Jump to content


Photo

Ice Ages


  • Please log in to reply
503 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 November 2015 - 04:41 PM

One of the many things that need to be squeezed into the brief amount of time allowed according to a literal reading of Genesis is the many Ice Ages that have occurred within Earth's history. Creationist and meteorologist Michael Oard provides the following explanation at AIG.

 

https://answersingen...he-ice-age-fit/

 

Basically the Flood caused a single ice age (multiple ice ages are thrown out) starting with an ice free planet, the trigger being warm oceans causing increased evaporation which dumped snow on cold continents cooled by volcanic ash in the stratosphere. He reckons the entire Ice Age lasted just 700 years (500 yrs for advance, 200 yrs for meltback).

 

This is  a totally unrealistic scenario. Considering the heat capacity of the oceans surely this would result in warmer air penetrating inland irrespective of reduced solar radiation caused by the ash. I do not see how this is going to produce massive snowfall able to form 1000m thick ice sheets, do you ? Starting with an ice free planet makes it even more difficult due to the lower total albedo (no ice caps at the poles). Even if there was some net cooling in the centre of continents, the ash would only remain in the atmosphere for a few years and then you're back to normal solar input. Of course there should also be an obvious ash layer present consistently in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores- there isn't.

 

The extent of the last glacial maximum reached as far as southern England, do you think it feasible that hot oceans and a few years of volcanic ash in the atmosphere could account for this ?



#2 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 November 2015 - 05:04 PM

Hi Wibble.   I have Oard's book and read it but it's been about 8 years or so, so I've forgotten most of his stuff.  I am not sure I want to try to give answer for the various YE explanations for ice ages.  However, I would suggest that your point about less albedo due to no ice caps is incorrect, since ice caps are at such high latitudes that even without ice there would be little effect on solar input.  I am also doubtful that ash could do much in the way of reflecting (i.e. increasing albedo), since it is dark rather than light.  It could BLOCK solar energy from reaching the surface but not so much reflecting it, I'd think.  Maybe it doesn't matter whether it is blocked or reflected.  I suppose blocking would mean the top part of the ash layer gets heated and then that heat gets radiated into space...so that's about the same effect as a higher albedo.  Of course I'd think any ash from volcanoes would become negligible after 10 years or so.  However, if the warmer oceans caused increased cloud cover, that WOULD dramatically affect albedo.  If I recall there is about 30% albedo today, caused primarily by the very white cloud tops and (also by snow cover in winter).  If that were to be increased to (say) 80% that would cause a very significant cooling of the high clouds (causing snow) while the warmer ocean would keep the lower atm warmer...for animals and humans.  This could continue for hundreds of years until the oceans cooled. 



#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 November 2015 - 03:43 PM

Hi Indy,
 

However, I would suggest that your point about less albedo due to no ice caps is incorrect, since ice caps are at such high latitudes that even without ice there would be little effect on solar input.


Well the polar caps will have at least some effect on the overall albedo of the Earth, not in winter of course when it’s dark anyway all the time but in summer. Lower contribution from the north perhaps because of the reduction in sea ice extent in summer.
 

I am also doubtful that ash could do much in the way of reflecting (i.e. increasing albedo), since it is dark rather than light. It could BLOCK solar energy from reaching the surface but not so much reflecting it, I'd think. Maybe it doesn't matter whether it is blocked or reflected. I suppose blocking would mean the top part of the ash layer gets heated and then that heat gets radiated into space...so that's about the same effect as a higher albedo. Of course I'd think any ash from volcanoes would become negligible after 10 years or so.


You seem to have misread my post because that is what I was saying. The ash is Oard's mechanism for cooling over the continents. Good that you agree that the ash would be gone in a few years.
 

However, if the warmer oceans caused increased cloud cover, that WOULD dramatically affect albedo.

True
 

If I recall there is about 30% albedo today, caused primarily by the very white cloud tops and (also by snow cover in winter). If that were to be increased to (say) 80% that would cause a very significant cooling of the high clouds (causing snow) while the warmer ocean would keep the lower atm warmer...for animals and humans. This could continue for hundreds of years until the oceans cooled.


Well the tops of clouds tend to be ice crystals anyway in temperate latitudes. Do you concur then that the warm oceans heating the atmosphere as you state would prevent snow falling at ground level ?



#4 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 November 2015 - 03:17 PM

Yes, I was agreeing (in part) with you that Oard's idea is not a good solution.  I was not misreading you, although you are right to have assumed that since I rarely would agree with you!  :)

 

>>Well the tops of clouds tend to be ice crystals anyway in temperate latitudes. >>

 

 

Right, but if the cloud cover was much more extensive then that would be the reason for increased albedo.  Not because they were whiter, but because of there being MORE white area than what we have today.  So long as the oceans were warm, we could expect far more than a 30% albedo.  Perhaps approaching 100% albedo.  Plus there would be massive cooling also even if the solar energy was not reflected out to space.  If it were to be absorbed by the clouds, then much of that heating would be radiated away toward space rather than reaching the ground surface.  And if the clouds were thick enough, then (as Vardiman explained when opposing the vapor canopy model) that would cause zero solar energy directly reaching the surface, and only the clouds themselves could heat the land or ocean. 

 

>>Do you concur then that the warm oceans heating the atmosphere as you state would prevent snow falling at ground level ?>>

 

No, not at all.  Warmer oceans would cause increased albedo (i.e. colder land masses) and increased moisture content in the atm.  The ocean's warmth would have no effect on air temps in the continents.  Cloud masses with high moisture content would move onto shore and inland, where they would clash with colder and dryer air masses which then would cause massive snow dumps.  So higher albedo combined with more moisture in the atm would cause higher snow falls...probably MUCH higher.  Hence...an ice age.



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 30 November 2015 - 05:06 PM

Yes, I was agreeing (in part) with you that Oard's idea is not a good solution.  I was not misreading you, although you are right to have assumed that since I rarely would agree with you!  :)


Yes, sorry it was actually me who misread your reply regarding the ash.
 

