Jump to content


Photo

Ice Ages


  • Please log in to reply
503 replies to this topic

#41 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2015 - 06:03 PM

Indy:  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.

 

Pi>>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.">>

 

Instead of "SOME" (above) I should have written "NO."  No, my comment does not mean that just any explanation would be better.  However, if both Brown and RATE say there was rapid decay, and Brown has presented a good non-miraculous explanation for why it would not overheat things, and neither RATE nor Pi have refuted that...then it really is of little value to just point out that RATE doesn't accept what Brown has said about it.  Yes, the Flood would involve SOME miraculous involvement by God.  Those of us who are not allergic to the idea of God doing miracles (like Pi seems to be!) should not automatically reject any miracles happening.  I don't reject RATE's view because I believe no miracles are "allowed."  I just prefer having a non-miraculous answer.  And Brown provides that.

 

BTW, I also like the YE view for explaining soft dino tissue and C14 dates for dino bones better than Pi's (and other AE's) way of NOT explaining THEM.  Now Pi can blow his "off topic whistle" on me for that!



#42 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 15 December 2015 - 08:31 PM

Okay. For now I disabled the URL BBCode, so if you do paste an URL in your post, it won't automatically parse it into a hyperlink.

 

For example, when I paste http://www.icr.org/i...ch/rate-all.pdf, or https://answersingen...light-problem/, they stay as just plain text. To follow the link when it's done that way, you'll just have to highlight it and copy, then paste it in the address bar of a new window.

 

I'm not sure how that might affect other things (like Youtube embeds) so I might end up having to turn it back on.



#43 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 16 December 2015 - 04:28 PM

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.


I believe it is you who is clutching at straws and I don't think you would believe your own words unless you were compelled to because of your dogmatic faith in a world a few thousand years old.

You've admitted in a previous post to Piasan that it would be quite likely that precipitation over the sea would likely be rain due to the warming of the atmosphere by the warm ocean, so how you think it would suddenly be cold enough for snow (year round !!) when the moisture laden air moves a few miles inland over the UK is beyond me. Yes I know proximity to a relatively warm ocean does not preclude snow over nearby land but your model does insinuate much warmer seas than we have today. You mentioning deep winter snow in New England with 41 deg F seas when you have a direct source of extremely frigid air to the North West is not comparable to the UK where west coast Atlantic waters winter minima is several degrees higher than this. We can get deep snow but it requires the set up to be just right (usually a long fetch of north easterly winds from western Russia combined with a stalling active front from the Atlantic). Now you might think that is the recipe for your Ice Age but weather patterns don't stay the same for long, sooner or later the wind switches to a less cold direction (south or west) and the snow melts. There's no reason to expect that the cold/mild boundary is going to stick to the west coast of Britain for any length of time when you've got such a warm ocean lapping at your shores.

An Ice Age makes much greater sense according to the mainstream view, probably triggered initially by changes in the Earth's orbit but happening slowly, as ice gradually increases, in mountainous and high altitude area initially but extent increasing as feedback mechanisms kick in (increased albedo due to greater ice coverage, lowering of CO2 levels, changes in ocean circulation etc.)

I don't think your cloud albedo idea could have a strong enough forcing effect even if you had many thousands of years to play with and it is nonsensical to me that it could cause mile deep ice over Britain in just 500 years. Even ignoring the considerable greenhouse effect of worldwide vastly higher water vapour levels plus greatly increased CO2 from volcanic activity and lack of forests to suck it in plus the acidified oceans which would probably play havoc with the phytoplankton I don't see you getting the increase in lower level clouds that you need. It is the cooler temperate latitudes today that has most of this type of cloud, the tropics tend to have convective cumulus, not widespread stratiform layers. Exceptions being over parts of subtropical oceans where air is descending (therefore dry). Unless the laws of physics were different back then in your warm ocean world, deep convective cloud would be the dominant cloud type over all the oceans and the lack of temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions would mean that inland continental areas (in the US for example) would see little precipitation.
 



