Jump to content


Photo

Ice Ages


  • Please log in to reply
503 replies to this topic

#21 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 December 2015 - 03:36 PM

W:>>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>>

 

If indeed the albedo is doubled (or more) then it would be unlikely that anything like what we would call "summer" would take place.

 

>>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 ?>>

I have not said what I believe is the likely ocean temp post flood.  It could be no higher than what it is today with the Gulf Stream effects.  An ocean temp of 40dF in January cannot prevent TODAY amassing deep snows in New England...right up to within a mile of the ocean.  And NE also gets benefit from the GS.  So if virtually all solar energy is reflected/blocked for centuries after the Flood, there could indeed be substantial accumulation of snow...even in England...without it being melted away during summer.  Even if the ocean temps were (say) 10C warmer.  I don't think either of us can PROVE what would be true about this.  I can give my opinion and then you can give yours. 

 

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

 

Having a warmer ocean nearby in no way guarantees that you won't get lots of snow!

 

>>It’s not a lesser ice age, it’s the same one.>>
 

I have simply said it was less extreme in England...not that it was a different time period.  Do you deny it was less extreme than in N Am?  If so, then I will look into this.

 

>>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 >>

Yes.  Those places are not on the equator anyway.  Having albedo of only 50 (I believe it would have been higher) would (acc. to that calculator) cause major changes in the global temp (22C colder as I recall).  The coldest ice age was 7C colder than today. 

 

>>I don’t believe I did agree that warmer oceans would cause more low level clouds.>>

No...you worded it in a more dodgey way.  Saying (approx. quote) "I didn't say it WOULD have no effect on cloud cover."   Here's your exact quote:  "No of course I'm not saying there would be zero effect and I haven't said that."

 

>>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)>>

More argumentum ab incredulo.  The sources I showed said that if you had more lower level clouds then that WOULD cause net cooling.  So your attempt to say GE would offset the lack of solar influx failed.  The only question is HOW MUCH net cooling there would be.  The calculator showed it would be MAJOR. 

 

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

If you get enough albedo, then there is little solar heat to trap.  You not only have reflection of the solar heat, but the cloud layer would ABSORB heat that doesn't get reflected away...preventing it from directly reaching the surface.  That means the clouds would radiate some heat downward but also much would be radiated upward to space.  Were it not for the warmer ocean also heating the cloud layer, the earth would have had an even deeper ice age. 

 

Also, I believe you are conflating two ideas...GE and the "blanketing" effect of lower clouds.  The lower clouds don't cause GE.  Here again is what I quoted:

 

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.

 

 

The part in purple directly contradicts you. 

 

>>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.>>

Well, I'm not sure I can PROVE that having a warmer ocean MUST cause double the albedo.  However it is reasonable for sure.  Perhaps much MORE than double.  The ocean would evaporate far more than now.  How much more?  I don't know.  But your incredulity is not enough for me to conclude it can't be enough to increase the lower level clouds so that there would be a doubling of the albedo. 

 

>>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 ?>>
 

If you agree that warmer water increases evaporation and that increases lower level clouds (have you agreed to this???) then that would indeed cause much higher albedo...and not much (if any) more GE.  If you think you have a good argument that there would be no fewer clouds in the higher latitudes than in the tropics, then I think that could be fairly easily disproved.  Are you sure you want to assert that? 



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 December 2015 - 04:03 PM

LINK

 

The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics, where the strong heating by the Sun creates significant vertical uplift of air, (after the Flood this would be true world-wide...with warmer and moister air flowing upward...forming more clouds--indy) and the formation of prolonged heavy showers and frequent thunderstorms. Annual rainfall totals in the tropics usually exceed 100 inches or 2,500 millimetres, and can be as high as 400 inches or 10,000 millimetres, particularly if influenced by the monsoons or if mountains enhance the uplift of air.

Within the polar regions precipitation is low because air is too cold to contain much water vapour. In addition, the cold heavy air descends precluding much cloud formation. In fact, some parts of Antarctica and the Arctic are as dry as the hot desert climates of the subtropics, where high pressure also limits cloud formation and precipitation.