>>Well the tops of clouds tend to be ice crystals anyway in temperate latitudes. >>
 
Right, but if the cloud cover was much more extensive then that would be the reason for increased albedo.  Not because they were whiter, but because of there being MORE white area than what we have today.  So long as the oceans were warm, we could expect far more than a 30% albedo.  Perhaps approaching 100% albedo.  Plus there would be massive cooling also even if the solar energy was not reflected out to space.  If it were to be absorbed by the clouds, then much of that heating would be radiated away toward space rather than reaching the ground surface.  And if the clouds were thick enough, then (as Vardiman explained when opposing the vapor canopy model) that would cause zero solar energy directly reaching the surface, and only the clouds themselves could heat the land or ocean.


It’s true that (low) clouds have an overall cooling effect, the white cloud tops of course increase albedo. However, in tandem they also have the opposite effect because they trap long wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface (think how the temperature rises with cloud cover on a previously clear frosty winter’s night.)
In fact it states here that deep convective clouds (these are what would form over warm oceans) are warming-cooling neutral.

http://earthobservat...uds/clouds5.php
 

Also, warm oceans doesn’t necessarily mean cloud cover, else the skies over land near tropical seas would always be cloudy !

Another thing - water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas, which works against what you need. Also, presumably all that volcanic activity according to the Flood model would have added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. Think of the planet Venus, totally cloud covered with 90 % albedo, yet the hottest planet in the solar system (average temp 464 C ! )

 

>>Do you concur then that the warm oceans heating the atmosphere as you state would prevent snow falling at ground level ?>>
 
No, not at all.  Warmer oceans would cause increased albedo (i.e. colder land masses) and increased moisture content in the atm.  The ocean's warmth would have no effect on air temps in the continents.  Cloud masses with high moisture content would move onto shore and inland, where they would clash with colder and dryer air masses which then would cause massive snow dumps.  So higher albedo combined with more moisture in the atm would cause higher snow falls...probably MUCH higher.  Hence...an ice age.


Regarding the bit in bold – do you really believe that ? You do realize that the Gulf Stream, for example, gives NW Europe substantially warmer winters than would otherwise be the case ? Snow is a rare occurrence in lowland Britain and we’re the same latitude as Canada. Yet we have glacial features all the way down to southern England. How on earth would glaciers form here under conditions of much warmer oceans than we have today ?



#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 November 2015 - 06:39 PM

>>It’s true that (low) clouds have an overall cooling effect, the white cloud tops of course increase albedo. However, in tandem they also have the opposite effect because they trap long wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface (think how the temperature rises with cloud cover on a previously clear frosty winter’s night.) In fact it states here that deep convective clouds (these are what would form over warm oceans) are warming-cooling neutral.   http://earthobservat...uds/clouds5.php>>

 

Referencing a source that declares albedo and greenhouse effect as being offsetting TODAY where 30% is reflected is not sufficient to show it would be the same if 80-100% were.  Think about it...there must (today) be something which heats up the surface so that heat can be held in by the clouds.  If none is allowed in (for many decades...or centuries...post-flood), then none can be HELD in.  The ONLY heat source would be the ocean which could radiate heat to the lower cloud layer.  I am not convinced that Venus proves that if 100% is reflected away, then you get overheating.  The Runaway Greenhouse Effect MAY explain Venus' high temps but not necessarily, IMO.  Plus of course Venus receives about 50-70% more solar energy than Earth (my guess...didn't look that up) due to V being about .73AU from the Sun. 

 

If it were true that for a century or so after the Flood, the ocean was much warmer, and if that would cause all but (say) 20% of solar energy to reflect back to space (about 3x what reflects today) then I would not expect that would make for a warmer temp at the surface...as you suggest.  Maybe that point needs more research for both of us.

 

>>Also, warm oceans doesn’t necessarily mean cloud cover, else the skies over land near tropical seas would always be cloudy !>>

I would disagree.  Your observation hinges on currents moving drier air in...which clears clouds away.  That assumes there ARE drier air masses, however, the suggestion I have is that if indeed the whole planet has warmer oceans, then that would add up to more clouds, until the oceans cool.  Are you trying to say that much warmer oceans would have ZERO effect on cloud cover?  If not, then I guess we are disputing about how MUCH more cover there would be.  I believe it would be very substantial, and not minimal.  I suppose it depends on HOW warm the oceans were post-flood. 

 

>>You do realize that the Gulf Stream, for example, gives NW Europe substantially warmer winters than would otherwise be the case ? Snow is a rare occurrence in lowland Britain and we’re the same latitude as Canada.>>

 

Having essentially a coastal climate throughout the island is certainly different than what the larger continental areas...where major ice ages DID happen...would have.  Warmer oceans would NOT mean no snow can happen!...even IF it rarely snows in England today.  Especially if 4x the amount of solar energy is reflected to space than what we have today.   And besides, if you say glaciers DID form in England during ice ages, there were warmer oceans also in the lower latitudes THEN, and probably a Gulf Stream, so your model has to account for why the Gulf Stream didn't protect England THEN....how was that? 

 

The post-flood scenario I have described...warmer oceans and colder continents would indeed cause an ice age.  This is due to cutting the solar influx massively along with greater evaporation and more moisture content in the atm. 



#7 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 November 2015 - 07:13 PM

https://en.wikipedia...nd_reflectivity

 

On the one hand, white-colored cloud tops promote cooling of Earth's surface by reflecting short-wave radiation from the sun. Most of the sunlight that reaches the ground is absorbed, warming the surface, which emits radiation upward at longer, infrared, wavelengths. At these wavelengths, however, water in the clouds acts as an efficient absorber. The water reacts by radiating, also in the infrared, both upward and downward, and the downward long-wave radiation results in some warming at the surface. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases and water vapor.[112]

