weakened.
If you think about it, you already know this is true. That's why spaceships and satellites continue to orbit around the earth in a circle instead of shooting out in a straight line into deep space.
Ok, so gravity maintains as much of a pull on the spaceship in orbit as it does on the spaceship on the launch pad. What then keeps it up? Its intense speed. What maintains its speed? Inertia (the tendancy for an object in motion to remain in motion) and the lack of air friction outside the earth's atmosphere. This is stuff I covered several posts ago but you really don't show signs of having understood it.
You could orbit the Earth at a mile above the surface if there wasn't air friction to slow you down, because you'd have to maintain a speed of only about 8-9 miles a second. When there's no air, there's nothing to slow you down, so you don't have to expend fuel to maintain speed.
As for the leaving orbit, let me try to explain - I'm on a ship in orbit with the Earth whirling directly below me. How do I get back home? Not by firing my engines above me (pushing me down), but by firing them in front of me, to slow me down. As I lose speed my orbit decends (faster speeds mean higher orbits) until I hit the atmosphere, which slows me down even further (and heats me up, which is why I have all those heat-resistant re-entry tiles all over the bottom of my ship).
Are you getting this yet? Let me try and summarize:
Within the distance we're talking about, height above the earth does not decrease the earth's gravitational attraction. Spaceships are held up in orbit by intense speed, not by a weakening of gravity at that height. Therefore the height of the water vapor has nothing to do with how gravity pulls on it. Therefore you're very wrong about how much water the atmosphere can hold at reasonable temperatures.
Once more, just to be sure - how high you go has nothing at all to do with how much gravity pulls on you. Gravity pulls the same on a spaceship in orbit as on a spaceship parked in a hanger. Is this clear yet?
Plus don't forget that in my hypothesis, two miracle effecting men cause the rain not to fall, so if you want to discuss my hypothesis as I laid it out on day one, you've gotta factor that in.
If you're doing science, there's no way (or reason) to factor in the activites of two men who can do something that is impossible according to science. It's just not possible, so why is it relevant to a scientific discussion?
Regardless of what anybody says, if anything can be shown to exist, it's scientific to acknowledge it's existence. The fulfilled prophecies are actually more evidence that it exists than anything you have to prove the alleged fact of evolution.
I totally disagree. But I think this is a topic for another thread - if you'd like to start it.
I mean, the evidence for your view is only one book - the bible. The evidence for ours fills a vast array of books, journals, and web pages, representing maybe 100 or 1000 times as much data as contained in your bible. By just that measure alone we have way more data.
And the supernatural has never been shown to exist. Every time it's tested it turns out to be wishful thinking, response bias, hallucination, or even simple fraud.
Now you're showing your ignorance in my field of expertise. The context favors highly my literal interpretation.
I'll freely admit to my ignorance. I'll take your word for it that the context doesn't support my interpretation as well as it may yours. But you didn't provide the context, did you? You provided just that line as support. And my interpretation is as well supported
by that one line as your interpretation.
I don't think that bodes well for prophecy. We can't even agree on what that statement is a prophecy of.