Yep. Huge player for one reason; it absorbs infrared energy at wavelengths that are not absorbed by other gases.
Modern science is crazy again
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Yep. Huge player for one reason; it absorbs infrared energy at wavelengths that are not absorbed by other gases.
The world is not narrower at the bottom and spreads out. Ocean margins are not like a wok. They vary a great deal, which means that in some places, ocean rise will be relatively sudden, and in other areas, relatively slow.
That would be some comfort if we were living in a wok.
Unfortunately, the world is not simple.
In addition to what Barbarian said, you're assuming a linear increase in the volume of water. That won't happen. So it absolutely will accelerate.
The warmer the atmosphere, the faster the ice melts, and the more heat is taken up by the oceans. That's where the acceleration comes from.
It's a real problem...but I'm wondering why you bring it up now.
Right Divider
Body part
Because it's funny.
genuineoriginal
New member
The ocean rising simply means the surface of the water will be farther away from the center of the earth than it was prior to the rise.
Water seeks the lowest level, so it will not rise rapidly in some areas and relatively slowly in other areas.
If the world was completely covered with water, then the volume of water in the rise could be calculated using the mathematical formula for measuring the volume of concentric spheres, using the prior ocean level for the diameter of the smaller sphere and the risen ocean level as the diameter of the larger sphere.
However, the surface of the world also contains land with irregular heights, so that formula will produce inaccurate results.
As the ocean rises, it will flow around higher land and flood lower land.
When the rising ocean floods land, the rise will slow down because the ocean will spread out faster than it rises.
The higher the ocean rises, the slower it is able to rise.
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
That is a much better experiment than the alka-seltzer one.
Barbarian observes:
The world is not narrower at the bottom and spreads out. Ocean margins are not like a wok. They vary a great deal, which means that in some places, ocean rise will be relatively sudden, and in other areas, relatively slow.
But that won't always be the same around the world, for reasons you don't get yet.
The Table below shows the relative sea level rise in mm per year for long-term tide gauges in the Chesapeake Bay region. Trends for 1930-1990 and 1970-1990 are displayed. It is obvious at a glance that there is a great difference between the regional rate of sea level rise during the two periods.
Sea Level Station Trend 1970-90 Trend 1930-90
_________________________________________________________
PORTSMOUTH 4.3 mm/year 3.8 mm/year
HAMPTON ROADS 1.1 4.2
GLOUCESTER POINT -1.5 (*)
CAMBRIDGE -3.2 3.2
WASHINGTON DC -1.8 3.0
SOLOMONS ISLAND 2.0 3.3
ANNAPOLIS -0.3 3.5
BALTIMORE -0.4 3.2
KIPTOPEKE BEACH 0.5 (*)
LEWES -0.5 3.3
PHILADELPHIA -0.5 2.7
_________________________________________________________
AVERAGE 0.0 mm/yr 3.4 mm/yr
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html
Notice substantial differences, even in a relatively small area. It's not like flooding a wok. And it's more complicated than that. The topography of the coastline will determine how fast land will be flooded, even if the rise actually was the same in all areas. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could see why.
The world is not narrower at the bottom and spreads out. Ocean margins are not like a wok. They vary a great deal, which means that in some places, ocean rise will be relatively sudden, and in other areas, relatively slow.
But that won't always be the same around the world, for reasons you don't get yet.
The Table below shows the relative sea level rise in mm per year for long-term tide gauges in the Chesapeake Bay region. Trends for 1930-1990 and 1970-1990 are displayed. It is obvious at a glance that there is a great difference between the regional rate of sea level rise during the two periods.
Sea Level Station Trend 1970-90 Trend 1930-90
_________________________________________________________
PORTSMOUTH 4.3 mm/year 3.8 mm/year
HAMPTON ROADS 1.1 4.2
GLOUCESTER POINT -1.5 (*)
CAMBRIDGE -3.2 3.2
WASHINGTON DC -1.8 3.0
SOLOMONS ISLAND 2.0 3.3
ANNAPOLIS -0.3 3.5
BALTIMORE -0.4 3.2
KIPTOPEKE BEACH 0.5 (*)
LEWES -0.5 3.3
PHILADELPHIA -0.5 2.7
_________________________________________________________
AVERAGE 0.0 mm/yr 3.4 mm/yr
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html
Notice substantial differences, even in a relatively small area. It's not like flooding a wok. And it's more complicated than that. The topography of the coastline will determine how fast land will be flooded, even if the rise actually was the same in all areas. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure you could see why.
way 2 go
Well-known member
soft tissue in dinosaur bones
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material
Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for.
http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material
Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for.
So far, not actual tissue, just some organic molecules. Tissues are groups of cells organized for a particular function. So far as I have found, no one has even located intact cells that old. But material like collagen and heme have survived for many millions of years.
way 2 go
Well-known member
:darwinsm:
And you must be laughing because of all the research you have done that suggests barbarian is wrong. Love to see it.
Greg Jennings
New member
Can you explain to me the difference between old collagen and living organic tissue? Of course not, but don't let that stop you from acting like you know anything about what you're talking about.
If you'd ever once read a real paper on this subject then you'd see in plain writing exactly why collagen and heme get preserved. But to you and other YECs only info from unreliable second or third hand sources is used. I wonder why?
No,you don't really wonder why, you know why. Because otherwise it threatens the afterlife.
The only problem with citing Revelation 16:8 as an explanation for global warming is that there has been no significant increase in solar irradiance over the last 40 years:
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and bright spots since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). However, solar forcing doesn't explain the recent rise in global temperatures. While global temperatures have been rising, solar activity has remained more or less static.
Infrared radiation absorption for water vapor and carbon dioxide is not even. Water vapor absorbs radiation mainly in the 18 to 30 micrometer band, allowing most of the rest to escape into space. But CO2 absorbs radiation in a different range: 8 to 18 micrometers. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation that water vapor would allow to pass through the atmosphere and into outer space.
And yes, methane is an even more substantial greenhouse gas than CO2: "While methane doesn’t linger as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat. In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Both types of emissions must be addressed if we want to effectively reduce the impact of climate change." -- https://www.edf.org/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
Conservative Christians are not adverse to having their water "treated" to ensure that it is safe to drink - so why would they expect that the atmosphere which has long been used as an open sewer for pollutants be any different!
To argue that society can pollute the land, water and atmosphere for centuries, on a massive scale, without suffering negative consequences is the real "fake news!"
To argue that society can pollute the land, water and atmosphere for centuries, on a massive scale, without suffering negative consequences is the real "fake news!"