High-étage tropospheric genus-types, cirrus, cirrocumulus, and cirrostratus, particularly show this duality with both short-wave albedo cooling and long-wave greenhouse warming effects. On the whole though, ice-crystal clouds in the upper troposphere tend to favor net warming.[113][114]However, the cooling effect is dominant with low-étage stratocumuliform and stratiform clouds made of very small water droplets that have an average radius of about 0.002 mm (0.00008 in).,[75] especially when they form in extensive sheets that block out more of the sun. These include middle-étage layers of altocumulus and altostratus as well as low stratocumulus, and stratus. Small-droplet aerosols are not good at absorbing long-wave radiation reflected back from Earth, so there is a net cooling with almost no long-wave effect. This effect is particularly pronounced with low-étage clouds that form over water.[113] Low and vertical heaps of cumulus, towering cumulus, and cumulonimbus are made of larger water droplets ranging in radius from 0.005 to about 0.015 mm. Nimbostratus cloud droplets can also be quite large, up to 0.015mm radius.[115] These larger droplets associated with vertically developed clouds are better able to trap the long-wave radiation thus mitigating the cooling effect to some degree. However, these large often precipitating clouds are variable or unpredictable in their overall effect because of variations in their concentration, distribution, and vertical extent. Measurements taken by NASA indicate that on the whole, the effects of low and middle étage clouds that tend to promote cooling are outweighing the warming effects of high layers and the variable outcomes associated with multi-étage or vertically developed clouds.[113]

 

 

 

What this seems to say is that if you have more high altitude clouds, you get more net warming...provided we have enough land areas receiving direct sunlight, as we do today.  If you have more low altitude clouds then there is net cooling...even when you have 70+% of the earth's surface exposed to direct sunlight.  If you have almost NONE...as with a post-flood scenario for decades or centuries...then you can expect net cooling of the earth.  That could be offset SOME by the radiation of ocean warmth to the lower cloud layers.  This would not mean no snowing or no snow accumulation would happen in the inner continents, however.  The snow accumulation would be massive, especially if the summer melt season is shorter or cooler. 



#8 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 01 December 2015 - 04:27 PM

>>It’s true that (low) clouds have an overall cooling effect, the white cloud tops of course increase albedo. However, in tandem they also have the opposite effect because they trap long wave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface (think how the temperature rises with cloud cover on a previously clear frosty winter’s night.) In fact it states here that deep convective clouds (these are what would form over warm oceans) are warming-cooling neutral.   http://earthobservat...uds/clouds5.php>>
 
Referencing a source that declares albedo and greenhouse effect as being offsetting TODAY where 30% is reflected is not sufficient to show it would be the same if 80-100% were.  Think about it...there must (today) be something which heats up the surface so that heat can be held in by the clouds.  If none is allowed in (for many decades...or centuries...post-flood), then none can be HELD in.  The ONLY heat source would be the ocean which could radiate heat to the lower cloud layer.  I am not convinced that Venus proves that if 100% is reflected away, then you get overheating.  The Runaway Greenhouse Effect MAY explain Venus' high temps but not necessarily, IMO.  Plus of course Venus receives about 50-70% more solar energy than Earth (my guess...didn't look that up) due to V being about .73AU from the Sun. 
 
If it were true that for a century or so after the Flood, the ocean was much warmer, and if that would cause all but (say) 20% of solar energy to reflect back to space (about 3x what reflects today) then I would not expect that would make for a warmer temp at the surface...as you suggest.  Maybe that point needs more research for both of us.


I think you’re being very optimistic with the extent of increased cloud cover. When warm saturated air rises to condense into clouds and precipitation, the resultant cool, dry air has to sink somewhere else, which is where areas of high pressure form, and therefore clear sunny skies (this is why the deserts today tend to be at the same latitude around the world because this is where you get the sinking air that had previously risen in the tropics.). Suggesting that the warm oceans would be the only heat source for the lower cloud area as you stated is totally implausible.

Don’t forget also that life in your post Flood scenario is supposed to be proliferating, no plants are going to grow in this dingy, sunless world you are trying to portray (and consequently nothing else).
 

>>Also, warm oceans doesn’t necessarily mean cloud cover, else the skies over land near tropical seas would always be cloudy !>>

I would disagree.  Your observation hinges on currents moving drier air in...which clears clouds away.  That assumes there ARE drier air masses, however, the suggestion I have is that if indeed the whole planet has warmer oceans, then that would add up to more clouds, until the oceans cool.


Well there are places today with constantly high humidity and temperatures surrounded by constantly warm oceans, Indonesia for example. It doesn’t matter which way the wind is coming from. These places have plenty of sunshine in between the showers.

In your post Flood model with fairly homogenous ocean and air temperatures globally you won’t have the temperature gradients that drive the formation of weather systems and create the jet stream. Therefore, storm clouds that formed over the ocean wouldn’t be driven deep into the continents anyway. I think most of the precipitation would just fall over the sea or coastal zones, and as rain because of the very warm surface air temperatures caused by the warm seas.
 

>>You do realize that the Gulf Stream, for example, gives NW Europe substantially warmer winters than would otherwise be the case ? Snow is a rare occurrence in lowland Britain and we’re the same latitude as Canada.>>
 
Having essentially a coastal climate throughout the island is certainly different than what the larger continental areas...where major ice ages DID happen...would have.  Warmer oceans would NOT mean no snow can happen!...even IF it rarely snows in England today.  Especially if 4x the amount of solar energy is reflected to space than what we have today.   And besides, if you say glaciers DID form in England during ice ages, there were warmer oceans also in the lower latitudes THEN, and probably a Gulf Stream, so your model has to account for why the Gulf Stream didn't protect England THEN....how was that?


I think the consensus is that the Gulf Stream was weaker in the Ice Age but that doesn’t matter because we know that a thick ice sheet did cover most of the UK at glacial maximum, there is no dispute over that. What matters is which scenario – colder Atlantic than today (mainstream science) or tropical Atlantic (Flood model) – is more conducive to a 1000 metre thick ice sheet forming right next to it. And this ice building up gradually over millennia (mainstream) or quickly within 500 years (Flood). It’s pretty obvious to me which is the more plausible.



#9 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 December 2015 - 03:03 PM

I asked:  >>Are you trying to say that much warmer oceans would have ZERO effect on cloud cover?>>


What would your answer be Wibble?

 

 

>>When warm saturated air rises to condense into clouds and precipitation, the resultant cool, dry air has to sink somewhere else, which is where areas of high pressure form, and therefore clear sunny skies (this is why the deserts today tend to be at the same latitude around the world because this is where you get the sinking air that had previously risen in the tropics.).>>

This would seem to contradict your claim:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ile:Deserts.png



#10 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 December 2015 - 04:07 PM

I asked:  >>Are you trying to say that much warmer oceans would have ZERO effect on cloud cover?>>


What would your answer be Wibble?


