The idea of 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
See above. Notice that the North Atlantic and the Moscow Oblast were much colder than normal. Moscow's highs went down into the upper 60s. On the other hand, notice huge ares of the Earth with much higher than normal temperatures, and many large areas with record high temperatures.
People who confuse weather and climate, never figure this out.
So does that mean that it's possible that there are hotter periods that AREN'T on record, and if so, could this just be a foothill compared to that mountain?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I see deserts as problems, all of them. They are fundamentally alien. Our planet is green as a rule, and deserts look more like Mars. I'd be on board with waging war on deserts. I think it could only help our climate, 'ceteris paribus.'
Yep. 90 million years ago, it was a lot warmer. Then a catastrophic change cooled things off, killing all land animals larger than a few kilograms in mass. Likely the Chixlub object strike, along with the eruption of the Deccan traps, was the initiator.
Our civilization just depends on the climate in which it developed, much as the civilizations of the fertile crescent depended on the climate there. Then mismanagement turned that garden into a desert.
The basic difference between them and us, is that our civilization has become worldwide, and we now have the technology and the power to do that to the planet.
I've got some fairly good news for you. Warmer climate should greatly reduce the extent of the Sahara. Unfortunately, it is now drying out the Great Basin in the United States; the effect is now being seen from Nebraska to the Rocky Mountains.
90 million years ago heat didn't exist.
See how easy it is to assume your position is correct?
OR, only around 5000 years ago the earth was ravaged by a global flood and has been ringing like a bell ever since...
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And we also have the technology and power to wage war on deserts. Fertile soil is basically two things, inorganic material and organic material. Deserts are full of sand, that's one possible type of inorganic material in fertile soil (along with silt and clay). All we need to do is get compost, or humus, into deserts, to make them fertile.
Of course we need water too, but in deserts, water without humus is just wet sand.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Compost!
Desert soil, if merely watered, is usually very fertile. Sand dunes, not so much, but most deserts are not sand dunes. If you're out by El Paso in the spring, it's astonishing how fast that barren desert turns green and flowered, when the spring rains get there.
(this is not one of my images)
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Those are weeds.Desert soil, if merely watered, is usually very fertile. Sand dunes, not so much, but most deserts are not sand dunes. If you're out by El Paso in the spring, it's astonishing how fast that barren desert turns green and flowered, when the spring rains get there.
(this is not one of my images)
A weed is a plant growing where you don't want it. People around El Paso take a great deal of enjoyment from the desert flowers every spring.
Most desert soils are called Aridisols (dry soil). However, in really dry regions of the Sahara and Australian outback, the soil orders are called Entisols. Entisols are new soils, like sand dunes, which are too dry for any major soil horizon development. They also occur in floodplains after a spring flood, which is why they can occur in the desert.
The desert may look dry, but it still contains a lot of living organisms. This includes a living, biological crust, whcih is formed by algae, moss, and lichens in a group. Aridisols are very fertile, however, often don't have the rainfall to sustain life. When it rains, dormant seeds wake up and form desert blooms. The permanent vegetation (like cacti and shrubs) is very well adapted to living without moisture for long periods of time.
https://www.soils4teachers.org/deserts/
The greening of the Sahara will be decades in the making, because of the widespread sand. However, the southern border of the Sahara is retreating as the dry land greens up and the dunes become fixed by vegetation.
https://www.saharadesertkingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SAHARA-DESERT-KINGDOM-TOUR-31.jpg
What I didn't know was that the greening of the Sahara could have some adverse effects:
Sahara greening may intensify tropical cyclone activity worldwide
Future climate warming could lead to a re-greening of the southernmost Sahara (Sahel), with decreased dust emissions and changes in land cover. In a recent study, researchers at the Department of Meteorology at Stockholm University have found that tropical cyclone activity may have increased during past warm climates in connection with a greening of the Sahara.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.htm
Good for North Africa. Maybe not so good for people living on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts.
Most desert soils are called Aridisols (dry soil). However, in really dry regions of the Sahara and Australian outback, the soil orders are called Entisols. Entisols are new soils, like sand dunes, which are too dry for any major soil horizon development. They also occur in floodplains after a spring flood, which is why they can occur in the desert.