#44 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 16 December 2015 - 05:03 PM

Regarding the Cambrian "snowball earth" there is a mechanism in the secular model for escape (build up of CO2 from ongoing volcanic activity under the ice) but that is not what I was referring to when I mentioned the evidence of glaciation in South Africa etc. This was from the last Ice Age previous to the current Pleistocene which ended in the mid Permian (about 270 mya). Todays southern latitude continents were joined together then (Gondwanaland) over the southern polar regions, this is when the ice sheets left the scratches on the bedrock and layers of boulder clay that we see today on the separated continents.



#45 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 December 2015 - 06:27 PM

Pi>>I'll retract the request for a comment by a member of the RATE commission that embraces Brown's Hydroplate model. >>

Not sure why you retracted that.  Was it because I had shown you about 8 months ago a quote by Vardiman (on RATE) expressing that prior to the completion of RATE he had NOT read Brown's book, and after he DID, he saw much he liked? 

 

http://www.calvarypo...nd_Vardiman.pdf

 

"In regards to my role on the True Peer Review panel, I have now read most of Dr. Brown’s book for the first time and find that he has presented some very interesting and useful ideas, I plan to support some of his ideas about the Flood in my review and will attempt to the best of my ability to ignore the controversy between him and Dr. Austin.

Sincerely,
Larry Vardiman, PhD  (July 13, 2009)"

 

 

Clearly V did not agree with all that Brown wrote (nor do I) but he did find much of it to be "useful" and something he could support AFTER HE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO READING IT!.  It also should surprise no one that members of RATE would not likely be supportive of a view that COMPETES STRONGLY with the model of Dr. John Baumgardner (the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory)...who is a fellow member of RATE.  Politics and egos have something to do with what is or isn't accepted or embraced...or even allowed to have a hearing.



#46 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 December 2015 - 06:58 PM

Wibble, do you dispute the idea that with warmer oceans (I'm not sure how much warmer) there could be increased clouds and albedo?  At that calculator site, I have used only 50% albedo (an increase of only 72%), and I've allowed for there to be a doubling of GE.  Are those just way out of the realm of possibility to you?  That dropped global temps by 22dC...not counting warming effects from a warmer ocean.  I estimated 15dC colder if you factor in that warmer ocean. 

 

I am much more interested in first addressing ice ages over N. Am. and Europe than I am to try to convince you that they also could happen in the UK despite its having more marine influences.  However, for all we know if indeed there were global temps that were 15C below present (they say the worst ice ages were at 7C below present)...then that coldness could prevent much summer melting of whatever snowing took place in winter...and over many decades or centuries then that could build up ice.  I doubt I can convince you of this, but if you would accept the assumptions in the above paragraph, then it would be reasonable to say that this would cause massive snowing in England, and a lack of complete melting during the summers. 



#47 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 December 2015 - 07:17 PM

Regarding the Cambrian "snowball earth" there is a mechanism in the secular model for escape (build up of CO2 from ongoing volcanic activity under the ice) but that is not what I was referring to when I mentioned the evidence of glaciation in South Africa etc. This was from the last Ice Age previous to the current Pleistocene which ended in the mid Permian (about 270 mya). Todays southern latitude continents were joined together then (Gondwanaland) over the southern polar regions, this is when the ice sheets left the scratches on the bedrock and layers of boulder clay that we see today on the separated continents.

 

My view does not preclude movement of continents...so if you suggest a way glaciers happen in S. Africa w/o the Snowball Earth theory is by saying it may have been located in a colder place and then moved...I cannot strongly disagree with that concept.  I would just disagree about the dating of the Permian sediments.  I have not examined or studied anything about what the actual evidence is for this, so I could also dispute that, but even assuming the evidence is there, I don't see huge problems.  I WOULD think however, the SE advocates may say you are ignoring evidence supporting their view. 