No of course I'm not saying there would be zero effect and I haven't said that. I've said I think you are being optimistic about the extent of increased cover and the effect that would have on surface temperatures, particularly on a planet bathed in warm water from pole to pole.
 

>>When warm saturated air rises to condense into clouds and precipitation, the resultant cool, dry air has to sink somewhere else, which is where areas of high pressure form, and therefore clear sunny skies (this is why the deserts today tend to be at the same latitude around the world because this is where you get the sinking air that had previously risen in the tropics.).>>

This would seem to contradict your claim:
 
https://en.wikipedia...ile:Deserts.png


How does that contradict my claim ? Look at where the green tropical zone is - the Amazon, equatorial Africa, Indonesia. Either side of this you have the deserts. Of course its not exact everywhere, because there other factors involved- topography, warm/cold ocean currents etc. but the general picture is as I stated.



#11 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 December 2015 - 06:30 PM

Rising global temperatures are expected to cause greater evaporation of water vapor into the atmosphere, primarily from the oceans. On one hand, we know that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, so an increase in water vapor might be expected to produce yet more warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. This warming should further enhance evaporation, producing more water vapor, and leading to a "vicious cycle" (or "positive feedback loop") of more and more warming... and eventually to a "runaway greenhouse effect".
 
On the other hand, more water vapor in the air is likely to cause more clouds to form. The presence of clouds dramatically increases Earth's overall albedo, reflecting a lot of the incoming sunlight back into space. Increased cloudiness would be expected to further reduce the amount of sunlight reaching our planet's surface, thus providing a net cooling effect. Thus an increase in water vapor, and hence cloudiness, might actually serve as a "self correcting" mechanism (or "negative feedback loop") that would "put the brakes on" global warming; or possibly induce a period of "global cooling".
 
Which of these two effects will "win out"? Scientists are not entirely certain, and much of the research in climate modeling involves improvements designed to better predict the roles that water vapor and clouds will play in Earth's future climate.
---
 
Here is a list of some of the features of clouds that affect their roles in the water vapor/albedo/greenhouse effect feedback loops:
  • Altitude: thin, high-altitude cirrus clouds made up of ice particles are nearly transparent to incoming sunlight in visible wavelengths, so they let light in. They are, however, very effective at trapping outgoing long wavelength infrared radiation. An increase in the occurrence of this type of cloud exerts a net warming influence on the atmosphere. Conversely, dense low-altitude cumulus clouds tend to have a high albedo and thus reflect away much of the incoming visible light that strikes them from above. Although they are also good at trapping IR radiation from below, their high reflectance of incoming visible light is such a powerful influence that an increase in this type of cloud tends to exert a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. Subtropical oceans are often covered by huge areas of marine stratocumulus clouds that blanket vast areas with such a high albedo covering. The bottom line: more water vapor in the atmosphere because of increased global temperatures is likely to generate more clouds, but whether this leads to further warming (a runaway positive feedback loop) or to partial cooling (a moderating negative feedback effect) depends on what type of clouds form and where in the atmosphere increased cloudiness occurs.
 

My reading about this seems to show I'm wrong to suggest that volcanic eruptions would not have major effects on albedo.  The "Year without a Summer" link and also the "Storm of the Century" in 1993 both were preceded by major volcanic eruptions...just from one volcano each.  The eruption of Tambora in 1815 raised albedo (I believe I read it increased 10%) and also sulfuric acid blocked/absorbed sunlight and that caused global temps to drop by 1.3F, but that still was very substantial.  IMAGINE how much effect would be caused by having numerous volcanoes to continually send aerosols into the stratosphere for decades after the Flood.  Probably the albedo was much higher due to the combination of volcanoes and more extensive cloud cover caused by warmer oceans.  This would cause deeper and more persistent snows over many years...the ingredients needed to form thick ice, and thereby, cause an ice age. 



#12 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 December 2015 - 07:11 PM

W:>>No of course I'm not saying there would be zero effect and I haven't said that. I've said I think you are being optimistic about the extent of increased cover and the effect that would have on surface temperatures, particularly on a planet bathed in warm water from pole to pole.>>

What I have shown from the sources I quoted is that lower level clouds have a net cooling effect, so your reply that the greenhouse effect would counter the cooling caused by a large increase in albedo...is mistaken.  Our dispute is not about WHETHER there would be an increase in cloud cover if the oceans were warmer, but only about HOW MUCH the increase in albedo would be.  Any increase would cause a net cooling effect. 

 

I can't say much about glaciers in England.  I don't know how far inland the ocean can moderate a colder global temp caused by a substantial loss of solar influx.  If we are talking only about the NA continent or Europe and Asia...then a loss of solar energy and distance from the ocean means there would be colder air masses which could interact with the warmer and moister marine air masses which would eventually move inland, and cause large snow dumps.  Maybe there would be slower global air movements (as Wibble suggests), due to less variation in temps.  If so, then this means the snow storms would last a LONG time...and we know that is what can cause the worst flooding...and also the deepest snow accumulations. 

 

I found a planet temp calculator here link  which allows you to calc. the temp if albedo increases.  If you take it up from 29% to 90% without changing other factors, the global temp goes from 15C to -97C.  If you increase GE to 10x the current GE, that still results in a frigid -28C.  The warmth of the post-flood ocean would raise that global temp, until that heat was expended.  So perhaps that would mean the global avg temp might be 0C for several hundred years...which means much colder in higher latitudes and much warmer in lower latitudes.  It certainly is plausible that this condition would cause decades or even centuries of massive snow/ice accumulation in many parts of the globe.  



#13 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 December 2015 - 05:09 PM

W:>>No of course I'm not saying there would be zero effect and I haven't said that. I've said I think you are being optimistic about the extent of increased cover and the effect that would have on surface temperatures, particularly on a planet bathed in warm water from pole to pole.>>

What I have shown from the sources I quoted is that lower level clouds have a net cooling effect, so your reply that the greenhouse effect would counter the cooling caused by a large increase in albedo...is mistaken.  Our dispute is not about WHETHER there would be an increase in cloud cover if the oceans were warmer, but only about HOW MUCH the increase in albedo would be.  Any increase would cause a net cooling effect.