The desert may look dry, but it still contains a lot of living organisms. This includes a living, biological crust, whcih is formed by algae, moss, and lichens in a group. Aridisols are very fertile, however, often don't have the rainfall to sustain life. When it rains, dormant seeds wake up and form desert blooms. The permanent vegetation (like cacti and shrubs) is very well adapted to living without moisture for long periods of time.
https://www.soils4teachers.org/deserts/
The greening of the Sahara will be decades in the making, because of the widespread sand. However, the southern border of the Sahara is retreating as the dry land greens up and the dunes become fixed by vegetation.
https://www.saharadesertkingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SAHARA-DESERT-KINGDOM-TOUR-31.jpg
What I didn't know was that the greening of the Sahara could have some adverse effects:
Sahara greening may intensify tropical cyclone activity worldwide
Future climate warming could lead to a re-greening of the southernmost Sahara (Sahel), with decreased dust emissions and changes in land cover. In a recent study, researchers at the Department of Meteorology at Stockholm University have found that tropical cyclone activity may have increased during past warm climates in connection with a greening of the Sahara.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170608073356.htm
Good for North Africa. Maybe not so good for people living on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts.
Comes down to evidence.
Water circulation and mixing were not as great as they are today, because most of the oceans (e.g., the developing North Atlantic) were constricted, and the temperature differences between the poles and the Equator were minimal. Thus, the oceans experienced frequent periods of anoxic (oxygenless) conditions in the bottom waters that reveal themselves today as black shales. Sometimes, particularly during the mid-Cretaceous, conditions extended to epicontinental seas, as attested by deposits of black shales in the western interior of North America.
The Cretaceous world had three distinct geographic subdivisions: the northern boreal, the southern boreal, and the Tethyan region. The Tethyan region separated the two boreal regions and is recognized by the presence of fossilized reef-forming rudist bivalves, corals, larger foraminiferans (single-celled organisms known for their glasslike shells, or tests), and certain ammonites (a group of extinct cephalopods known for their spiral shells) that inhabited only the warmer Tethyan waters. Early in the Cretaceous, North and South America separated sufficiently for the marine connection between the Tethys Sea and the Pacific to deepen substantially. The Tethys-to-Pacific marine connection allowed for a strong westward-flowing current, which is inferred from faunal patterns. For example, as the Cretaceous progressed, the similarity between rudist bivalves of the Caribbean and western Europe decreased, while some Caribbean forms have been found on Pacific seamounts, in Southeast Asia, and possibly in the Balkans.
The remnants of the northern boreal realm in North America, Europe, Russia, and Japan have been extensively studied. It is known, for instance, that sediments in the southwestern Netherlands indicate several changes of temperature during the Late Cretaceous. These temperature swings imply that the boundary between the northern boreal areas and the Tethys region was not constant with time. Russian workers recognize six paleobiogeographic zones: boreal, which in this context is equivalent to Arctic; European; Mediterranean, including the central Asian province; Pacific; and two paleofloristic zonations of land. Southern boreal areas and the rocks representing the southern Tethys margin lack this level of detail.
Magnetically, the Cretaceous was quiet relative to the subsequent Paleogene Period. In fact, magnetic reversals are not noted for a period of some 42 million years, from the early Aptian to the late Santonian ages. The lengths of Earth’s months (see synodic period) have changed regularly for at least the past 600 million years because of tidal friction and other forces that slow Earth’s rotation. The rate of change in the synodic month was minimal for most of the Cretaceous but has accelerated since. The reasons for these two anomalies are not well understood.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period
You lose. There's a lot more if you need to see more.
See how easy it is to beat an argument when someone assumes His position is correct?
Barbarian continues...
Then a catastrophic change cooled things off, killing all land animals larger than a few kilograms in mass. Likely the Chixlub object strike, along with the eruption of the Deccan traps, was the initiator.
The Chixlub crater is there, and at the right time. Globally, there's line of Iridium (which is very rare in the Earth's crust) precisely at the KT boundary. The Deccan Traps are there for everyone to see, indicating regional vulcanism, again, at precisely the right time.
And of course, floods wouldn't cause the Earth to "ring" at all. Even gigantic tsunamis don't do that (although they do subtly change the Earth's rotation)
Much more massive movements,such as Earthquakes, produce seismic waves, but these rapidly attenuate. Big ones last a few days:
https://www.earthobservatory.sg/faq-on-earth-sciences/how-far-can-seismic-waves-reach
"Six days" "from the beginning of creation, God made man"
There's my evidence, what's yours?