 

BTW, S. Africa's southernmost point is at about the same latitude as Kentucky (in the North)...so finding glaciers there is not so far out of norm with their reaching to southern Indiana in the N. Hemisphere. 



#48 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 12:40 PM

W:>>You've admitted in a previous post to Piasan that it would be quite likely that precipitation over the sea would likely be rain due to the warming of the atmosphere by the warm ocean, so how you think it would suddenly be cold enough for snow (year round !!) when the moisture laden air moves a few miles inland over the UK is beyond me.>>

 

I haven't "admitted" that.  Show where I have.  Warmer air at the surface would quickly elevate to the colder air regions and so snowing could indeed happen over the ocean.  It snows over the ocean TODAY, so it would easily snow if the solar energy is lost to reflection (albedo) and absorption by the cloud layer causing cold regions in the upper cloud layers. 

 

>>We can get deep snow but it requires the set up to be just right>>

I have not asserted that conditions after the Flood would be similar to what causes snows in England today.  They probably would be much different and much more conducive to snowing (and lack of melting in summer). 

 

>>I don't see you getting the increase in lower level clouds that you need.>>

If the oceans were warmer we would expect more clouds...PERIOD.  You can play footsie with whether you agreed to that already or not.  IT IS TRUE.  And even if half were of the taller type (which produce more precip today, but today have a zero cooling effect due to GE) then if you also increased the lower type which DO have net cooling, then there would be substantial cooling of the planet.  It could be that the volcanic aerosols jump-started the cooling by adding to the albedo during the first however many years volcanoes were more active...and then later it was mostly a cloud-caused increase. 

 

>>It is the cooler temperate latitudes today that has most of this type of cloud, the tropics tend to have convective cumulus, not widespread stratiform layers.>>

 

Your trying to apply weather projections USING TODAY'S STANDARDS to what would happen post-flood IS FOLLY.  There of course would be MORE COOLER AREAS of the globe than today...due to more clouds due to a warmer ocean.  I do not accept that only stratiform type clouds would result in net cooling anyway.  And (as that picture I referenced showed) you can have taller clouds amidst a base of lower type clouds. 

 

>>Now you might think that is the recipe for your Ice Age but weather patterns don't stay the same for long, sooner or later the wind switches to a less cold direction>>

What is a warmer wind direction today could be still plenty cold back then so as to cause snow during the centuries after the Flood...if the albedo was 50% or more.  It wouldn't HAVE to "stay the same.". 

 

>>An Ice Age makes much greater sense according to the mainstream view, probably triggered initially by changes in the Earth's orbit>>

???  And just what would be the CAUSE of changing the orbit once (to make it colder) and then again (to make it warm again) within a few thousand years???  (I'm sure they've come up with some wacky reason but it probably is ad hoc and FOOLISH). 



#49 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 12:46 PM


Wibble, do you dispute the idea that with warmer oceans (I'm not sure how much warmer) there could be increased clouds and albedo? At that calculator site, I have used only 50% albedo (an increase of only 72%), and I've allowed for there to be a doubling of GE. Are those just way out of the realm of possibility to you? That dropped global temps by 22dC...not counting warming effects from a warmer ocean. I estimated 15dC colder if you factor in that warmer ocean.


Originally I thought there would be but I honestly don't know. Climate scientists don't know so I've no chance.

The following is from an associate professor at Oregon State University (http://www.realclima...d-observations/)

"Clouds are very pesky for climate scientists. Due to their high spatial and temporal variability, as well as the many processes involved in cloud droplet formation, clouds are difficult to model. Furthermore, clouds have competing effects on solar and terrestrial radiation. Increases in clouds increase reflected sunlight (a cooling effect) but also increase the greenhouse effect (a warming effect). The net effect of clouds at a given location depends the kind of clouds (stratus, cumulus etc.), their distribution in the vertical and on which radiative effect dominates.