 

 

LINK      (A NASA site)

 

Clouds also vary with distance from the equator. The cloudiest regions are the tropics and the temperate zones; the subtropics and the polar regions have between 10 and 20 percent less cover. Tropical cloud tops are substantially higher, extending between one and two kilometers higher than cloud tops in the midlatitudes and more than two kilometers higher than the clouds over the subtropics and the poles. High-latitude clouds have been found to be almost twice as reflective as other clouds.

 

 

This quote seems to suggest that if you have lower temperatures...such as with higher latitudes...then you would have lower cloud levels and MUCH HIGHER REFLECTIVITY. 



#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 07:19 AM

"If indeed the albedo is doubled (or more) then it would be unlikely that anything like what we would call "summer" would take place."
 
"So if virtually all solar energy is reflected/blocked for centuries after the Flood, there could indeed be substantial accumulation of snow...even in England...without it being melted away during summer."


Just a quick reiteration of an earlier point I made earlier in the thread which you didn't respond to - how are plants going to grow in a world with such significantly reduced solar radiation, coupled with worldwide mean annual temperature perhaps 3 or 4 deg C above freezing at best (glaciers in subtropical zones don't forget).

Those poor hungry animals and humans coming off the Ark - how do they survive in this world for a few weeks, let alone hundreds of years ? According to YEC timeline human population is supposed to be expanding rapidly, with enough spare time and energy to do things like build pyramids.

Will get to you the rest of your post later.



#24 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 10:28 AM

>>Those poor hungry animals and humans coming off the Ark - how do they survive in this world for a few weeks, let alone hundreds of years ? According to YEC timeline human population is supposed to be expanding rapidly, with enough spare time and energy to do things like build pyramids.>>

 

I don't know if a cloudier Earth would be incapable of growing anything anyWHERE which humans and animals can eat.  And I doubt if you know either.  Besides, increasing albedo from 29% to 50% (or even higher) does not mean no sunshine at all can reach the surface.  Also you should realize that the humans would begin spreading out from Ararat and if it were too cold there they would move southward to find the best places where food could be found or grown.  Contrary to "Snowball Earth," the glaciers did not cover the entire globe. 



#25 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 10:33 AM

Dr. Walt Brown has another cause for there being colder temps on the continents for centuries after the Flood.  He says the continents were at higher altitudes than today and gradually sank into the mantle.  They would sink because they got pushed up by the sliding and crashing of the "hydroplates", so this would cause there to be anisostasy (non equilibrium) for the thicker and heavier continents, and so they would gradually sink and ocean trenches (which were also formed when the plates crashed) would rise.  This would be part of what caused and then ended the ice age.  He also agrees about warmer oceans and less solar influx being part of what would cause much higher snowfall amounts. 



#26 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 02:12 PM

Let me further elaborate a point I mentioned before.  Albedo and GE are not determined only by amount of cloud cover, but also by TYPE of cloud cover.  Cirrus clouds dominate the 60% cloud cover of Earth today, but they don't reflect much.  They DO have the higher GE.  After the Flood, if the ocean was warmer, then we could expect more LOWER LEVEL (stratus et. al) clouds which have a much more solid and bright white appearance from space, which means far more albedo and much less GE.  So this implies even if the % of cloud cover stayed at 60% (it probably would be higher) then it would still cause massive cooling...as a global average.  There could still be 40% sunlight hitting the ground, similar to today.  So this would not nec. interfere with plant growth.  If animals and humans remained nearer to coastlines for a few hundred years that would not be a problem with population growth. 



#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 04:19 PM

The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics, where the strong heating by the Sun creates significant vertical uplift of air, (after the Flood this would be true world-wide...with warmer and moister air flowing upward...forming more clouds--indy) and the formation of prolonged heavy showers and frequent thunderstorms. Annual rainfall totals in the tropics usually exceed 100 inches or 2,500 millimetres, and can be as high as 400 inches or 10,000 millimetres, particularly if influenced by the monsoons or if mountains enhance the uplift of air.


Your argument is based on a significant increase in the amount of low level cloud. Here are two problems for you.