 
That’s not necessarily true though because you’re assuming no change in other factors separate from whether the cloud itself has a net cooling or warming effect. This warm bath world is going to input huge additional amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. Plus you haven’t responded to the CO2 issue I mentioned due to the tremendous amount of volcanic activity in your Flood model. I suggest that the steep increase in greenhouse gases would overwhelm any increase in albedo caused by more clouds.
 

I can't say much about glaciers in England.  I don't know how far inland the ocean can moderate a colder global temp caused by a substantial loss of solar influx.


I can assure you that the Gulf stream today moderates the temperatures of the whole of the UK and much of north western Europe. As you head further eastwards into Europe the colder the winters become. We generally only get only a handful of snow days each winter, obviously with elevation it becomes more frequent but the only fairly continuous winter snow cover is on the highest peaks in Scotland. Imagine what increasing the sea temperatures by 10 or 20 degrees would do. A glaciation would not be the consequence.

 

If we are talking only about the NA continent or Europe and Asia...then a loss of solar energy and distance from the ocean means there would be colder air masses which could interact with the warmer and moister marine air masses which would eventually move inland, and cause large snow dumps.  Maybe there would be slower global air movements (as Wibble suggests), due to less variation in temps.  If so, then this means the snow storms would last a LONG time...and we know that is what can cause the worst flooding...and also the deepest snow accumulations.


Because of the reasons explained above heavy rain would be the consequence not snow and if the storm is moving slowly over land it will dump most of the moisture before it has a chance to reach a hypothetical cold continent interior.
 

I found a planet temp calculator here link  which allows you to calc. the temp if albedo increases.  If you take it up from 29% to 90% without changing other factors, the global temp goes from 15C to -97C.  If you increase GE to 10x the current GE, that still results in a frigid -28C.  The warmth of the post-flood ocean would raise that global temp, until that heat was expended.  So perhaps that would mean the global avg temp might be 0C for several hundred years...which means much colder in higher latitudes and much warmer in lower latitudes.  It certainly is plausible that this condition would cause decades or even centuries of massive snow/ice accumulation in many parts of the globe.


That’s quite a handy calculator. However, as we don’t know what the true values would be for albedo and greenhouse effect then we can only guess. I suggest that increasing the present 29 % albedo to 90 % is well over board. You’re equating albedo with cloudiness and arbitrarily predicting cloudiness would be 90%. However, the current average observed cloud cover for the planet is about 60% whereas the albedo is 29 so clearly a large chunk of energy is allowed in. If I run the calculator with 40% albedo and greenhouse effect of 2 (remember lots of water vapour and CO2) then average temp becomes 22 C – about 7 deg more than today. Plus you’ve still got the additional factor of an enormous heat sink of a globally warm ocean.
 



#14 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:16 PM

W:>>Plus you haven’t responded to the CO2 issue I mentioned due to the tremendous amount of volcanic activity in your Flood model. I suggest that the steep increase in greenhouse gases would overwhelm any increase in albedo caused by more clouds.>>

 

My suggestion does not add CO2 at all...just some amount of water vapor.  If added volcanic activity for say 10 years adds CO2, then that might increase GE for a few years until the ocean absorbed the CO2 and reached an equilibrium.  But I have suggested it is cloud cover not volcanoes which increase the albedo which would cause the cooling effect.  And that could be very substantial. 

 

>>I can assure you that the Gulf stream today moderates the temperatures of the whole of the UK and much of north western Europe. As you head further eastwards into Europe the colder the winters become. We generally only get only a handful of snow days each winter, obviously with elevation it becomes more frequent but the only fairly continuous winter snow cover is on the highest peaks in Scotland. >>

You didn't address my challenge...so what can YOU say about the Gulf Stream back when YOU say ice covered much of England and also Europe?  There was probably an even greater temp differential of the lower vs higher latitudes then.  Yet, that was not able to offset whatever the cooling effects were in YOUR model.  And besides, it is about moisture content of clouds and temperature of clouds, not nec. the temp at ground level, which determines if snow falls.  And if enough falls then even a warmer coastal climate due to Gulf Stream could be overwhelmed.   

 

>>Imagine what increasing the sea temperatures by 10 or 20 degrees would do. A glaciation would not be the consequence.>>

I haven't said what the amount of increase in ocean temp would be.  However, the cause of massive snow dumps has to be explained, not by just drops in temperature.  Cold and DRY air won't cause an ice age.  More moisture must get into the atm...and that means warmer ocean temps are the best way to explain that. 

 

>>I suggest that increasing the present 29 % albedo to 90 % is well over board.>>

And I don't accept your suggestion.  You want to judge my model by PRESENT conditions and that is not what my model has.  It is very ABnormal conditions.  But I will agree to back off my 90% number.  That much is not needed to cause an ice age.

 

>>You’re equating albedo with cloudiness and arbitrarily predicting cloudiness would be 90%.>>

Most of albedo is caused by clouds and snow cover.  And snow cover becomes irrelevant if that snow pack is covered by clouds most of the time.  The sun never has a chance to hit the snow.  Or hardly ever does. 

 

>>However, the current average observed cloud cover for the planet is about 60% whereas the albedo is 29 so clearly a large chunk of energy is allowed in.>>

To say that Earth's cloud cover is 60% neglects to differentiate between types of clouds...some of which can allow sunlight in, and others that do not.  If you only speak of clouds that reflect away sunlight, then that number is probably 15% or so.  Also as I previously posted, the lower types of clouds have a net COOLING effect because they do not have much of a GE.  So if the Flood caused an increase of 50% (using your number of 60% to 90%) of total cloud cover, but caused an increase of (say) 500% of the lower types of clouds, then we would expect massive net cooling.  Even if total cloud cover stayed at 60%, you could still have a large increase in albedo if the TYPE of clouds changed due to a warmer ocean.  Do you agree that if most of the increase in clouds were of the lower type, then there would be net cooling...and the only question then is whether a warmer ocean would cause no added snow to form?  It is absurd to think that a warmer ocean would offset the massive losses of solar energy due to increased albedo...INSIDE THE CONTINENTS. 