Not only is it difficult to correctly represent clouds in climate models, but estimating how clouds and their radiative effects will change with global warming (i.e., the cloud feedback) is very difficult. Other physical feedbacks have more obvious links between temperature and the climate variable. For example, we expect and have strong evidence for the increase in water vapor in a warmer climate due to the increased saturation specific humidity, or the reduced reflection of sunlight due to the melting of snow and ice at higher temperature. However, there isn’t a simple thermodynamic relationship between temperature and cloud amount, and the complexities in the radiative impacts of clouds mean that an increase in clouds in one location may result in net heating, but would correspond to a cooling elsewhere. Thus, most of the uncertainty in the response of climate models to increases in CO2 is due to the uncertainty of the cloud feedback."

So it isn't clear that warming would produce greatly increased cloud cover if it all. Regarding your guess at 50% albedo that you put in the calculator, considering that the Earth's albedo without cloud would be 0.15 and with the current >60% observed cloud cover it is only 0.30 then you haven't got enough leeway to get your albedo up to your 50% even if cloud went up to 90%. Although this probably a crude way of estimating it, the maths is probably more complicated than that.



#50 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 01:49 PM

W (quoting):>>"Clouds are very pesky for climate scientists. Due to their high spatial and temporal variability, as well as the many processes involved in cloud droplet formation, clouds are difficult to model. Furthermore, clouds have competing effects on solar and terrestrial radiation. Increases in clouds increase reflected sunlight (a cooling effect) but also increase the greenhouse effect (a warming effect). The net effect of clouds at a given location depends the kind of clouds (stratus, cumulus etc.), their distribution in the vertical and on which radiative effect dominates.>>

My understanding is that the droplet size is key to determining GE.  I would also suggest that what is "known" about GE today is pretty iffy and if there were a cut off of much/most of solar influx who knows if the rules they have today would apply then? 

 

>>Not only is it difficult to correctly represent clouds in climate models, but estimating how clouds and their radiative effects will change with global warming (i.e., the cloud feedback) is very difficult.>>

No kidding.  Imagine how much MORE difficult it is to estimate it in a post-flood scenario.  I would accept that it is indeed difficult and hard to figure out what impact there would be on GE when you have a much warmer ocean than the lower cloud base...which would cause radiation UPward rather than what we might see today, i.e. DOWNward.  And if the higher cirrus clouds (which cause most of the GE) were blocked by the lower level clouds this also would affect GE.  It is hard to say if my 2x GE and 1.72x albedo factors are fair.  I doubt that arguing much more about it will clarify it.  I believe I have made my point, that changes in cloud cover and/or cloud types due to a warmer ocean could indeed affect solar influx enough to change global temps...and this would change back once the ocean cooled.  Oard's model IMO overlooks this factor. 

 

>>Regarding your guess at 50% albedo that you put in the calculator, considering that the Earth's albedo without cloud would be 0.15 and with the current >60% observed cloud cover it is only 0.30 then you haven't got enough leeway to get your albedo up to your 50% even if cloud went up to 90%.>>

Again, you fail to recognize that saying "60% cloud cover" includes very large amounts of cirrus only cloud areas...which do little to add to albedo.  As I said before (did you miss it?) the 1.72x factor for albedo could be reached with only the same 60% cloud cover (same as today) if all you did was alter the TYPE of clouds...to eliminate the cirrus clouds from that 60% number, which do little to reflect or absorb solar flux.  (I say "eliminate" but what I mean is to have lower level clouds below them...rather than no lower clouds and only land area below them as we see below them much of the time today.  That's what was meant above by "distribution in the vertical" I believe). 



#51 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 02:41 PM

I would like to suggest a possibility that post-flood GE may NOT increase much at all, and might DECREASE.  There would be no contributions (or hardly any) of CO2 or methane from animal life for many years.  Much of the carbon in dead material would be buried, so that would not add a lot of methane either.  Warmer oceans would add water vapor...but ONLY until that vapor became condensed into clouds (perhaps in just an hour or so), which then would eventually precipitate.  It is easy to think of "water vapor" as being increased when you have more clouds.  It is the opposite.  Cloud formation REMOVES water vapor from the atm...so that reduces the GE effect of water vapor.  (Condensed water droplets can have another GE of their own, but that is not water vapor). 