1. Cloud of this type (stratus), because of it's relatively low depth tends not to produce heavy precipitation but rather light rain/snow or drizzle/snizzle - not a recipe for massive snow accumulation.

2. Warm oceans are not going to cause low level cloud anyway, instead deep convective clouds would be the predominant cloud type (like in the tropics as you've said yourself in the highlighted statement above.) As already pointed out, the cooling and warming effects of this type of cloud cancel each other out.

 

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



#28 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 04:53 PM

All the evidence pointing some to believe in "Snowball Earth" is really good evidence for the Flood Model.  The greatest problem for SE is that it would produce a positive feedback loop due to high albedo, which would mean little hope to escape.  The lower latitude glacier evidence is better explained by the temporary condition of more low-level clouds combined with temporarily higher continents. 



#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2015 - 05:28 PM

W:>>Your argument is based on a significant increase in the amount of low level cloud. Here are two problems for you.

1. Cloud of this type (stratus), because of it's relatively low depth tends not to produce heavy precipitation but rather light rain/snow or drizzle/snizzle - not a recipe for massive snow accumulation.>>

 

I have used "low" and "lower" as a term to contrast with the very high and thin clouds like Cirrus.  It would include more than just stratus clouds.  They have both precipitation and reflection potential.  So they could produce snow and also cold temps.  I think you are wrong to suggest or imply that you cannot have both.  The nimbostratus and cumulonimbus types seem to fit the bill.  Your suggestion that stratus cannot involve heavier precipitation is just wrong, especially if you imagine a long drawn out period, even with a lower rate of precip.

 

Wiki:  Extratropical cyclones can bring cold and dangerous conditions with heavy rain and snow with winds exceeding 119 km/h (74 mph),[2] (sometimes referred to as windstorms in Europe). The band of precipitation that is associated with their warm front is often extensive, forced by weak upward vertical motion of air over the frontal boundary, which condenses as it cools off and produces precipitation within an elongated band,[3] which is wide and stratiform, meaning falling out of nimbostratus clouds

 

 

The page just prior to what you cited LINK describes low level clouds and shows an example and photo of stratocumulus clouds over the Pacific Ocean.  It says: 

 

Although stratocumulus clouds also emit longwave radiation out to space and toward the Earth's surface, they are near the surface and at almost the same temperature as the surface. Thus, they radiate at nearly the same intensity as the surface and do not greatly affect the infrared radiation emitted to space (their cloud greenhouse forcing on a planetary scale is small). On the other hand, the longwave radiation emitted downward from the base of a stratocumulus cloud does tend to warm the surface and the thin layer of air in between, but the preponderant cloud albedo forcing shields the surface from enough solar radiation that the net effect of these clouds is to cool the surface.

 

The photo on the page you cited shows several deep convective clouds (cumulonimbus) which tower over a mid-low cloud base.  That type (deep convective) has a neutral warm/cool effect.  So you could gain much cooling by the lower level and less precip clouds while getting no cooling but much precip from the towering deep convective clouds.  The combined effect of such a combined cloud system would be cooling with much precip. 

 

I believe you have to grasp at straws to try to say that you cannot get massive precipitation (over long periods) while also getting massive albedo (cooling) if the Earth was covered in large part by lower to mid level clouds.  Even IF the rate of precip were lower, if the clouds remained in place for years and years without let up...you can easily picture vast accumulations.  Plus, we can't really project WHAT sort of clouds or weather systems which would be completely UNLIKE ours today might have existed with the odd conditions just after the Flood. 



#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 December 2015 - 09:16 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?

Until your comment, theism had not been a part of this discussion.  My position has nothing to do with theism or atheism and a lot to do with evidence and the relevant science.

 

There have been at least three discussions on theistic evolution since I've been here and I've participated actively in each of them.

 

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.)

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. 

Nope.   Just pointing out that the ability of air to hold moisture decreases rapidly with temperature.  In fact, that is the very mechanism you rely on, isn't it?  I'm pretty sure our descriptions of the mechanism would be pretty much the same.  Moisture evaporates from the surface the water vapor then migrates to a cooler place where it condenses to a liquid and, if cold enough, freezes to a solid.  Then it precipitates as rain or snow.