 

>>If I run the calculator with 40% albedo>>

 

That number is barely above present albedo.  I believe I read one source that said it is presently around 37%.  Many seem to agree though at 30%.  This Link  says that only a 1% change (loss) in albedo has the same effect as a DOUBLING of CO2! 

 

"A change of just 1% to the Earth's albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of CO2."

 

However, using the calculator, I had to increase albedo from 29 to 45 in order to perfectly offset a doubling of the GE.

 

>>and greenhouse effect of 2 (remember lots of water vapour and CO2) then average temp becomes 22 C – about 7 deg more than today.>>

 

And as I said, the calculator seems at odds with the quote I found (in more than one place) that just 1% of change in albedo is equivalent to doubling GE.

 

Only increasing water vapor from the avg today of about 40% relative humidity to say 70% (my guess in a post-Flood world...at cloud level) would be unlikely to double GE, but let's accept that for now.  (Remember that my sources say that if you increase the lower clouds that has little effect on GE...and there is net cooling.  The higher clouds...such as cirrus...are what can increase GE)  Using that calculator, then if you had only an increase of albedo to 60%...then that results in a -7C global temp...not counting for warming effects from the ocean.  That is a massive 22dC change.  Only a 5C lowering of temp would have serious effects in global climate and could trigger an ice age today in the higher latitudes.  The deepest ice formations occurred with a global temp decrease of only 6C, acc. to wiki link

 

>>Plus you’ve still got the additional factor of an enormous heat sink of a globally warm ocean.>>

I don't know how that would affect snow fall or accumulation inside the continents.  If the albedo did change massively and cause a 22C drop in global temps, then I would think the warmer ocean would have minimal effects in the air temps at the level where snow is formed, and very very little effects on the melting of ground snow inside the continents. 



#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 December 2015 - 06:32 PM

>>I can assure you that the Gulf stream today moderates the temperatures of the whole of the UK and much of north western Europe. As you head further eastwards into Europe the colder the winters become. We generally only get only a handful of snow days each winter, obviously with elevation it becomes more frequent but the only fairly continuous winter snow cover is on the highest peaks in Scotland. >>

You didn't address my challenge...so what can YOU say about the Gulf Stream back when YOU say ice covered much of England and also Europe?  There was probably an even greater temp differential of the lower vs higher latitudes then.  Yet, that was not able to offset whatever the cooling effects were in YOUR model.  And besides, it is about moisture content of clouds and temperature of clouds, not nec. the temp at ground level, which determines if snow falls.  And if enough falls then even a warmer coastal climate due to Gulf Stream could be overwhelmed.


I'm sorry but you are not making sense there. What primarily determines whether snow falls and settles is the air temperature and dryness of the air near ground level, and the temperature of the ground itself. It is not about the moisture content and temperature of clouds ! I did address the Gulf Stream, I said it may have been weaker during the Ice Age. You've got the problem here, the Ice Age certainly did happen, causing glaciation in Britain, you're saying sea temps were much higher !
  

>>Plus you’ve still got the additional factor of an enormous heat sink of a globally warm ocean.>>

I don't know how that would affect snow fall or accumulation inside the continents.  If the albedo did change massively and cause a 22C drop in global temps, then I would think the warmer ocean would have minimal effects in the air temps at the level where snow is formed, and very very little effects on the melting of ground snow inside the continents.


Let's cut to the chase here. A 22 deg C drop is pie in the sky. You need to explain to me how a thick ice sheet could form over half of Britain when persistent sub zero temperatures and lying snow is a rarity in a contemporary winter (obviously non existent in summer!) due to the effects of the Gulf Stream. Even with the Gulf Stream sea temperatures off the west coast at late winter minimum are about 8 to 10 deg C at the lowest. How would snow even fall in winter let alone survive through summer with greatly increased sea temperatures ?

We've had a run of weather systems in recent weeks which has given us some very gloomy weather. The Met Office has reported that November was the dullest in 87 years....lots of low level status cloud cover....yet temperatures have been well above average. That goes to show that local reduced solar radiation is not significant in the face of the available heat from the ocean. According to your model we should be suffering a big freeze and snow dump.



#16 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 December 2015 - 03:17 PM

W:>>I'm sorry but you are not making sense there. What primarily determines whether snow falls and settles is the air temperature and dryness of the air near ground level, and the temperature of the ground itself. It is not about the moisture content and temperature of clouds ! I did address the Gulf Stream, I said it may have been weaker during the Ice Age. You've got the problem here, the Ice Age certainly did happen, causing glaciation in Britain, you're saying sea temps were much higher !>>

As I said, I'm not so much interested in satisfying you about Britain's ice age.  You can wave your hand to say there must have been some change in the Gulf Stream in the past.  I could do similar hand waving too I suppose to say that the GS disappeared and that the higher temp of the ocean w/o the GS was much like it is today surrounding GB WITH a GS.  If there were massive snowfalls or ice pack movement to the south, the warmer ocean wouldn't be able to offset that...like in the "Little Ice Age" of the 1600's to 1800's with ice-skating on the Thames.  We may have to just disagree about that.  My main concern though is about N Am's and Europe's ice ages, not England's lesser ice age.  Having a warmer ocean could be precisely WHY England's ice age was not as severe. 

 

>>Let's cut to the chase here. A 22 deg C drop is pie in the sky.>>

It certainly isn't.  I dropped my estimate of cloud cover to far less than I believe it to have been.  And I have agreed to double the GE...which is not at all certain either, since lower clouds don't cause GE.  You have agreed that having warmer oceans would indeed cause more low level clouds...which do indeed cause net cooling.  You just have an "argument from incredulity" (which has no value) by not believing the amount of cloud cover and albedo could get to be double what we have now...60%.  I have incredulity that you have such incredulity.  Doubling lower cloud cover with substantially warmer oceans is indeed believable.  In fact, we presently HAVE 60% cloud cover (acc. to you) so all it would require is to change the type of clouds...so that we have about 3x the amount of lower clouds that we have today.  There is no pie in the sky. 