 

Another post-flood factor could be the introduction of new water to the oceans (perhaps from Brown's "fountains of the deep"...which the Bible refers to).  These new waters may have little dissolved CO2 and so the oceans could have a "sink" for CO2 for a while, causing a lowering of CO2 in the atm...which would reduce GE...until the new equilibrium is reached.  

 

If it is true that our present burning of "fossil fuels", which releases new CO2 into the air, is from plants which lived just prior to the Flood (as my model says) then this might mean that the atm just after the flood was very low in CO2, due to the high levels of plant growth world-wide prior to the Flood.  So if the Earth had very low GE in pre-flood times, then raising GE just after the Flood could have no harmful effects, and may even be part of God's providence. 

 

The Flood would also have caused substantial changes in ocean depths and amount of sediments, which could cause (or increase) creation of methane hydrates...capturing methane that may have been in the atm in pre-flood times.  Though the ocean temps probably were higher in upper levels, the temps below (say) 300m could have still been cool enough to form the hydrates.  This would have a reducing effect on GE, I believe. 



#52 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 03:39 PM

W:>>You've admitted in a previous post to Piasan that it would be quite likely that precipitation over the sea would likely be rain due to the warming of the atmosphere by the warm ocean, so how you think it would suddenly be cold enough for snow (year round !!) when the moisture laden air moves a few miles inland over the UK is beyond me.>>

I haven't "admitted" that. Show where I have.

 

Here
 

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.

 
 
 

Warmer air at the surface would quickly elevate to the colder air regions and so snowing could indeed happen over the ocean.  It snows over the ocean TODAY, so it would easily snow if the solar energy is lost to reflection (albedo) and absorption by the cloud layer causing cold regions in the upper cloud layers.


This doesn't make any sense. Warm air rising over the ocean would have to be replaced at sea level by horizontal movement of air - which as it would be moving over the sea surface would have to be warm too. You seem to think that just because its cold enough for snowflakes to form high up in the cloud they wouldn't melt as they slowly fell through increasingly warm air towards the surface.

 

And of course it can snow over the ocean today - but only if the sea temp is cold enough to not moderate the air temp too much
 

>>We can get deep snow but it requires the set up to be just right>>

I have not asserted that conditions after the Flood would be similar to what causes snows in England today.  They probably would be much different and much more conducive to snowing (and lack of melting in summer).

You haven't even got close to demonstrating that that would be the case.
  

>>It is the cooler temperate latitudes today that has most of this type of cloud, the tropics tend to have convective cumulus, not widespread stratiform layers.>>
 
Your trying to apply weather projections USING TODAY'S STANDARDS to what would happen post-flood IS FOLLY.


Surely warmer oceans than today (therefore more available energy) are going to produce taller, convective type clouds. I'm basing this on what I see today of the type of cloud in equatorial regions. Is that not logical ?
 

>>Now you might think that is the recipe for your Ice Age but weather patterns don't stay the same for long, sooner or later the wind switches to a less cold direction>>

What is a warmer wind direction today could be still plenty cold back then so as to cause snow during the centuries after the Flood...if the albedo was 50% or more.  It wouldn't HAVE to "stay the same.".


We have the ocean to our south and west, which is much warmer than today according to you. How are they going to be cold wind directions ? Even a north wind would have to be warm, so even less opportunity for snow. Makes no difference if you think it would be cold high up in the clouds.
 

>>An Ice Age makes much greater sense according to the mainstream view, probably triggered initially by changes in the Earth's orbit>>

???  And just what would be the CAUSE of changing the orbit once (to make it colder) and then again (to make it warm again) within a few thousand years???  (I'm sure they've come up with some wacky reason but it probably is ad hoc and FOOLISH).


There's nothing wacky about Milankovitch cycles. Have you not heard of them ?