If we consider the mile deep sediments around the world as a record of millions of years, then there's no way your position could be falsified, but that's not the only possibility.
If we consider the mile deep sedimentary layers around the world as laid down at one time, during a global flood that lasted for nearly a single year, then your argument goes out the window.
See what happens when you assume that your position is inherently correct?
You end up blinded to other, simpler explanations for the evidence you present.
It would if it the flood was caused by the fountains of the great deep breaking forth with the energy of 5,000 trillion hydrogen bombs... (thats 2.2 × 1038 ergs of energy, by the way).
And you say a flood couldn't cause the earth to ring like a bell...
You can find out more at https://kgov.com/hpt or at http://creationscience.com/onlinebook.
Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period
You lose. There's a lot more if you need to see more.
Well, let's see what God says...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
No offense, but I'll go with God, rather than your paraphrase of what you think He said.
Rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. There's many others. Want to hear some more?
If that were true, the entire geologic column would exist almost everywhere on Earth. But in fact the complete column is found only in a few places. Which rules out all or even most of the land being covered by flood waters at the same time. You assumed that your position is inherently correct, and it led you down into a logical contradiction. You end up blinded to other, simpler explanations that actually fit the evidence I showed you.
And of course, floods wouldn't cause the Earth to "ring" at all. Even gigantic tsunamis don't do that (although they do subtly change the Earth's rotation)
Much more massive movements,such as Earthquakes, produce seismic waves, but these rapidly attenuate. Big ones last a few days.
Show us that. Imaginative stories are not a substitute for evidence. You see, all that energy, if released, has to be absorbed by the atmosphere into which it was vented. An erg is about one-ten millionth of a Joule. Which means, you're saying that 2.2X1030 Joules of energy were absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now water has a high specific heat. But not high enough to take that without becoming superheated.
All the water on Earth today would be about 1.37 × 1021 kg. To make it easier and account for waster lost, let's say 2.2. Which means each kilogram of water would absorb about 1 x 10(sup]9[/sup] Joules of energy. Or 1 x 106 Joules per gram. A million Joules per gram, then.
But the specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C. Which is the number of Joules required to heat one gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
So it would take 418.6 Joules of heat to warm one gram of water from 0 degrees C to 100 degrees C. (boiling point). So there you are. Noah and his crew would have been steamed to death.
Yep. For one thing, even earthquakes don't do that.
I get that people have a religious believe in that. The point is that it's neither scientifically possible, nor scripturally supported. If you have some evidence, let's see what you have.
Comes down to evidence.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Cretaceous-Period
You lose. There's a lot more if you need to see more.
Well, let's see what God says...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
No offense, but I'll go with God, rather than your paraphrase of what you think He said.
Rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. There's many others. Want to hear some more?
If that were true, the entire geologic column would exist almost everywhere on Earth. But in fact the complete column is found only in a few places. Which rules out all or even most of the land being covered by flood waters at the same time. You assumed that your position is inherently correct, and it led you down into a logical contradiction. You end up blinded to other, simpler explanations that actually fit the evidence I showed you.
And of course, floods wouldn't cause the Earth to "ring" at all. Even gigantic tsunamis don't do that (although they do subtly change the Earth's rotation)
Much more massive movements,such as Earthquakes, produce seismic waves, but these rapidly attenuate. Big ones last a few days.
Show us that. Imaginative stories are not a substitute for evidence. You see, all that energy, if released, has to be absorbed by the atmosphere into which it was vented. An erg is about one-ten millionth of a Joule. Which means, you're saying that 2.2X1030 Joules of energy were absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now water has a high specific heat. But not high enough to take that without becoming superheated.
All the water on Earth today would be about 1.37 × 1021 kg. To make it easier and account for waster lost, let's say 2.2. Which means each kilogram of water would absorb about 1 x 10(sup]9[/sup] Joules of energy. Or 1 x 106 Joules per gram. A million Joules per gram, then.
But the specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C. Which is the number of Joules required to heat one gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
So it would take 418.6 Joules of heat to warm one gram of water from 0 degrees C to 100 degrees C. (boiling point). So there you are. Noah and his crew would have been steamed to death.
Yep. For one thing, even earthquakes don't do that.