 

Understand that evaporation over the oceans will tend to cool them while condensation over land will tend to warm those areas.  This heat exchange would make any attempt at calculations highly problematic.  I do know the process would add net heat to the atmosphere.  (The energy exchange of evaporation and condensation will cancel out, but you still need to release more energy to freeze the water.)

 

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.

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. 

There are proposals for how it could have melted.  While the hypothesis may not be universally accepted, it does have supporting evidence.... "the evidence of glacier markings in lower latitudes."

 

You want to focus on the North American ice age to the exclusion of evidence of glacial activity on a global scale.  For example, in NA, the ice reached to about Indiana.  Glaciers in India would be at (or below) the latitude of Mexico City.  Even without the "AE interpretation of the ages of the rocks," the evidence of glaciation still exists at lower latitudes. 

 

The freezing of enough water to cover much of the planet with a layer of ice thousands of meters thick is going to release a lot of energy. According to NASA, sea levels during the last ice age were 125 meters lower than before that ice age. (Source: http://www.giss.nasa...efs/gornitz_09/



#31 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2015 - 02:00 PM

What's happened to the second page of this thread ? I'm getting a Driver Error



#32 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 December 2015 - 02:40 PM

It appears page 2 is messed up.  I did get your message in the email alert.  I also cannot read pg 2.  You can post at the bottom of pg. 1.  This has happened with me when I try to paste a link directly into the text instead of using the link function button.  This time it wasn't me.  I will try to get help from Bonedigger.



#33 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 14 December 2015 - 04:18 PM

Well, this time it was Pi's post that was crashing the page with a driver error. Specifically, it was the http link to creation (dot) com.

 

Pi, if you want to repost and don't have a copy of your post, I have a raw copy that I just pasted into Word before I deleted your post.

 

To all of you: If you paste an URL (e.g. http/...etc) directly into your post, for some reason, on occasion, when the forum automatically converts it into a hyperlink it adds some extra characters that crash the page. It doesn't do it all the time, but when it does it crashes the page, and the only thing I can do is go to that person's content and delete the post from there (unfortunately I can't edit it there though). For all I know it may be related to the malicious redirect you get when you try to come here through a google search.

 

For now, I would recommend using the hyperlink function to post links as I had Indydave start doing. If you need me to illustrate how to do that, just start a thread in the Information Desk section asking.



#34 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 14 December 2015 - 07:57 PM

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

 

When I replied to Pi I failed to point out that HIS (and Wibble's) view of how any ice age could develop REQUIRES there to be heavy snows, not just lower temps.  While the Flood model solves this problem by having a warm ocean and therefore a constant "warm/moist front" to produce snows when this air mass contacts the colder/drier air masses of the continents...the conventional idea for ice ages doesn't have this solution.

 

>>Just pointing out that the ability of air to hold moisture decreases rapidly with temperature.  In fact, that is the very mechanism you rely on, isn't it?  I'm pretty sure our descriptions of the mechanism would be pretty much the same.  Moisture evaporates from the surface the water vapor then migrates to a cooler place where it condenses to a liquid and, if cold enough, freezes to a solid.  Then it precipitates as rain or snow.>>

Oooookay....so what is your issue then?  You just now answered YOURSELF in the same way I did.  The difference is that my position puts MUCH MORE moisture into the air so that MUCH MORE snow can fall...in centuries rather than over tens of thousands or even many millions of years.

 

>>Understand that evaporation over the oceans will tend to cool them while condensation over land will tend to warm those areas.  This heat exchange would make any attempt at calculations highly problematic.  I do know the process would add net heat to the atmosphere.  (The energy exchange of evaporation and condensation will cancel out, but you still need to release more energy to freeze the water.)>>

I don't dispute that the evap. will cause the warmer ocean to cool.  (BTW, this would also bring temps inside Brown's SWC down due to the extremely fast evaporation that would happen when the pressure is released as the crack opens)  That could take centuries, especially if there is underwater volcanism helping to add heat to the oceans (as Brown says).  Even if it did not...it might be possible to estimate how long it would take to cool off (say) 20C of ocean warmth, and how much water that would add as snow to the continents.  But I won't attempt that estimate now.  There also WOULD be some amount of heating to the air wherever the cloud forms (heat of condensation).  That has to be true of any ice age model.  The only question is whether the cooling source (whatever that is) for the continental air masses is enough to offset the heat of condensation, so as to produce snowing.  My view has a solution to that...i.e. the loss of solar influx due to increased cloud cover and albedo.  Brown also adds the higher altitude of continents before they slowly sank.  This is a far better solution to CAUSE and then END an ice age than with the conventional view. 

