Ice Age Earth

[Metsfanmax]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

[Phatscotty]

Luckily, I do have the patience to wait for someone who wants to and can talk about the all the water resulting from the melting of the last ice age. Just curious, and this has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. What do you think happened to all the water resulting from the melting of the ice sheets marking the end of the last ice age? Hint, the North American ice sheet spanned from the North Pole to Kentucky and over Canada the ice sheet was stacked up to 2 miles thick.

The volume of ice in the Laurentide ice sheet is estimated to be in the ballpark of 25 million cubic kilometers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract), or about 6 million cubic miles. If the average ice thickness were 2 miles (I think that's as little high, but no worries), that would be a surface area of 3 million square miles, which is about 3/4 of the size of Canada.

Now, ice does expand when it melts, but only by about 10%. So let's say that there is an extra 7 million cubic miles of water to add to the oceans. It turns out that there about 300 million cubic miles of water in the ocean. So sea level would have risen by about 2%. Since the average depth of the ocean is about 2.3 miles, that would translate to an average sea level rise of 241 feet. I think more accurate estimates would give you more like 150 feet, but still, that's a lot of water.

Now, Noah allegedly come to rest on the top of Ararat. Which is over 16,000 feet tall. So we seem to be missing a few ice sheets.

First and foremost, thank you for bringing something to the table. I see you couldn't help bringing uncle Noah into it, but I digress. 241 ft huh? Not too shabby! I think we're gonna get closer to 400 feet at most and 250 feet at least, but hey, kinda puts the 80 centimeter best/160 centimeter worst 'flood' over the next 100-200 years everyone is freaking out about into perspective, eh?

#1 I did not say average thickness was 2 miles, I said 'up to' 2 miles in Canada, such as 2 miles thick at maximum by latest estimates and that it was in Canada where it's found to have been thickest, which does not mean all of Canada or an average in Canada. No biggie, but okay.

#2 There is also another hemisphere (Europe/Russia) also largely covered by an ice sheet that also melted, along with another pole (South) with plenty of ice to rock, along with no doubt ice and mountain snow in other parts of the world to add to that which are going to turn ice into water with an 18(f) spike in global temperature. In the South pole today, the ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole. I'm going to assume but not state as a fact there was likely a lot more during the ice age. Either way, more/less now, The Eastern hemisphere ice sheet and the South Pole are going to certainly double perhaps even triple your 7 million cubic miles, which I assume isn't a liberal estimate.



#3 There may be roughly 300 million cubic miles of water in oceans today, but certainly it wasn't 300mcm during the end of the piliasosctene ice age of 12-14,000 years ago.

The sverdrup, named in honour of the pioneering oceanographer Harald Sverdrup, is a unit of measure of volume transport. It is used almost exclusively in oceanography, to measure the volumetric rate of transport of ocean currents. Its symbol is Sv. Note that the sverdrup is not an SI unit, and that its symbol conflicts with the sievert's symbol. It is equivalent to 1 million cubic metres per second (264,000,000 USgal/s).[1][2] The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1.2 sverdrup.[3]

You may have noticed the above 'almost exclusively' in oceanography. That's because it also happens to have been necessary to apply to volumetric rate of transport over land, specifically in North America. It's being plugged in by geologists to estimate hopefully the most accurate results yet on just how much water was flowing at what speed to move these thousands of boulders that weigh up to 18,000 tons strewn about the Washington state scablands 50-75 miles South of where this type of rock originated. I'll return to this in a bit because after we get into the timeline of the temp spike and sheet melting, I'm betting we can at least find a range on just how many millions of cubic miles (converted from meters) were flowing over the span of a per/second measurement converted into 48 hours as well as 2 weeks.

We also have the newest results and estimate as to timeline for how long it took to melt the ice sheets. Previous more crude science first estimated it took 100 years for the earth to rise 18 degrees (f), newer results but older to us estimated it was 10 years, and now the results from the Greenland core samples along with oceanic water level estimates along with geological studies on erosion estimates have got it narrowed down to at least 2 weeks at the longest, and 48 hours at the shortest. I assume I can find these charts as well as when and what science journals they were published in mid-2015, but just because I saw them presented does not mean they are available to copy with the click of a mouse on the internet. And it's 3AM where I am I didn't expect to get this deep tonight but I'm going to have to come back tomorrow and maybe these things will already be posted for me





POSTING FOR FEAR OF ERASURE NOT FINISHED WILL BE EDITED AND ANY PREMATURE RESPONSES MAY NOT BE RESPONDED TO SINCE THE POST IS NOT COMPLETE!