I get that people have a religious believe in that. The point is that it's neither scientifically possible, nor scripturally supported. If you have some evidence, let's see what you have.
We wish he would pause and think for a moment before speaking.
That's not all He said.
There's more that you left out, because that was only part of day one.
Here, allow me to quote the entirety of what God said:
Day 1:
Spoiler
Day 2:
Spoiler
Day 3:
Spoiler
Day 4:
Spoiler
Day 5:
Spoiler
Day 6:
Spoiler
And on Day 7, God rested from creating:
Spoiler
See, six days, man at the beginning of a 7,000 year period.
Wrong.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.html#wp1100074
Read please.
Rather, because of the above, it does no such thing.
Rather, I let the evidence speak for itself, rather than forcing it to conform to my pre-existing beliefs.
What logical contradiction?
Right back atcha.
See my above comment on the amount of energy released, and don't forget that I'm arguing from the position of the Hydroplate theory.
The earthquakes we have today are the RESULT of the earth being flooded.
Nope. Sorry.
That objection has been debunked.
https://kgov.com/hydroplate-theory-heat-problem-walt-brown
You misunderstand.
The earthquakes themselves ARE the ringing.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and just makes you sound like you are refusing to consider the position.
There is plenty of scientific, testable evidence for the Hydroplate theory.
YOU just don't like it because if the HPT is correct, it invalidates your entire position..
This is just plain wrong.
You either A) don't know scripture very well, B) don't know the HP theory very well, or C) both A and B.
There are MANY verses that support the HPT.
Here's two charts for you to look at.
And a link:
https://kgov.com/hydroplate-theory-and-walt-brown-on-the-global-flood
Supra.
Barbarian observes:
Well, let's see what God says...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
No offense, but I'll go with God, rather than your paraphrase of what you think He said.
If you had thought about it, I don't think you would have posted that.
Nothing about man at the beginning, or even at the end of the first day. Read it and learn:
Here, allow me to quote the entirety of what God said:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
That's what He says. He specifically says what's there at the beginning, and none of that was, much less a man.
Barbarian observes:
If that were true, the entire geologic column would exist almost everywhere on Earth.
No, and the excuses to which you linked, don't even address the issue. If you doubt it, present one of them and I'll show you.
But in fact the complete column is found only in a few places. Which rules out all or even most of the land being covered by flood waters at the same time.
Perhaps you linked to the wrong page. It doesn't even address the problem.
You assumed that your position is inherently correct,
I see your denial, but your assumptions led you into accepting a story which is not supported by the evidence or by scripture.
And of course, floods wouldn't cause the Earth to "ring" at all. Even gigantic tsunamis don't do that (although they do subtly change the Earth's rotation)
No, they happen primarily because of convection currents in the mantle moving plates of crust around. Floods have nothing whatever to do with it.
Show us that. Imaginative stories are not a substitute for evidence. You see, all that energy, if released, has to be absorbed by the atmosphere into which it was vented. An erg is about one-ten millionth of a Joule. Which means, you're saying that 2.2X1030 Joules of energy were absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now water has a high specific heat. But not high enough to take that without becoming superheated.
All the water on Earth today would be about 1.37 × 1021 kg. To make it easier and account for waster lost, let's say 2.2. Which means each kilogram of water would absorb about 1 x 10(sup]9[/sup] Joules of energy. Or 1 x 106 Joules per gram. A million Joules per gram, then.
But the specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C. Which is the number of Joules required to heat one gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
So it would take 418.6 Joules of heat to warm one gram of water from 0 degrees C to 100 degrees C. (boiling point). So there you are. Noah and his crew would have been steamed to death.
Here's one of your "debunking stories";
Indeed they do. It's the way your air conditioner works. As the water was released under the huge pressure Walt assumed, it would be unbelievably hot, but hitting the atmosphere, it would rapidly expand into a gas, and cool dramatically.
Here's the rub:
That energy doesn't just magically disappear. It has to go somewhere else. How so? You probably realize that compressed refrigerant expands, cooling dramatically, thereby cooling your house. The thermal energy is given off by the refrigerant and heats the coils in which it expands, from which it heats up the air outside your house. That's why the outside unit blows hot air. It's also why you can't cool your house by opening the door of your freezer. If you thought about it for a moment, I think you'd realize how that works.