 

>>While the hypothesis may not be universally accepted, it does have supporting evidence.... "the evidence of glacier markings in lower latitudes."  You want to focus on the North American ice age to the exclusion of evidence of glacial activity on a global scale.>>

 

No I don't.  I just didn't want to focus on England's lesser Ice Age.

 

>>For example, in NA, the ice reached to about Indiana.  Glaciers in India would be at (or below) the latitude of Mexico City.  Even without the "AE interpretation of the ages of the rocks," the evidence of glaciation still exists at lower latitudes.>>

 

So?  Both of us must somehow explain (if that is true...with strong evidence) how the globe might have glaciers at lower latitudes in different parts of the world.  I have not yet heard your own explanation for that.  Any Snowball Earth idea would suggest that the WHOLE GLOBE would have glaciation down to the latitude of 10dN or so.  But as you point out, the N Am ice field went to as far south as just south of Indianapolis or so.  I suppose there could be some far earlier ice age they would THINK covered all of N Am and down to Mexico...but I've not heard of that evidence.  So for the record, Pi...do you believe in Snowball Earth?

 

Brown has suggested a "big roll" which would have changed the positioning of the continents relative to the rotation of the planet by 35 to 52 degrees.  When the hydroplates crashed (the "compression event") and stopped their slide, this would push up mountains and cause the Earth to seek a new spin equilibrium with the more massive and taller parts moving to become the new equator.  This might explain why some polar areas today have evidence of warmer climates and why there might be glaciers near to the equator.  Brown says that there would be sinking of the continents for centuries after the flood, so that could also reposition the equator.  I have not looked into this very much so I am not ready to say this took place, and I'm not even sure if this would be how Brown would say that evidence of glaciers near the equator is explained.  However, this idea is, at the surface, a better explanation than Snowball Earth.

 

Link 

 

81. As each mountain quickly rose, its distance from earth’s spin axis increased. This, in turn, increased the mountain’s centrifugal force (blue arrow in Fig 79A), a force that is always directed away from and perpendicular to the spin axis. (Likewise, a rock whirled at the end of a string produces a centrifugal force that pulls the string taut.)

Part of each new mountain’s centrifugal force acted tangentially to the earth’s surface and tended to roll the earth. Because mountains are scattered around the earth, many of these “rolling” forces counterbalanced each other. However, the Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau are so massive that their effect dominates that of all other mountains. (The world’s ten highest peaks relative to sea level—including Mount Everest—are part of the Himalayas.) In other words, crashing hydroplates thickened continents and created today’s mountain ranges. Their net centrifugal force rolled the earth so that the Himalayas moved toward today’s equator. Also, the thickened, massive Eurasian hydroplate helped roll the globe in the same direction.

hydroplateoverview-big_roll_no_equatoria

 

 

>>The freezing of enough water to cover much of the planet with a layer of ice thousands of meters thick is going to release a lot of energy.>>

I am not sure what you mean by "release".  I suppose you mean the heat of liquid water gets released into space by radiation, causing the water to freeze.  What I have described does involve that.  When the solar influx is reflected away the heat of the warmer ocean will radiate into space or into the cloud cover, which then can radiate back to earth or upward into space where the heat is lost.  There is also heat of condensation that would warm the cloud, again allowing heat to be lost into space.  The lack of solar heat (compared to today), due to increased albedo due to volcanic aerosols AND CLOUD COVER, IMO is the primary cause of the much cooler global temps. 



#35 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 02:15 AM

The point is that we have one creationist group (RATE) proposing the release of enough heat energy to melt the surface of the planet at the same time another YEC (Oard) is attempting to justify ice ages.

