Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Thanks for tropical forests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thanks for tropical forests

    The increasing luminosity of the sun needed to be compensated...

    Source: Reasons to Believe

    If it were not for the widespread appearance of tropical rainforests 60 million years ago and their maintenance throughout the past 60 million years, the increasing luminosity of the Sun would not have been adequately compensated. Our planet would have become completely sterile and our existence would have been rendered impossible. The just-right timing, extent, and diversity of angiosperm-dominated rainforests testify of a Mind who was intent on preparing a home for human beings.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  • #2
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    The increasing luminosity of the sun needed to be compensated...

    Source: Reasons to Believe

    If it were not for the widespread appearance of tropical rainforests 60 million years ago and their maintenance throughout the past 60 million years, the increasing luminosity of the Sun would not have been adequately compensated. Our planet would have become completely sterile and our existence would have been rendered impossible. The just-right timing, extent, and diversity of angiosperm-dominated rainforests testify of a Mind who was intent on preparing a home for human beings.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    I don't see any support for the quoted part.

    Comment


    • #3
      Did they look to see if the rain forests aren't a result or consequence of the increasing luminosity of the sun?

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        I don't see any support for the quoted part.
        That's because it can't possibly be supported.

        Solar radiance is increasing at about 6% per billion years, so 60 million is just a fraction of a percent. There's no indication that an increase of this size would do anything as dramatic as sterilizing anything. Based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the change in radiative forcing would be on the order of double the industrial era change in greenhouse warming, which has raised temperatures about 1-1.5C so far.

        More significantly, the dark foliage of tropical rainforests is far more effective at absorbing incoming light than the savannah that might form there otherwise. In other words, tropical rainforests make matters worse, not better.

        Making matters more stupid still, the study that inspired this dreck only tracks the formation of tropical rainforests in South America. All the ones in Africa, Indonesia, etc. could have pre-existed the mass extinction event.

        The one case you might make is the forests' role in sequestering carbon, thus cooling down the planet through other means. But the carbon content of the atmosphere spiked multiple times after the 60 million year mark (most dramatically during the PETM), so it's clear that other factors can completely override any protective function provided by these rainforests.


        Why, Lee? Why do you feel compelled to make us read such brain melting garbage? I'm not aware of anyone here being this cruel to you.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          That's because it can't possibly be supported.

          Solar radiance is increasing at about 6% per billion years, so 60 million is just a fraction of a percent. There's no indication that an increase of this size would do anything as dramatic as sterilizing anything. Based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the change in radiative forcing would be on the order of double the industrial era change in greenhouse warming, which has raised temperatures about 1-1.5C so far.

          More significantly, the dark foliage of tropical rainforests is far more effective at absorbing incoming light than the savannah that might form there otherwise. In other words, tropical rainforests make matters worse, not better.

          Making matters more stupid still, the study that inspired this dreck only tracks the formation of tropical rainforests in South America. All the ones in Africa, Indonesia, etc. could have pre-existed the mass extinction event.

          The one case you might make is the forests' role in sequestering carbon, thus cooling down the planet through other means. But the carbon content of the atmosphere spiked multiple times after the 60 million year mark (most dramatically during the PETM), so it's clear that other factors can completely override any protective function provided by these rainforests.


          Why, Lee? Why do you feel compelled to make us read such brain melting garbage? I'm not aware of anyone here being this cruel to you.
          You need flowering plants (angiosperms), which first evolved and diversified during the Cretaceous, to have a rainforest. So it does appear that they did first develop during the Paleogene.

          But that appears to be one of the very few things that they got right.

          Btw, don't forget Canada's tropical rainforest, the temperate Great Bear rainforest up in British Columbia along the coast.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            You need flowering plants (angiosperms), which first evolved and diversified during the Cretaceous, to have a rainforest. So it does appear that they did first develop during the Paleogene.
            Well, the one thing the linked post does get right is that you can easily have a rainforest full of things like tree ferns. It wouldn't look like today's rainforests, but it might function somewhat similarly (though likely lacking the high canopy and the ecosystems that supports).
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Solar radiance is increasing at about 6% per billion years, so 60 million is just a fraction of a percent. There's no indication that an increase of this size would do anything as dramatic as sterilizing anything. Based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the change in radiative forcing would be on the order of double the industrial era change in greenhouse warming, which has raised temperatures about 1-1.5C so far.
              Well, here they estimate 5% in 500 million years, or about 1.2% in 120 million years, which is the interval of interest. Then here they discuss an increase in luminosity of 1%, and the devastating effects that would have.

