Global Warming & the Flood

Charles,Regarding getting the water up to a great height (orbit or near-orbit), I really don't think I can offer up anything for that one.I think I was trying to get out of that part of the discussion with my OP, which said: With that statement I intended to avoid a few topics because (a) I didn't think I could intelligently discuss them and (b) I was wanting to focus on energy transfers: specifically the geothermal energy leaving the earth and the heat generated by the rainfall.Could you assume that the waters could somehow get into orbit (or at least high enough to transfer the geothermal heat into space)?Or, could you at least ignore the intial problem of supplying the force to the water to propel it that high? I think I would like to discuss problems with the water traveling to that height once ejected with sufficient force (i.e., would all the water turn to steam). Although, I may not be able to discuss it properly, but I would still like to see any objections which may raised against it.--Jason

Even if ALL the kinetic energy IS converted to heat, it DOES scale that way, and raindrops do not explode.

We can do that if you like but it still amounts to handwaving (standard creationist MO).

quote:

---

I think I would like to discuss problems with the water traveling to that height once ejected with sufficient force (i.e., would all the water turn to steam). Although, I may not be able to discuss it properly, but I would still like to see any objections which may raised against it.

---

Sure - it needs to travel at a miniumum of 18,000mph - how do you propose it does that without turning to steam?Once we have done that we can dicuss the pressure problem, then the water vapor problem.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 06:51 AM

Would all the ejected water turn to steam?And, how exactly is this a problem?--Jason

quote:

---

1. Fountains of the deep erupt. These are hot and do release much energy as heat. It doesn't poach everything on the earth, but does kill everything nearby...not only because of the heat but also because of many other factors. Places where these fountains of the deep might have been...mid atlantic ridge...san andreas fault (I am thinking specifically of the diatomaceous earth deposits in Lompoc, California).

---

leaving aside the problem that there is not enough water. The requires a mechanism that allows water to travel at Supersonic speeds without turning to speed.

quote:

---

2. The water (and debris) shoots into orbit (and some goes beyond). In orbit it supercools. It gradually (over 40 days) returns to the earth as rain. People keep saying all that energy from the falling rain would have poached everything, but I've seen rain...seen it rain for days and days without raising the local temperature any...even lowers it sometimes.

---

This requires both a sensible mechanism for the problems that you and crash and others are talking about (and I'll leave them to it. You always need to explain how the resulting increase in ATM does not make everything on the planet that breathes oxygen die from the bends or be crushed by the resulting pressure. THEN you need to explain how people breathed FULL-STOP (due to the level of water vapor in the atmosphere).

quote:

---

3. If this is the case (or something kind of similar) then the earth lost a lot of geothermal heat energy to space (let us skip the giant "what is heat" debate)...the water brought the heat up to space and left it there (so to speak). I think this is similar to how an air conditioning unit works...the refrigerant continually takes heat out of the environment.

---

Too many other problems at the moment.

quote:

---

4. The ice age began right on the heels of the Flood because the earth had a significantly less geothermal energy. The closer to the equator, the less this mattered, though (due to the sun, of course).

---

Too many other problems at the moment.

quote:

---

5. The earth receives more heat from the sun than it loses to space, so over the last 5000 years its been heating up and the ice caps have continually shrunk and the oceans have continually risen to current levels.

---

Are you taking the piss?

quote:

---

Would all the ejected water turn to steam?

---

for your theory to work it needs to be traveling at @11/kmps - Water turns to steam at 100c (at 1atm) what the hell do you think is going to happen?

quote:

---

And, how exactly is this a problem?

---

Steam occupies about sixteen hundred times the volume of liquid water, what do you think happens?(By the way - we are working in the dark here - give us a ballpark figure of HOW MUCH water you require in your theory).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Aug-2005 07:09 AM

The fact that water deforms more readily means that it takes less energy to deform it, which means that there will be more heat, not less.Even one percent of the kinetic energies you're talking about converted to heat is enough to parboil the Earth. It doesn't take all that energy. Even one percent - less than one percent - is a fatal model for all life on Earth.I truly don't think you have a grip on exactly what your own model predicts, and the reason for this is because your training in physics has yet to progress to thermodynamic models. What about this statement is ambiguous? The Barringer impact mass didn't travel as fast as the water you've proposed in your model.Seems like a perfectly sensible statement in English. What didn't you understand?

God, that's about the stupidest thing you've ever said. Atoms are frictionless.Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. It is generated by collision, not by "scrubbing." Atoms don't generate heat when they "rub" against each other, like an Indian rubbing sticks, because atoms never actually touch. Their shell charges repel each other long before any physical contact could take place.Atoms don't "scrub." Part of the problems your having with your model is that you don't know how to model objects that are made of atoms.

Because they're not enetering the thermosphere at Mach 60.

Okay, then. The deformation causes the atoms to collide more frequently with each other then before the deformation began. Is that acceptable?

I do not propose anything entering the thermosphere at mach 60.Do all water molecules and/or droplets fall to the earth? Don't updrafts/air currents/air resistance keep many particles suspended for quite some time?Are there no updrafts/air currents/air resistance above the thermosphere?(There might not be...that's why I'm asking)I am, currently, visualizing, the water having become severely atomized (into particles much smaller than raindrops) by the time it reached orbit -- possibly pure vapor by that time. It would need to condense into raindrops, first, which, I am saying probably happened in the thermosphere (if that is where raincloud formation occurs today).Rahvin has correctly stated the terminal velocity (due to air resistance) of an average raindrop as 7 m/s. I really doubt that the meteorite...even if it had broken up into shards...had such a low terminal velocity.

No. Those were actual questions.

quote:

---

I am, currently, visualizing, the water having become severely atomized (into particles much smaller than raindrops) by the time it reached orbit -- possibly pure vapor by that time

---

Great now you need to handwave away the pressure issues around having that much water vapor up there and the fact that that you have just killed off everything that breathes on the planet.

Sure you do. The water goes up into orbit, doesn't it? That's exactly what you literally proposed. Well, it has to have a certain velocity to go up that far (well beyond the thermosphere), and out beyond the atmosphere there's no such thing as terminal velocity, so the water comes back down into the atmosphere at exactly the velocity it had when it left. Which would be roughly Mach 60. No; there's no air above the thermosphere. The atmosphere ends at the top of the thermosphere, called the "thermopause." It doesn't really matter. It turns into ice crystals out in space, big lumps of them. The problem is that the water is moving much faster than its terminal velocity when it re-enters the atmosphere. As it brakes to that terminal speed on the way down, the heat parboils the Earth.

If you injected it into orbit, it has to re-enter at that velocity.
There is no way around that.A water droplet entering the upper atmosphere at such a speed
would be instantly vaporized by air friction. If it then re-condenses later, it has to dump the heat of condensation into the atmosphere.This is what I think you are missing. To boil water, you have to supply a certain amount of heat (the latent heat of vaporization).
Condensation is basically the same thing in reverse- for steam to condense to water, it must transfer heat to another medium (air, a solid).I think this is all moot. Your model must begin by explaining what geologic process could inject a mass of water/steam equal to three times that of the oceans into low Earth orbit.Unless you can explain this, the model is a non-starter, physically.This message has been edited by paisano, 08-02-2005 08:18 AM