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.)

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.

 

Your comment that you "like the way Brown explains it better than the way RATE does NOT explain it" amounts to "any explanation is better than no explanation."

 

Since this topic started with Oard's claims, here's what he said about Hydroplates:

In my general comments, I point out his questionable initial conditions, lack of in-depth analysis, the arbitrary fitting of data to his model, questionable references and analogies, the dubious significance of his predictions, and problematic comparison tables​ ....

As a result of my analysis of Brown’s HPT model for the Flood, I do not consider his model a viable Flood model for the general and specific reasons summarized above. It seems to rely on the deductive method of science in which an idea is first considered and then a whole host of data is fitted into the model.​ .... for a Flood mechanism and an explanation of diverse phenomena, Brown’s model falls far short.

Source:   (Link removed to avoid crashing page..... go to icr.org and search "Hydroplate."   It's an article by Oard.)

Tell ya what though..... I'll retract the request for a comment by a member of the RATE commission that embraces Brown's Hydroplate model.  

 

I've seen a half dozen evaluations of Brown's claims by various scientists .... including at least two creationist scientists.  In addition, I've done my own "back of the envelope" calculations.  Each and every one of these reviews has come to the same conclusion.  Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory simply doesn't work.  Not only that, it isn't even close.

 

Can you produce an analysis of the Hydroplate model by any scientist that concludes Brown is right?  One such reference would be more than I've been able to find and I've searched science databases (now defunct scirus.com had over 100 million entries) in an effort to locate scientific reviews of Brown's HPT.  Without exception,

 

You've (correctly) pointed out that neither you, nor Wibble, nor I are meteorologists.  Well, neither is Brown.  Nor is he an astronomer, nor is he a nuclear physicist, nor is he a geologist..... yet you seem to think he knows more about all of these disciplines than those experts who have made the study of their particular specialties their life's work.

 

Given the lack of scientific support, even among creationists, for Brown's claims I hope you'll understand that "Brown says" is "by no means seen by me as being dispositive."

 

 

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.

Henry Morris, founder of ICR was a leading proponent of the "vapor canopy" model.  Vardiman was a staff researcher at ICR who worked on the vapor canopy for over 25 years. 

 

Vardiman found a vapor canopy was unworkable because only 0.5m (less than 20 inches) of precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere would lead to a runaway green house effect that would increase atmospheric temperatures to 400K  (water boils at 373K).

 

The comment you cite .... the effects of deep cloud cover .... were one of Vardiman's proposals for dealing with the greenhouse effect of a vapor canopy.  Notice, he's talking about up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) of cloud cover.  Wouldn't this cause some problems for the Genesis statement that stars are given to mark seasons and navigate?   Not to mention that clouds that deep usually have a lot of vertical activity (ie:  thunderstorms).



#36 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 08:02 AM

Can you produce an analysis of the Hydroplate model by any scientist that concludes Brown is right?  One such reference would be more than I've been able to find and I've searched science databases (now defunct scirus.com had over 100 million entries) in an effort to locate scientific reviews of Brown's HPT.  Without exception,

That last sentence should read: "Without exception the reviews have been negative."



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 11:04 AM

Pi>>The comment you cite .... the effects of deep cloud cover .... were one of Vardiman's proposals for dealing with the greenhouse effect of a vapor canopy.  Notice, he's talking about up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) of cloud cover.  Wouldn't this cause some problems for the Genesis statement that stars are given to mark seasons and navigate?   Not to mention that clouds that deep usually have a lot of vertical activity (ie:  thunderstorms).>>
 

I don't (nor does Brown) defend the idea that FROM CREATION the earth was surrounded by thick clouds...or a vapor canopy.  I would not even insist that after the Flood year it was completely covered with clouds.  Just increasing the TYPE of clouds which are most reflective, so that albedo went from 29% to 50% would (acc to that calculator site) be enough. 

 

So I guess I need to ask you, Pi, the same thing I asked Wibble.  IF there were a much warmer ocean, are you saying that would have ZERO effect on cloud cover?  And if it DID increase clouds, would that have ZERO effect on solar influx?  Please answer.

