Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[HMS_Beagle]

Do you understand the concept of a paradigm? Also, have you ever slowed down to examine how exactly each of those things that you list are supposed to work? For example, you just don't pull out a core of sediments and find a date - e.g., July 8, 1834 AD - attached to each layer. And, yes, I would agree that in some cases in the relatively recent past we are able to correlate a layer with an event. Why? Because we have multiple verifiable sources the confirm the event and its effects. However, as I grow weary of saying, we cannot do that beyond a certain point after which it becomes pure speculation/assumption all based on some worldview-paradigm. To Wit: provide a layer from, say, (allegedly) 250,000 BC and correlate it to something for which a demonstrable-verifiable date exists without circularity or reliance on a questionable reference. Go ahead - I challenge you.

Jorge

We don't have to provide dates back to 250,000 BC to disprove YEC claims Jorge. All we need are dates older than 10,000 YBP, evidence that we have in spades. The dozen or so multiple and consilient independent methods for historical C14/C12 ratio calibration that go back well over 50,000 years kill all YEC nonsense deader that dead.

[klaus54]

I used the Lost Squadron as an illustration, not as definitive proof.

And that illustration was shown to NOT be a counterexample to (Antarctic) glacial ice core data.

Not only is it an assumption, it is an assumption provably in error.

Not only are you wrong, but you just committed the ipse dixit fallacy.

Do you understand the concept of a paradigm? Also, have you ever slowed down to examine how exactly each of those things that you list are supposed to work? For example, you just don't pull out a core of sediments and find a date - e.g., July 8, 1834 AD - attached to each layer. And, yes, I would agree that in some cases in the relatively recent past we are able to correlate a layer with an event. Why? Because we have multiple verifiable sources the confirm the event and its effects. However, as I grow weary of saying, we cannot do that beyond a certain point after which it becomes pure speculation/assumption all based on some worldview-paradigm. To Wit: provide a layer from, say, (allegedly) 250,000 BC and correlate it to something for which a demonstrable-verifiable date exists without circularity or reliance on a questionable reference. Go ahead - I challenge you.

Yes, and any YEC paradigm has been proven false an Avogadro's Number times over.

....
No, you do not have "evidence" that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years. You cannot state as "factual evidence" what you first need to demonstrate. Your so-called "evidence", I would say, is not evidence at all (except to those predisposed to believe it).

....
Sketches, Further Remarks on Order; from the 1969 book
Towards a Theoretical Biology, David Bohm, PhD.[/COLOR]

Jorge

Yes, we have plenty of evidence that you either choose to ignore in your usual cherry-picking style or are incapable of understanding.

Oh, and there you go with the ipse dixit thingy again.

K54

P.S. Where's that literal Genesis 1 linky I've been asking for?

[oxmixmudd]

I love it. To the simple mathematical calculation that to create the known extent of one of several Ice sheets accepted to have existed by creationists and non-creationists alike would have required the ENTIRE energy output of the Sun received by the Earth over that period, Jorge says:

No, you do not have "evidence" that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years. You cannot state as "factual evidence" what you first need to demonstrate. Your so-called "evidence", I would say, is not evidence at all (except to those predisposed to believe it).




I will end this delightful chat with one of my favorite quotes from David Bohm (I used it in our book Without Excuse, 2011) which speaks to people like yourself, people who say and believe: "No one has led me to believe anything. I'm a trained scientist - I'm capable of evaluating evidence." Listen carefully to what Bohm (not a Creationist) says:

“It seems clear that everybody has got some kind of metaphysics,
even if he thinks he hasn’t got any. Indeed, the practical ‘hard-headed’
individual who ‘only goes by what he sees’ has a very dangerous
kind of metaphysics, i.e., the kind of which he is unaware … Such
metaphysics is dangerous because, in it, assumptions and inferences are
being mistaken for directly observed facts, with the result that they are
effectively riveted in an almost unchangeable way into the structure of
thought. What is called for is therefore that each one of us be aware of
his metaphysical assumptions, to the extent that this is possible.”

Sketches, Further Remarks on Order; from the 1969 book
Towards a Theoretical Biology, David Bohm, PhD.

Jorge

You are unable to process to issues Jorge. You are the Black Knight. You have no arms and no legs, and you demand TheLurch let him bleed on you.

Do you not understand what he has said and what it implies? This is ONE of several ice sheets. Just one. Basically, the end result is, it is simply impossible to have an ice age start, persits, and recede over a period of just 700 years. The energy to melt the ice HAS to come from somewhere Jorge.

You can't explain this away by claiming TheLurch has a different metaphysic than you do. That is nuts Jorge. Like stupid. Like hide your head in the sand and scream 'la la la' why don't you? You MUST either show his calculations are wrong or find another energy source. Otherwise it HAD to take substantially longer than the time available in your 'model'.



Jim

[Roy]

You can't explain this away by claiming TheLurch has a different metaphysic than you do. That is nuts Jorge. Like stupid. Like hide your head in the sand and scream 'la la la' why don't you? You MUST either show his calculations are wrong or find another energy source.