#53 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2015 - 04:06 PM

Warmer oceans would add water vapor...but ONLY until that vapor became condensed into clouds (perhaps in just an hour or so), which then would eventually precipitate.  It is easy to think of "water vapor" as being increased when you have more clouds.  It is the opposite.  Cloud formation REMOVES water vapor from the atm...so that reduces the GE effect of water vapor.  (Condensed water droplets can have another GE of their own, but that is not water vapor).


Water would be continuously evaporating unless the air was 100% saturated. Your reasoning is a bit bizarre here.
 

Another post-flood factor could be the introduction of new water to the oceans (perhaps from Brown's "fountains of the deep"...which the Bible refers to).  These new waters may have little dissolved CO2 and so the oceans could have a "sink" for CO2 for a while, causing a lowering of CO2 in the atm...which would reduce GE...until the new equilibrium is reached.  
 
If it is true that our present burning of "fossil fuels", which releases new CO2 into the air, is from plants which lived just prior to the Flood (as my model says) then this might mean that the atm just after the flood was very low in CO2, due to the high levels of plant growth world-wide prior to the Flood.  So if the Earth had very low GE in pre-flood times, then raising GE just after the Flood could have no harmful effects, and may even be part of God's providence.


I wonder what effect this cloudy, low CO2 world would have on coccolithophore production ;)



#54 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 18 December 2015 - 04:59 PM

Indy, your argument suggests that global warming could never take hold on Earth because as soon as the oceans warmed then increased albedo would overwhelm the warming effect. However, there is multiple evidence of long periods of much warmer climate in the past at various times. In the early Eocene for example, which started 55 mya, (so after the Flood and extinction of dinosaurs according to YEC timeline)  tortoises, flying lemurs and snakes inhabited Ellesmere Island in the Canadian high Arctic.

 

http://www.livescien...sty-arctic.html

 

Polar ocean temperatures in the early Eocene were up to 23 deg C (73 F)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16752441

 

 

How do you reconcile this with your assertion that warm oceans would cause ice sheets over the land ?



#55 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 19 December 2015 - 08:21 PM

I had a computer crash a few days ago so it may be awhile before I can reply. I'm using my phone now and that is harder plus it's harder to research. I may try some quick replies or I may just wait a few days until my computer is working again. Wish me luck.

#56 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 20 December 2015 - 10:43 AM

Good luck !

#57 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 December 2015 - 02:49 PM

Good luck !

 

Thanks, Wibble...it might be a good thing I had an excuse to take a break!  Things are now back to where they used to be...still using my older WinXP machine from 2012 or so...which was already out of date when I got it.  I tried many fixes myself but had to give up and take it in...and got away with a fairly low cost repair. 

 

I have to admit I did not find the comment I made about it being "quite possible that no snowing would occur" when I did a quick search of what I wrote.  As you found (and I appreciate your showing this too) I did also say that "snowing could indeed happen over the ocean".  You apparently have decided that would NOT be possible even though neither of us knows and I have never said what temp the ocean would be.  In about any ice age scenario, there must be lots of snowing, and that means some way to get moisture into the air and then move it over land areas.  My idea (and that of other YE's like Oard) does indeed supply that.  Your idea just lowers air temps and you (or was it Pi?) have said that NORMALLY means DRIER air too. 

 

If indeed the planet were (let's say) 10-15C colder but the ocean was maybe 5C warmer than today, that would be a very very odd "setup" and it would be pretty hard I think to claim to know if that would or wouldn't allow for lots of snow over England.  If it DID snow, then it would be likely to not melt in the colder summers.  You said even today you can get large amounts of snow if the conditions are right.  Well, the idea of very cold planet temps while having a source for warm moist air IS JUST THAT.  You say that today the "just so" conditions won't last long.  Well, I believe they WOULD last a long time and it wouldn't matter if the wind blew from the west or the east...or even the south.  You can maybe challenge IF the temps would be 10-15C colder...but if they WERE, and if there were a constant source of moisture, I would expect almost every meteorologist would say that you couldn't avoid getting massive snows, even in England.  I know you think England is some "magic bullet" against my view, but I guess you'll have to keep thinking that because I don't want to take much more time to change your mind.  I would guess if I researched it, I'd find that England's Ice Age(s) were indeed not as severe as in other places, and that just could be due to its being surrounded by ocean.  A milder Ice Age, perhaps.  Avoiding one all together?  Not likely.  Not if you had 15C lower planet temps and a source of moisture. 