No. As I showed you, the P and S waves from the Earthquake do go around the Earth, but are gone quickly. Here's a seismogram of a big one. Time is scaled on the X axis. Note how long it lasted:
Interestingly, the Moon does vibrate as you suggest, but the Earth does not, primarily because of liguid or semi-liquid zones inside the Earth.
Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like a bell," Neal says.
On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge--it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/15mar_moonquakes.html
I get that people have a religious belief in that. The point is that it's neither scientifically possible, nor scripturally supported. If you have some evidence, let's see what you have.
So you have no evidence? That just makes you sound like you are refusing to consider the position.
Notice that the attempt to explain where all that heat went was completely wrong. Start with that.
Seismologists use the time interval between the arrival of the P waves and the S waves to determine how far away the epicenter (location on the surface directly above the focus of the earthquake) is. The amplitude of the waves, relative to the distance, tells you the Richter scale magnitude of the earthquake. If you have three seismograms from relatively distant seismographs, you can use triangulation to find the epicenter.
This is a pretty cool lab, one that even middle school students can do well.
https://www.fusd1.org/cms/lib/AZ01001113/.../Earthquake_Searcha.doc
This is a pretty cool lab, one that even middle school students can do well.
https://www.fusd1.org/cms/lib/AZ01001113/.../Earthquake_Searcha.doc
It's a pity he'll never think.
Let's see what God says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
No offense, but I'll go with God rather than what you wish He'd said.
Also, "at the beginning of the creation" is an English translation of a Greek phrase, which simply refers to "the beginning." This is made clear in the parallel verse, Matthew 19:4, where He says the phrase without the "of the creation." Everyone knows what's going on, except for Darwinists. They so desperately want their religion to be free from examination that they will call billions of years of Earth history (according to what they believe) "the beginning." They want Jesus to be a Darwinist, so when He says that He made man and woman "at the beginning of the creation," Darwinists think that this means billions of years after He created the Earth. :chuckle:
For a Darwinist, "the beginning" included the time 13.993 billion years into their supposed 14 billion-year history. :chuckle:
And they wonder why they get mocked.
Have you not read? He Who made them at the beginning made them male and female.
If you had thought about it, I don't think you would have posted that.
Luckily, the Bible doesn't say on Day 1. Read it and learn. :up:
:darwinsm:
Because topography and hydrological forces do not exist? What planet are you living on?
And your excuses do not address the issue. If you doubt it, present one of them and I'll show you.
I see your denial, but your assumptions led you into accepting a thing that is not supported by the evidence or by scripture.
If you had spent even a short time learning what is being referenced, you would not respond in such a silly manner.
The earthquakes are the ringing.
:darwinsm:
Sounds like magic. How does a convection current form in rock? How does a convection current form when rock contracts as it heats up at pressures found in the mantle?
Show us that. Imaginative stories are not a substitute for evidence.
Oh! We get it. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
We've seen this before. Hydroplate haters have this knee-jerk reaction where they forget physics 101. The rule is: Energy is conserved. The rule is not: Energy is conserved, but only ever as heat.
Try doing a little research before trotting out tired, long-debunked nonsense in response to scientific theories. :up:
There was a map made in the 1500s by a mapmaker named Piri Ries that he made as a copy from maps much older than his. His map shows Antarctica before it was covered with ice with such accuracy it wasn't until in the 1950s that we could verify his map because before that no one had to tools to look down through the ice to see what was under it. Ries' map showed a mountain range that no one knew existed until then, and it was drawn extremely accurately. No one could have done that by guess work.
What all this points to is that earth's temperature has varied widely from one time to another. At one time it was warm enough for Antarctica to have no ice cap on it. Now it's cool enough for ice caps on both poles. So, so what if the earth warms up again? If it does so it's a naturally occurring phenomena and to bankrupt the entire world trying to stop it is insane. We humans are pretty insignificant to something the size of the earth, but most people don't want to admit their own insignificance so they keep on saying we have to stop naturally occurring phenomena.
What all this points to is that earth's temperature has varied widely from one time to another. At one time it was warm enough for Antarctica to have no ice cap on it. Now it's cool enough for ice caps on both poles. So, so what if the earth warms up again? If it does so it's a naturally occurring phenomena and to bankrupt the entire world trying to stop it is insane. We humans are pretty insignificant to something the size of the earth, but most people don't want to admit their own insignificance so they keep on saying we have to stop naturally occurring phenomena.