 

And I didn't even assert a 22dC drop...I said it would perhaps be around 0dC...which is a 15dC drop....after including the warming effects of a warm ocean.  Even if there were half that drop...7.5dC...that is colder than it was during the coldest ice age of our past (supposedly).  

 

PLUS this calculator link is (or could be) considerably off (in your favor) regarding what effect a 1% rise in albedo has.  Two sources I found say that is equal to a 1dC drop in global temp....and a 1% drop in albedo equals a doubling of GE.  So using that, you could have about (I didn't do the calc) an albedo of 50% and get an ice age...even counting the warming effect of a warmer ocean. 



#17 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 December 2015 - 04:46 PM

W:>>That goes to show that local reduced solar radiation is not significant in the face of the available heat from the ocean. According to your model we should be suffering a big freeze and snow dump.>>

This is of course laughably false.  My model says nothing about lower temps due to localized cloud cover...and you know it.  GLOBAL temps are affected by GLOBAL albedo.  Your spate of gloomy weather in the UK did nothing to affect global albedo. 



#18 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 10 December 2015 - 04:59 PM

As I said, I'm not so much interested in satisfying you about Britain's ice age.


Why not ? Is it because you can see it makes no sense for there to be an ice sheet in Britain with surface sea temperatures much higher than today’s but you aren’t able to admit it ? I mean come on, snow persisting through the summer with winds blowing off a warm ocean with the coast just a few miles away (I'll give you a little further than today due to lower sea levels), really ?
 

You can wave your hand to say there must have been some change in the Gulf Stream in the past.

 

It is quite reasonable to suggest a change to the Gulf Stream during the Ice Age. Melting ice from calved icebergs at the edge of a massive ice sheet in the North Atlantic would decrease the salinity of surface waters thereby stopping or slowing the thermohaline circulation.
 

I could do similar hand waving too I suppose to say that the GS disappeared and that the higher temp of the ocean w/o the GS was much like it is today surrounding GB WITH a GS.


You could hand wave it away but it wouldn’t make any difference. Your model is saying that the oceans were warm pole to pole anyway.
 

If there were massive snowfalls or ice pack movement to the south, the warmer ocean wouldn't be able to offset that...like in the "Little Ice Age" of the 1600's to 1800's with ice-skating on the Thames.


There is evidence that the LIA corresponded to a weakening of the Gulf Stream.

http://www.nature.co...ws061127-8.html

Anyway the LIA wasn’t continuous cold. Severe winters were interspersed with mild ones like today, just that the severe ones were more frequent.
 

We may have to just disagree about that.  My main concern though is about N Am's and Europe's ice ages, not England's lesser ice age.  Having a warmer ocean could be precisely WHY England's ice age was not as severe.


It’s not a lesser ice age, it’s the same one. Your model has got to explain all of it, not just areas where you think it’s easier for ice to form.

And we haven’t even touched on the fact that the rocks show there was glaciation (from the previous Ice Age in the Permian when the continents were joined together as Pangaea) in southern Africa, India, Australia. Does your model account for that too ?
 
 

It certainly isn't.  I dropped my estimate of cloud cover to far less than I believe it to have been.  And I have agreed to double the GE...which is not at all certain either, since lower clouds don't cause GE.  You have agreed that having warmer oceans would indeed cause more low level clouds...which do indeed cause net cooling.


I don’t believe I did agree that warmer oceans would cause more low level clouds. Probably there would be more cloud in general, which I did agree would increase albedo, but whether that would cool temperatures at the surface, is not certain (because of increased retention of heat)

Saying lower clouds don’t cause greenhouse effect is incorrect. Net cooling yes but they still trap long wave radiation emitted by the earth.


 

You just have an "argument from incredulity" (which has no value) by not believing the amount of cloud cover and albedo could get to be double what we have now...60%.  I have incredulity that you have such incredulity.  Doubling lower cloud cover with substantially warmer oceans is indeed believable.  In fact, we presently HAVE 60% cloud cover (acc. to you) so all it would require is to change the type of clouds...so that we have about 3x the amount of lower clouds that we have today.  There is no pie in the sky.


 There is no reason to believe there would such a big swing in cloud type to low clouds (stratus), nor do you have evidence that there would be so much more of this type of cloud that a doubling of albedo could be achieved. You’ve just made hopeful assertions. Is average cloudiness in the tropics today significantly more than in cool temperate latitudes ? If not, and I don’t think it is, then how would globally warm water cause the increase in a albedo that you need ?
   
 

PLUS this calculator link is (or could be) considerably off (in your favor) regarding what effect a 1% rise in albedo has.  Two sources I found say that is equal to a 1dC drop in global temp....and a 1% drop in albedo equals a doubling of GE.  So using that, you could have about (I didn't do the calc) an albedo of 50% and get an ice age...even counting the warming effect of a warmer ocean.


Whether it is accurate or not I don’t know but I think the issue with your source saying a 1% increase in albedo is equal to a doubling of CO2 (not GE as you just stated) is that it isn’t taking into account feedbacks in the system. Increasing cloud enough to reflect 1% more incident radiation would also trap more longwave radiation emitted by the ground. Cloud tops aren’t the same as a brighter ground surface in this respect.



#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 December 2015 - 11:10 AM

Welcome back, Dave.  I haven't had a lot of time to post lately, so I've just been lurking.

 

There are a number of problems with trying to have a major ice age and its retreat in only a few hundred years.  The first one that comes to mind is that the extreme cold will pretty much eliminate precipitation.  (Contrary to popular belief, the largest desert on Earth is Antarctica because the cold air is not capable of holding significant moisture.)

 

The inability of cold air to hold much water vapor is another problem with claims of an ice age with a mile deep layer of ice reaching well into North America (leaving aside what is going on in the rest of the world) in a few centuries.

 

As Wibble has pointed out, there are rocks showing signs of glacial activity in such widely dispersed areas as Africa, India, and South America.  There is a hypothesis called "Snowball Earth" that does explain these features.

 

During vast ice ages millions of years ago, sheets of glaciers stretched from the poles almost to the equator, covering the Earth in a frozen skin. Conditions on the "snowball Earth," as scientists refer to it, made the planet a completely different place.....