 

Me>>And just what would be the CAUSE of changing the orbit once (to make it colder) and then again (to make it warm again) within a few thousand years???  (I'm sure they've come up with some wacky reason but it probably is ad hoc and FOOLISH).>>

 

W>>There's nothing wacky about Milankovitch cycles. Have you not heard of them ?>>

 

No, but I knew of the precession of the tilt of the axis.  I thought you meant some change in Earth's distance from the Sun...which is what "changes in Earth's orbit" would normally suggest.  And that would take some perturbation to move it further from the Sun (or make the orbit more elliptical) and then a change BACK.  I don't think that precession of axis tilt is really much of a good answer, since (I believe) that would just mean the winters and summers would be switched and then switched back...not nec. a cooling (and rewarming) of the planet. 

 

As for any changes in eccentricity, those are very slight, and unless it changed the distance to the Sun, the average yearly temp would not change anyway...even if the eccentricity were much much larger than today's.  (Yes, I could see SOME change if there were a LARGE change in eccentricity, due to the squaring effect for energy loss/gain with distance.  But maybe NOT, since the shorter time spent nearer the Sun offsets (totally?...not sure) the increased energy absorption.).  I could see how that if there were some alignment of Jupiter, Saturn and Earth, that could alter eccentricity very slightly every so often (and it would be harder to change it BACK)...but annual insolation would not really change.  Plus if you DID get a temp change of 7C from that (unlikely) you still would have to have a warmer ocean to get the moisture into the air.  Cooling the whole planet would mean the oceans also get cooler...so the air would be DRIER.  Maybe you could "fix" that by postulating some event that would increase under-ocean volcanic activity to heat the ocean...is that your view?  Seems pretty "ad hoc."

 

>>We have the ocean to our south and west, which is much warmer than today according to you. How are they going to be cold wind directions ? Even a north wind would have to be warm, so even less opportunity for snow. Makes no difference if you think it would be cold high up in the clouds.>>

I guess I don't get that.  If indeed you had (say) 60dF air at the ocean surface, but maybe -10dF at 20,000 feet, when the lower air moves up to that height, it would lose its moisture and form either snow or little ice chunks...like hail, but not like summer hail, that requires repeated updrafts to form.  If there were enough moisture and if the upper clouds were cold enough, larger chunks could form.  Or maybe there would be repeated (or constant) updrafts (from the warm air at the surface) to build up the "hail" size...to perhaps far larger than we see today.  That sort of thing would fall and hit the ground without melting in the 5 seconds or less that it would be in the warmer air near the surface as it falls. Again, the conditions post-Flood would be very unlike anything we could try to picture today, so it would be unlikely that we could do a good job of predicting the effects. 

 

>>Surely warmer oceans than today (therefore more available energy) are going to produce taller, convective type clouds. I'm basing this on what I see today of the type of cloud in equatorial regions. Is that not logical ?>>

Could be.  What is not very certain/"surely" however is if the whole planet (or at least areas where it was ocean) had taller convective clouds (which are far more reflective than the cirrus type that dominates most of the sky) and these moved over land to cause big snows...if you would see much GE happening.  I believe what is the cause of GE is that the atm (clouds) gets heated by longwave from the surface and then it either radiates heat back toward cooler areas of the surface or it radiates upward to the cooler region of space.  Today, we don't have a very warm ocean so that means a warmer atm can radiate more downward...than it would if the ocean were warmer.  No one to my knowledge has tried to figure if GE would increase in the post-flood scenario of having a warmer ocean.  I think it is fairly undeniable though that albedo would increase substantially.  Your hope (for your view!)  has to be that GE would go up by the same amount as albedo's cooling effects, and that is a stretch. 