The energy released as Hell freezes over?

Roy

[TheLurch]

If you want to get really nit-picky-technical then everything we observe is a past event (light takes time to reach our eyes, sound to reach our ears, etc.). Let's not get carried away, okay? I explicitly stated in previous posts that extrapolation is fine TO A CERTAIN POINT. If we have to go too far and/or if we have reason to suspect that there is a game-changer discontinuity then extrapolation is not just unwarranted, it is very likely a blunder. I've been through all of this and don't enjoy having to repeat myself.

Ok, so how do you define that point? Where's your evidence that it exists?

I used the Lost Squadron as an illustration, not as definitive proof.

An illustration of what, though?

Not only is it an assumption, it is an assumption provably in error.

What's the assumption? We have multiple methods (tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores, etc.) that, within historic records, all line up with what we know. And they show no interruptions as precisely the same pattern extends beyond recorded history. From this, we can conclude that the same processes were likely acting before recorded history. I don't see any assumptions there, much less anything "provably in error".

Do you understand the concept of a paradigm?

Yes, i took both a philosophy and a philosophy of science course where The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was discussed extensively.

However, as I grow weary of saying, we cannot do that beyond a certain point after which it becomes pure speculation/assumption all based on some worldview-paradigm.

A worldview is not a paradigm, at least in the technical sense of the term paradigm, so i can't make sense out of that statement.

To Wit: provide a layer from, say, (allegedly) 250,000 BC and correlate it to something for which a demonstrable-verifiable date exists without circularity or reliance on a questionable reference. Go ahead - I challenge you.

You've already declared that the evidence that indicates you can date it accurately is circular, so there's not much point there.

No, you do not have "evidence" that ice ages last 10s of thousands of years. You cannot state as "factual evidence" what you first need to demonstrate. Your so-called "evidence", I would say, is not evidence at all (except to those predisposed to believe it).

We do have the evidence. The plainest interpretation of the evidence in the ice cores, and in glacial deposits left around the world, and in ocean and land sediment cores, is that there have been multiple ice ages. If someone wants to claim that the plainest interpretation is wrong, then they have to come up with evidence that it is. Shouting "worldiview!" is not a scientific argument.

I will end this delightful chat with one of my favorite quotes from David Bohm (I used it in our book Without Excuse, 2011) which speaks to people like yourself, people who say and believe: "No one has led me to believe anything. I'm a trained scientist - I'm capable of evaluating evidence." Listen carefully to what Bohm (not a Creationist) says:

I've just (i think) showed that the creation model you recommended i read up on violates basic physics. (And that's without even getting into the amount of energy needed to have evaporated the water that must have fell as snow, which requires more energy). Could you please address the argument? As oxmixmudd said, this isn't a matter of metaphysics. Can you address this issue or not?

[TheLurch]

I see Jorge has been active in other threads, but is avoiding any substantiative reply in this one. This is disappointing. In a number of other threads, i've seen him claim he cares about science, and will work to correct anyone in the creationist movement that promotes erroneous information. This would seem to be a clear case where he could take some action.

[klaus54]

I see Jorge has been active in other threads, but is avoiding any substantiative reply in this one. This is disappointing. In a number of other threads, i've seen him claim he cares about science, and will work to correct anyone in the creationist movement that promotes erroneous information. This would seem to be a clear case where he could take some action.

Y'all will have to admit that it's been pretty boring around these here parts without You-Know-Who.

K54

[sylas]

This post has been referred to recently in other discussions; unfortunately it contains some numeric errors in the calculations, so I'm adding this much belated correction.

We can ball park it. The Laurentide ice sheet, one of the larger ones in the glacial period, is estimated to be 26,000,000 cubic kilometers. That's 2.65 x 10^27 grams of ice. Melting a gram of ice requires 334 joules. that's 9 x 10^29 joules - we're ball parking, so let's call it 10^30. That's more than every single bit of energy produced by the Sun in a second.

The Earth receives 4.5 x 10^-10 of that output. Conveniently, that's roughly cancelled out by the number of seconds in 300 years (9 x 10^9). And 300 years is a generous estimate of how long the melting took (300 years to form, 100 years to move rocks around, 300 years to melt) under the creation model. So, the ballpark is that every single bit of energy sent to the Earth by the Sun was somehow absorbed (i.e., not reflected back into space by all that ice) and used to melt the ice.

Ice weighs 916.7 kg/m^3

26 million cubic kilometers of ice is 26,000,000 * 10^9 = 2.6 * 10^16 m^3
This weighs 2.4 * 10^19 kg, or 2.4 * 10^22 grams.

You've got 5 extra orders of magnitude somehow.

The energy to melt ice is 334 J/g (heat of fusion); so energy to melt the ice sheet is about 8*10^24 Joules.