[jonesthecurl]

Nobody knew what a dinosaur was until 1938, so everybody 'knew' there was no such thing as dinosaurs in 1937.

wut

...which makes Arthur Conan Doyle psychic. The Lost World was published in 1912. Y'know, about dinosaurs. And the people who designed the Crystal Palace dinosaur sculptures (1852) must be time travellers.

[Bernie Sanders]

Luckily, I do have the patience to wait for someone who wants to and can talk about the all the water resulting from the melting of the last ice age. Just curious, and this has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. What do you think happened to all the water resulting from the melting of the ice sheets marking the end of the last ice age? Hint, the North American ice sheet spanned from the North Pole to Kentucky and over Canada the ice sheet was stacked up to 2 miles thick.

The volume of ice in the Laurentide ice sheet is estimated to be in the ballpark of 25 million cubic kilometers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract), or about 6 million cubic miles. If the average ice thickness were 2 miles (I think that's as little high, but no worries), that would be a surface area of 3 million square miles, which is about 3/4 of the size of Canada.

Now, ice does expand when it melts, but only by about 10%. So let's say that there is an extra 7 million cubic miles of water to add to the oceans. It turns out that there about 300 million cubic miles of water in the ocean. So sea level would have risen by about 2%. Since the average depth of the ocean is about 2.3 miles, that would translate to an average sea level rise of 241 feet. I think more accurate estimates would give you more like 150 feet, but still, that's a lot of water.

Now, Noah allegedly come to rest on the top of Ararat. Which is over 16,000 feet tall. So we seem to be missing a few ice sheets.

First and foremost, thank you for bringing something to the table. I see you couldn't help bringing uncle Noah into it, but I digress. 241 ft huh? Not too shabby! I think we're gonna get closer to 400 feet at most and 250 feet at least, but hey, kinda puts the 80 centimeter best/160 centimeter worst 'flood' over the next 100-200 years everyone is freaking out about into perspective, eh?

#1 I did not say average thickness was 2 miles, I said 'up to' 2 miles in Canada, such as 2 miles thick at maximum by latest estimates and that it was in Canada where it's found to have been thickest, which does not mean all of Canada or an average in Canada. No biggie, but okay.

#2 There is also another hemisphere (Europe/Russia) also largely covered by an ice sheet that also melted, along with another pole (South) with plenty of ice to rock, along with no doubt ice and mountain snow in other parts of the world to add to that which are going to turn ice into water with an 18(f) spike in global temperature. In the South pole today, the ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole. I'm going to assume but not state as a fact there was likely a lot more during the ice age. Either way, more/less now, The Eastern hemisphere ice sheet and the South Pole are going to certainly double perhaps even triple your 7 million cubic miles, which I assume isn't a liberal estimate.



#3 There may be roughly 300 million cubic miles of water in oceans today, but certainly it wasn't 300mcm during the end of the piliasosctene ice age of 12-14,000 years ago.

The sverdrup, named in honour of the pioneering oceanographer Harald Sverdrup, is a unit of measure of volume transport. It is used almost exclusively in oceanography, to measure the volumetric rate of transport of ocean currents. Its symbol is Sv. Note that the sverdrup is not an SI unit, and that its symbol conflicts with the sievert's symbol. It is equivalent to 1 million cubic metres per second (264,000,000 USgal/s).[1][2] The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1.2 sverdrup.[3]

You may have noticed the above 'almost exclusively' in oceanography. That's because it also happens to have been necessary to apply to volumetric rate of transport over land, specifically in North America. It's being plugged in by geologists to estimate hopefully the most accurate results yet on just how much water was flowing at what speed to move these thousands of boulders that weigh up to 18,000 tons strewn about the Washington state scablands 50-75 miles South of where this type of rock originated. I'll return to this in a bit because after we get into the timeline of the temp spike and sheet melting, I'm betting we can at least find a range on just how many millions of cubic miles (converted from meters) were flowing over the span of a per/second measurement converted into 48 hours as well as 2 weeks.

We also have the newest results and estimate as to timeline for how long it took to melt the ice sheets. Previous more crude science first estimated it took 100 years for the earth to rise 18 degrees (f), newer results but older to us estimated it was 10 years, and now the results from the Greenland core samples along with oceanic water level estimates along with geological studies on erosion estimates have got it narrowed down to at least 2 weeks at the longest, and 48 hours at the shortest. I assume I can find these charts as well as when and what science journals they were published in mid-2015, but just because I saw them presented does not mean they are available to copy with the click of a mouse on the internet. And it's 3AM where I am I didn't expect to get this deep tonight but I'm going to have to come back tomorrow and maybe these things will already be posted for me





POSTING FOR FEAR OF ERASURE NOT FINISHED WILL BE EDITED AND ANY PREMATURE RESPONSES MAY NOT BE RESPONDED TO SINCE THE POST IS NOT COMPLETE!