              More significantly, the dark foliage of tropical rainforests is far more effective at absorbing incoming light than the savannah that might form there otherwise. In other words, tropical rainforests make matters worse, not better.
              But what is their overall effect? Is the question.

              Making matters more stupid still, the study that inspired this dreck only tracks the formation of tropical rainforests in South America. All the ones in Africa, Indonesia, etc. could have pre-existed the mass extinction event.
              I expect Ross included all possible forests in his conclusion, though.

              The one case you might make is the forests' role in sequestering carbon, thus cooling down the planet through other means. But the carbon content of the atmosphere spiked multiple times after the 60 million year mark (most dramatically during the PETM), so it's clear that other factors can completely override any protective function provided by these rainforests.
              But Ross is interested in the arrival of humans, which would be enabled if the forests keep the earth cooler.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                But Ross is interested in the arrival of humans, which would be enabled if the forests keep the earth cooler.
                Sure, there are lots of things that would mean there would be no humans here if things had gone differently. But there might be some other form of intelligent life, wondering why everything seemed to be designed to allow their existence.

                And if not on this planet, then on some other planet.

                For more on this, google "weak anthropic principle".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                  For more on this, google "weak anthropic principle".
                  Source: Return of the God Hypothesis

                  Clearly, the WAP makes a logical error. It treats stating a necessary condition of the occurrence of an event (in this case, our existence) as if it eliminated the need for a causal explanation of the conditions that make the event possible.

                  © Copyright Original Source


                  Perhaps there are other life-forms! But that doesn't explain the presence of the other life-forms, nor their arrival.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Source: Return of the God Hypothesis

                    Clearly, the WAP makes a logical error. It treats stating a necessary condition of the occurrence of an event (in this case, our existence) as if it eliminated the need for a causal explanation of the conditions that make the event possible.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    Perhaps there are other life-forms! But that doesn't explain the presence of the other life-forms, nor their arrival.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Remember this id the Natural Science Section.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, here they estimate 5% in 500 million years, or about 1.2% in 120 million years, which is the interval of interest. Then here they discuss an increase in luminosity of 1%, and the devastating effects that would have.
                      Even so, you're looking at the sort of temperature change we'd see by the end of this century due to business as usual carbon emissions. Yes, it would be a very different planet. No, it would not be sterile.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      But what is their overall effect? Is the question.
                      And if you can't answer it, then you have no reason to think your original source is accurate.

                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      I expect Ross included all possible forests in his conclusion, though.
                      Based on what aside from your desire to believe other creationists?
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Even so, you're looking at the sort of temperature change we'd see by the end of this century due to business as usual carbon emissions. Yes, it would be a very different planet. No, it would not be sterile.
                        Well, the given reference thinks humans would likely not survive a 1% increase in solar luminosity. I agree that the planet would not become sterile, that is an overstatement.

                        And if you can't answer it, then you have no reason to think your original source is accurate.
                        And the overall effect is to cool the planet, as outlined here, "For example, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell from about 1,700 parts per million to about 500 parts per million." Quite a difference! And not likely to be swamped by the increased darkness of the forest leaves.

                        Based on what aside from your desire to believe other creationists?
                        Based on having found Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe to have integrity, and be basically trustworthy.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post


                          Based on having found Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe to have integrity, and be basically trustworthy.
                          When Ross discusses astronomy and cosmology he's pretty much on point, but outside of that he can get off track.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, the given reference thinks humans would likely not survive a 1% increase in solar luminosity. I agree that the planet would not become sterile, that is an overstatement.
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Based on having found Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe to have integrity, and be basically trustworthy.
                            Trustworthy, and yet prone to misleading overstatements?

                            Try for once to look past what you want to believe.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              And the overall effect is to cool the planet, as outlined here, "For example, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell from about 1,700 parts per million to about 500 parts per million." Quite a difference! And not likely to be swamped by the increased darkness of the forest leaves.
                              There is room for doubt about the exact levels of CO2 in the atmosphere around the KT boundary.

                              This source says, "Our record shows stable Late Cretaceous/Early Tertiary background pCO2 levels of 350–500 ppm by volume, but with a marked increase to at least 2,300 ppm by volume within 10,000 years of the KTB."

                              The decrease since then could easily be explained as the planet returning to its previous equilibrium.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, 06-17-2021, 06:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-17-2021, 08:37 AM
                              21 responses
                              82 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, 06-16-2021, 05:09 PM
                              23 responses
                              100 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 06-16-2021, 07:53 AM
                              7 responses
                              34 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 06-15-2021, 08:37 PM
                              1 response
                              20 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X