 

 

BTW, if you want to cite a source, type the word "Link" (or any word(s) you want), then highlight it.  Then click on the icon that looks like chain links (below the "Size" box).  That causes a box to open where you can paste in the source link.  That means when we click on the word it will take us to that page.



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 01:56 PM

Well, this time it was Pi's post that was crashing the page with a driver error. Specifically, it was the http link to creation (dot) com.

WOW ! ! !

 

That's a first.

 

Pi, if you want to repost and don't have a copy of your post, I have a raw copy that I just pasted into Word before I deleted your post.

Thanks.  As it happened, I hadn't posted anything else, so it was already (auto)-saved.  All I had to do was re-open the last auto-save and a little minor editing.

 

To all of you: If you paste an URL (e.g. http/...etc) directly into your post, for some reason, on occasion, when the forum automatically converts it into a hyperlink it adds some extra characters that crash the page. It doesn't do it all the time, but when it does it crashes the page, and the only thing I can do is go to that person's content and delete the post from there (unfortunately I can't edit it there though). For all I know it may be related to the malicious redirect you get when you try to come here through a google search.

The association with the malicious redirect is probably a good guess.

 

It's interesting that in over 2 years and (probably) 1,000 or so posted links, this is the first time I've had a problem with it.... I wonder if it could have anything to do with Windows new and "improved(?)" operating system and browser.   I did change to Win10 and "Edge" just a couple weeks ago.  I'm not sure, but this may have been the first link I've tried to send since then.

 

For now, I would recommend using the hyperlink function to post links as I had Indydave start doing. If you need me to illustrate how to do that, just start a thread in the Information Desk section asking.

Yeah.... I guess I'll need to start doing that.....

 

 

BTW, if you want to cite a source, type the word "Link" (or any word(s) you want), then highlight it.  Then click on the icon that looks like chain links (below the "Size" box).  That causes a box to open where you can paste in the source link.  That means when we click on the word it will take us to that page.

Thanks.   I'll experiment with it a bit.   When I sent that last post, I just wanted to get the post out.    (It had been waiting since the previous attempt crashed the page on the night before.)   For that reason, I simply removed the link and provided the expanation of how to reach the the source rather than risk crashing the page again.



#39 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 02:29 PM

>>For that reason, I simply removed the link and provided the explanation of how to reach the the source rather than risk crashing the page again.>>

Even what you did post...using icr (dot) org...could have crashed too.  I don't know why that didn't get converted to a link...which can crash things. 

 

The trick is to REMEMBER to use the link icon/button.  I've forgotten it many times, and sometimes it crashes, sometimes it doesn't.  Also, if you paste in something that has links in it (like with many Wiki quotes) you have to remember to changes those to normal text or delete that part. 

 

Also, I'm still using WinXP with Firefox...don't know if that is part of why it happens with me and not with others.  Maybe there's something common to XP and Win10 that caused the problem. 



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 05:40 PM

Pi>>The point is that we have one creationist group (RATE) proposing the release of enough heat energy to melt the surface of the planet at the same time another YEC (Oard) is attempting to justify ice ages.>>

 

RATE does not say the heat is released.  They say it is NOT released.  They say (I think) that somehow the rate of radio decay is accelerated WITHOUT releasing heat.  Brown explains how...but RATE does NOT, except suggesting a miracle happened.  Yeah, I know you have heard, but don't accept Brown's idea (of rapid radio decay without excessive heat).  But you have not said WHY it is not valid.  That topic (heat) is not appropriate for this thread, IMO.  You fuss when I bring in other tangential topics, so you should fuss at yourself this time.

 

It is also off topic to point out that there are opponents to Brown's HPT, including Oard.  My comments have not been based on the HPT, other than to talk some about a warmer ocean, which I think Oard also postulates. 

 

>>Can you produce an analysis of the Hydroplate model by any scientist that concludes Brown is right?>>

 

More off topic.

 

>>Vardiman was a staff researcher at ICR who worked on the vapor canopy for over 25 years.>>

Vapor canopy is also not this topic.  All I did was to use V as a source to support the idea that thick clouds will cause cooling.  I doubt that it is only YE's would would assert that! 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users