You've compared with the solar energy output, but that comparison is way off as well. Total solar output is about 3.6 * 10^26 Watts; you appear to have taken it as being close 10^30, which is another several orders of magnitude off (partially cancelling the first error).

Moving on: total solar output is 3.8 * 10^26 Watts; and indeed about 4.5e-10 of that hits the Earth; so energy from the Sun to Earth is about 1.7e17 Watts, which works out to 4*10^24 Joules in a year.

not sure where you are going with "canceling out" the fraction 4.5*10^-10: that is the ratio of a second to 70 years, not 300.

In any case; putting it all together it takes about 2 years for Earth to receive enough energy from the Sun to melt 26 cubic kilometers of ice.

Cheers -- sylas

[klaus54]

This post has been referred to recently in other discussions; unfortunately it contains some numeric errors in the calculations, so I'm adding this much belated correction.



Ice weighs 916.7 kg/m^3

26 million cubic kilometers of ice is 26,000,000 * 10^9 = 2.6 * 10^16 m^3
This weighs 2.4 * 10^19 kg, or 2.4 * 10^22 grams.

You've got 5 extra orders of magnitude somehow.

The energy to melt ice is 334 J/g (heat of fusion); so energy to melt the ice sheet is about 8*10^24 Joules.

You've compared with the solar energy output, but that comparison is way off as well. Total solar output is about 3.6 * 10^26 Watts; you appear to have taken it as being close 10^30, which is another several orders of magnitude off (partially cancelling the first error).

Moving on: total solar output is 3.8 * 10^26 Watts; and indeed about 4.5e-10 of that hits the Earth; so energy from the Sun to Earth is about 1.7e17 Watts, which works out to 4*10^24 Joules in a year.

not sure where you are going with "canceling out" the fraction 4.5*10^-10: that is the ratio of a second to 70 years, not 300.

In any case; putting it all together it takes about 2 years for Earth to receive enough energy from the Sun to melt 26 cubic kilometers of ice.

Cheers -- sylas

2 years seems WAY to short. What would Earth's average annual (Arctic/Antarctic) temperature to accomplish this?

It took well over a thousand years to come out of the Wisconsian ice age.

K54

P.S. How does albedo figure in?

[sylas]

2 years seems WAY to short. What would Earth's average annual (Arctic/Antarctic) temperature to accomplish this?

This is nothing but a comparison of two large energy numbers; not a real calculation of time it takes to melt an ice sheet.

One number is how much energy is required for melting an ice sheet; the other is the amount of energy in total received from the Sun. It wasn't my choice of a comparison; I simply saw numbers being cited in recent posts and they struck me as implausible; because IMO 300 years seemed way way too LONG. The amount of energy we get from the Sun is enormous.

There's no meaningful relationship between these two; in particular it is obvious that only a tiny fraction of the energy from the Sun would actually go into melting ice. I have checked my numbers a couple of time and am pretty confident that the magnitudes given here are correct; but there's certainly no intent to suggest the ice sheet would actually melt in two years. Of course it would not.

This comparison was originally made by TheLurch as a convenient rhetorical device against a creationist model. Unfortunately, since he got the magnitudes wrong, the comparison loses its strength. A more realistic calculation would be needed to refute the creationist model; though I don't think it's particularly useful. A creationist can as easily deny the size of the sheet as deny any of the other information which invalidates a creationist model.

All I am doing here is correcting numbers as given. I think this is always a useful thing to do; and welcome any corrections of my own calculations also.

Cheers -- sylas

[oxmixmudd]

This is nothing but a comparison of two large energy numbers; not a real calculation of time it takes to melt an ice sheet.

One number is how much energy is required for melting an ice sheet; the other is the amount of energy in total received from the Sun. It wasn't my choice of a comparison; I simply saw numbers being cited in recent posts and they struck me as implausible; because IMO 300 years seemed way way too LONG. The amount of energy we get from the Sun is enormous.

There's no meaningful relationship between these two; in particular it is obvious that only a tiny fraction of the energy from the Sun would actually go into melting ice. I have checked my numbers a couple of time and am pretty confident that the magnitudes given here are correct; but there's certainly no intent to suggest the ice sheet would actually melt in two years. Of course it would not.

This comparison was originally made by TheLurch as a convenient rhetorical device against a creationist model. Unfortunately, since he got the magnitudes wrong, the comparison loses its strength. A more realistic calculation would be needed to refute the creationist model; though I don't think it's particularly useful. A creationist can as easily deny the size of the sheet as deny any of the other information which invalidates a creationist model.

All I am doing here is correcting numbers as given. I think this is always a useful thing to do; and welcome any corrections of my own calculations also.

Cheers -- sylas

One simple thing to consider. The ice sheets had to first grow. Which means that for that period of time the energy entering the earths environment was less than that required to melt the snow that fell during the winter to the tune of 1/300 th the total ultimate mass of the ice sheets per year. I am curious what sort of average earth temperature would need to be sustained for those same 300 years to grow that much ice in so short a period of time.


Jim