 

(I want to keep this post from being too long so I'll end this here.)



#58 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 December 2015 - 02:57 PM

W:>>Indy, your argument suggests that global warming could never take hold on Earth because as soon as the oceans warmed then increased albedo would overwhelm the warming effect. >>

 

I don't agree there would be a "runaway GE" effect (i.e. positive feedback).  I expect that there is a negative feedback that prevents the Earth from overheating in normal conditions.  So all the GE hype today is just that...HYPE.  There would be a TEMPORARY lack of equilibrium in the post-flood world, until the ocean cooled.  So this would cause lots of precipitation and ice formation for a while.  I would expect that even this would be in some way beneficial to Earth and in keeping with God's providence for us.  This may be part of how the warmer oceans were not harmful...because they would  replace the energy lost by the cloudier atm. 

 

Oh, and that might also be why there were such large blooms of coccolithophores!



#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 December 2015 - 03:16 PM

W>>However, there is multiple evidence of long periods of much warmer climate in the past at various times. In the early Eocene for example, which started 55 mya, (so after the Flood and extinction of dinosaurs according to YEC timeline)  tortoises, flying lemurs and snakes inhabited Ellesmere Island in the Canadian high Arctic.>>>>

 

These could be explained probably by the equator shifting due to the "big roll" I described before.  There could have been a long time of it wobbling some.  If mts rose fast, then it would take a while before their mass would alter the equator position at all, and then it would take a while for it to stabilize.  The HPT idea has a better expl. for the tropical vegetation where mammoths walked than your view has. 

 

Do you agree that if indeed there was a compression event which quickly pushed up mountain ranges and sank ocean floors, that this would have an effect on where the equator was? 

 

And do you agree that this would be followed by a slower sinking of the Mts and this would also have some (lesser) effect on the final  position of the equator? 



#60 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 December 2015 - 03:47 PM

Indy, your argument suggests that global warming could never take hold on Earth because as soon as the oceans warmed then increased albedo would overwhelm the warming effect. However, there is multiple evidence of long periods of much warmer climate in the past at various times. In the early Eocene for example, which started 55 mya, (so after the Flood and extinction of dinosaurs according to YEC timeline)  tortoises, flying lemurs and snakes inhabited Ellesmere Island in the Canadian high Arctic.

 

http://www.livescien...sty-arctic.html

 

Polar ocean temperatures in the early Eocene were up to 23 deg C (73 F)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16752441

 

 

How do you reconcile this with your assertion that warm oceans would cause ice sheets over the land ?

 

I definitely do NOT want to rehash talking about forams, however as I looked into the info on these pages and elsewhere, I saw this pretty astonishing fact:

 

https://en.wikipedia...Orbital_forcing

 

However, there are several major problems with the methane hydrate dissociation hypothesis. The most parsimonious interpretation for surface-water forams to show the δ13C excursion before their benthic counterparts (as in the Thomas et al. paper) is that the perturbation occurred from the top down, and not the bottom up. If the anomalous δ13C (in whatever form: CH4 or CO2) entered the atmospheric carbon reservoir first, and then diffused into the surface ocean waters, which mix with the deeper ocean waters over much longer time-scales, we would expect to observe the planktonics shifting toward lighter values before the benthics. Moreover, careful examination of the Thomas et al. data set shows that there is not a single intermediate planktonic foram value, implying that the perturbation and attendant δ13C anomaly happened over the lifespan of a single foram – much too fast for the nominal 10,000-year release needed for the methane hypothesis to work.

 

 

NO TRANSITIONALS!  That is a problem for ToEv in general but it is also a problem in this specific realm too.  Not JUST for the "methane hypothesis" but for the whole study of the paleo record of forams. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users