Glacial deposits of similar ages appeared on almost every continent. Evidence revealed that capped carbonates — limestone overlays formed by the ocean — lying on top of the glacial deposits had formed where they were found, rather than having migrated south from higher latitudes.....

One surprising result of Sohl's recent simulations was that extreme conditions weren't a requirement. A snowball Earth was created using conditions from before the relatively recent Industrial Age.....

Source: http://www.space.com...es-history.html

Earth's now steamy Equator was covered with ice 716 million years ago, according to a new study.....

Study leader Francis Macdonald, an Earth scientist at Harvard University, and colleagues worked with volcanic rocks in Canada that were found sandwiched between glacial deposits. Such deposits are recognizable by the presence of debris left behind by melting glaciers and sediments deformed by glacial movement.....

Source: http://news.national...global-warming/

Evidence of a Snowball Earth comes from the presence of glacial deposits around the world that date back to the Cryogenian period...

Supporters of the Snowball Earth model argue that the presence of Cap Carbonates in the geologic record supports their hypothesis. Cap Carbonates are layers of limestone and/or dolostone that sharply overlie glacial deposits.....

For example Saylor et al. looked at carbonates in Australia and concluded the cap carbonates were deposited in a period of post glacial transgression; ..... studies have found that rocks from Late Neoproterozoic would also have been situated at low latitudes. The finding of glacial deposits at these latitudes lends evidence to support the theory of global Neoproterozoic glaciations .....

While the Snowball Earth hypothesis is accepted by most scientists as the best explanation of certain characteristics of the Neoproterozoic era, such as glacial deposits at low latitudes, cap carbonates, and BIFs, there is still controversy over the accuracy of the hypothesis.

Source: http://dujs.dartmout...obal-glaciation

 

Also, the proposed placement of the ice age(s) after the alleged Flood has some difficulty with the findings of the R.A.T.E. commission which claims over a billion years of radioactive decay in just one year.  The majority of the R.A.T.E. researchers are on record that there is a major problem with heat from so much radioactive decay in such a short time.  (Yes, I know all about Brown's claims.... let me know when members of the R.A.T.E. group embrace them.)

 

BTW, Vardiman was not opposed to a vapor canopy.  The vapor canopy was a favorite of Henry Morris, founder of ICR and Vardiman spend over 25 years trying to make it work.

 

 



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 11 December 2015 - 01:39 PM

Hello again Pi.  Nice to "see" you.  I notice that once again you find yourself speaking up when you can support what an atheist says.  Do you EVER comment in support of theism???  Shouldn't at least PART of your "crusade" be done in opposition to atheists instead of in support of them?

 

Pi>>There are a number of problems with trying to have a major ice age and its retreat in only a few hundred years.  The first one that comes to mind is that the extreme cold will pretty much eliminate precipitation.>>

I don't think either of us are meteorologists...nor probably is Wibble.  However, your comment seems to neglect the idea of a source of warmer/moister air which can clash with the colder/drier air in the clouds...i.e. the air just above the warmer ocean.  That would be like having a horizontal warm front ALL THE TIME...which would rise up until it contacted colder air which could cause precipitation.  Of course the warmer/moister air would not just be directly above the ocean, but rather it could also move inland to cause snows there as well.  This precisely fills the bill for a mammoth ice age...until the ocean cools off. 

 

>>(Contrary to popular belief, the largest desert on Earth is Antarctica because the cold air is not capable of holding significant moisture.)>>

Certainly the moisture content of present day Antarctica is in no way similar to the air masses over the large continents in the mid-latitudes just after a flood which would have caused warmer ocean temps. 

 

>>The inability of cold air to hold much water vapor is another problem with claims of an ice age with a mile deep layer of ice reaching well into North America (leaving aside what is going on in the rest of the world) in a few centuries.>>

The warmer air just above a warmer ocean would indeed hold moisture.  It is quite possible that no snowing would occur over the ocean as the rising warmer air would keep the higher altitudes warmer.  But those warmer air masses would then move inland to eventually be precipitated as snows when they encountered the much colder continental air masses.

 

>>As Wibble has pointed out, there are rocks showing signs of glacial activity in such widely dispersed areas as Africa, India, and South America.  There is a hypothesis called "Snowball Earth" that does explain these features.>>

The Snowball Earth idea has problems of its own (how could it ever melt away?...et.al.) and is by no means held universally by ev's as true.  The main point in support of it is the evidence of glacier markings in lower latitudes.  The Flood Model (with a temporary loss of most of the solar input due to high albedo) is a means of causing low latitude glaciers.  Much of the supposed "evidence" for Snowball Earth is based on an AE interpretation of the ages of rocks...and a denial of the type of catastrophism that is envisioned by a global flood model.  So that "evidence" is by no means seen by me as being dispositive of what I'm asserting. 

 

>>The majority of the R.A.T.E. researchers are on record that there is a major problem with heat from so much radioactive decay in such a short time.  (Yes, I know all about Brown's claims.... let me know when members of the R.A.T.E. group embrace them.)>>

Yeah...it is much like the homeless person who criticizes the modest home someone else has...saying he would NEVER want such a poor quality home.  When RATE has some way (other than a miracle) they can resolve the heat problem themselves, then they have little leg to stand on in criticism of what Brown says.  I like the way Brown explains it better than the way RATE does NOT explain it.

 

>>BTW, Vardiman was not opposed to a vapor canopy.  The vapor canopy was a favorite of Henry Morris, founder of ICR and Vardiman spend over 25 years trying to make it work.>>

It would take me a while to confirm if you are right about V's view.  Regardless, his liking or not liking a canopy has nothing to do with my having quoted him about the effects of cloud cover on surface temps.  Here is his quote:

 

 
Between 0 and 2 kilometers no effect of
the cirrus cloud layer is discernible, but between 2
and 4 kilometers thickness the cirrus cloud eventually
blocks all shortwave radiation to the ground. The
isothermal layer from the cirrus cloud to the surface
is about 280 K for a cloud thickness of 10 kilometers.
This would be a very strange world—uniformly cold
at a temperature slightly above freezing, extremely
stable, and dark, with little or no visible light.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users