In a message dated 12/31/03 7:07:41 PM Central Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: Neil s novel and revolutionary method of determing atmosphericMessage 1 of 55 , Jan 1, 2004View SourceIn a message dated 12/31/03 7:07:41 PM Central Standard Time, peaceharris@... writes:
Neil's novel and revolutionary method of determing atmospheric
temperature based on rainfall can be summarized as follows:
1) Calculate the volume of water from rain.
2) Calculate the mass of this water.
3) Calculate the heat released when this water condensed.
4) Calculate the rise in atmospheric temperature resulting from this
heat released. This can be done since the specific heat of air is
Neil has admitted that this is a first order approximation.
To verify this theory, we can measure the amount of rainfall and the
I suggest you help Neil by doing this experiment. I do not know of
any professional meteorologist who uses this method. So after you get
the experimental data, publish it in a professional journal.
Neil can tell the editor of that journal that his theory has been
peer reviewed and approved by several people on this list.Pi:What Harris chooses to ignore is that:a) Only a tiny percentage of the total heat released is necessary to cook every living thing on the planet andb) A "formal" paper published by the creationist Christian Ministry "Institute for Creation Research" reaches the same conclusion.... that enough water vapor in the air to provide for only 20 inches of rain would raise global temperatures enough to cook every living thing on the planet. Of course, maybe Harris thinks the creatures on Noah's really big boat would be protected by the air conditioning Noah had on board.It appears that Selva is unable to find an error in the calculations.Since Selva has offered a suggestion, I will too. I suggest Selva check Vardiman's paper at ICR, it isn't nearly as "down and dirty" as the calculations offered by Neil, Dave, and myself. Vardiman considers such things as: albedo, vapor pressure, greenhouse effect, cloud density, solar constant, solar zenith angle, etc. yet he arrives at the conclusion that only 0.5 meter (about 20 inches) of perceptible vapor (water vapor that could fall as rain) in the atmosphere would increase the temperature to over 400K (that's 127C or 260 F). And that's BEFORE it began to rain.Vardiman's ICR paper can be accessed at:Then Harris can focus on explaining why the blood of every creature in Noah's little zoo wouldn't boil.
... From: Laurie Appleton [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: January 13, 2004 10:34 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re:Message 55 of 55 , Jan 14, 2004View Source
From: Laurie Appleton [mailto:lappleto@...]
Sent: January 13, 2004 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Cooking Noah's GooseTo All,----- Original Message -----From: David BowmanSent: Monday, January 12, 2004 7:23 AMSubject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Cooking Noah's GooseRegarding LA's suggestion in msg #6031:
>LA> ... The "windows of heaven" might easily refer to "water from
>space" or perhaps a large icy comet which fragmented above the earth.
DB> And you think *that* would help the situation any? It's convenient to
be so ignorant of basic science that one can imagine all sorts of
silly scenerios that are completely untenable for various reasons
pertaining to the scientific details.>LA> There is surely NO call for "SILLY" personal attacks by Dave Bowman, and reference to ones alleged ignorance, seem better to reflect his own position, both socially and in respect to the subject, despite his express claims of his personal Christian beliefs!In other words, Laurie has no evidence to support any of the notions or scenarios, silly or otherwise, that meet any scientific standards that can be tested for a global flood that eliminate any other possibility. He finds it necessary, then, to argue an irrelevant point in David's statement... silly... then personally attack David. Interesting debate method...!>DB> A much more honest response would be to simply claim that the scientific details are completely unknowable>LA> Again there is no justification for suggesting that one is providing DISHONEST responses. If Mr. Bowman wished to say anything at all, then there is no reason for his arrogance, condesension or adversorial" attitude, even if it does indicate that he is disturbed by the suggestions put forward.Again, Laurie finds it necessary to argue an irrelevant point. There was no suggestion of dishonesty, only a request to state that "the scientific details are completely unknowable"DB> . . . as they would be uncalculable effects from stupendeous
special miracles of planetary scope that just poofed the water into
and out of existence>LA> No doubt the Big Bang, and all that goes with it, which it would be safe to assume Mr. Bowman probably accepts as close to an established fact, would NOT be an example of the pot calling the kettle black! No one is, of course suggesting here that the water of the flood was just "poofed into or out of existence", but just the opposite.Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to support any YEC "theory" but a Poof scenario, which Laurie has pointed out here and in other forums is outside the realm of science.There are good and reasonable explanations of where it may have come from and where it went, without going past what the historical record of Genesis says!But, that's religion... not science and laurie only wants "scientific creationism" taught in schools. How can he possibly produce the science of a flood that is independant of what "Genesis says!" when it shows up nowhere else?Joe