Why are you using today's land and sea map? When the glaciers were at their most, our land masses expanded greatly. Ever heard of the Continental shelve? That shelf was exposed, but wouldn't think a Bible Thumper guy like you to know that.

If all the glaciers and ice melted it would make the Oceans rise, but there would be still be lots of land left. Thinking all the ice disappeared overnight causing some great flood that would overrun humanity in a very short period,days perhaps is ridiculous.

Of course, using a term, "GREAT FLOOD" has been written in many superstitious books.

Showing big rocks with people on them? This is to prove a flood of biblical proportions?

[Bernie Sanders]

Why is Phatts is so concerned about the "Great Floods" destroying mankind?

He should be posting a new thread on how to prevent the next "Great Flood."

Phatts, you believe in science? All that hot air you are producing on this thread is probably elevating our planet's temperature.

[jgordon1111]

So phat, what it comes down to is this, unless religion, gov't or the wealthy who actually control everything, approve it. Anyone who profers a different view point is ostracized,ridiculed or just flat ignored. Humorous at the start of this election campaign a few of our political giants, stated flat out global warming was a pseudo science, in reference to the world leaders making an attempt to slow it down.calling it fear mongering, those same politicians are on board with screaming all Muslims are terrorists. Odd isn't it? Demanding irrefutable evidence ignoring it on one hand, and using a radical group to demonize an entire religion, lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

[hotfire]

ok read this and reply with your rhetoric please
https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/temporal-correlations-between-lake-agassiz-the-okefenokee-swamp-and-ancient-flood-myths/

[Bernie Sanders]

So phat, what it comes down to is this, unless religion, gov't or the wealthy who actually control everything, approve it. Anyone who profers a different view point is ostracized,ridiculed or just flat ignored. Humorous at the start of this election campaign a few of our political giants, stated flat out global warming was a pseudo science, in reference to the world leaders making an attempt to slow it down.calling it fear mongering, those same politicians are on board with screaming all Muslims are terrorists. Odd isn't it? Demanding irrefutable evidence ignoring it on one hand, and using a radical group to demonize an entire religion, lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

f*ck jgordon1111, you made a good argument. Pigs do fly!

[hotfire]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

i just read a book on fossils...mid and late 1800s was big for paleontology and for ancient extinct life form collection including dinosaurs and their footprints

[jgordon1111]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

i just read a book on fossils...mid and late 1800s was big for paleontology and for ancient extinct life form collection including dinosaurs and their footprints

I don't think you are taking into account, that during the 1800's a large number of people were illiterate, book may have been published, but how many outside scientific community knew about it,you seem to be operating on the premise the tools you have today were available then. Simply not so,remember what the world looked like then, and what forms of communication was in place and the fact a simple telegraph message was expensive then by today's standards

[hotfire]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

i just read a book on fossils...mid and late 1800s was big for paleontology and for ancient extinct life form collection including dinosaurs and their footprints

I don't think you are taking into account, that during the 1800's a large number of people were illiterate, book may have been published, but how many outside scientific community knew about it,you seem to be operating on the premise the tools you have today were available then. Simply not so,remember what the world looked like then, and what forms of communication was in place and the fact a simple telegraph message was expensive then by today's standards

Yes this book was about the scientific understanding of these fossils and the evolution of their understanding of them and did not take much account of those who rejected the facts as fiction because it was contrary to their worldview. There were educated people who believed that extinction of a species meant that God wasn't perfect in his creation and therefore rejected even the possibility of previous life forms that do not presently exist. And those that were fossil hunters were often amateur and misidentified them, even the experts miss-classified them often.

[jgordon1111]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

i just read a book on fossils...mid and late 1800s was big for paleontology and for ancient extinct life form collection including dinosaurs and their footprints

I don't think you are taking into account, that during the 1800's a large number of people were illiterate, book may have been published, but how many outside scientific community knew about it,you seem to be operating on the premise the tools you have today were available then. Simply not so,remember what the world looked like then, and what forms of communication was in place and the fact a simple telegraph message was expensive then by today's standards

Yes this book was about the scientific understanding of these fossils and the evolution of their understanding of them and did not take much account of those who rejected the facts as fiction because it was contrary to their worldview. There were educated people who believed that extinction of a species meant that God wasn't perfect in his creation and therefore rejected even the possibility of previous life forms that do not presently exist. And those that were fossil hunters were often amateur and misidentified them, even the experts miss-classified them often.

Thank you for clarifying that hot

[notyou2]

I prefer to get my science from scientists, not religious folk. I don't get my religion from scientists either.

[Phatscotty]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

Yup, your'e right, but let's also keep the fact the overall conversation was about how well known a thing may be. I'm glad all the usual peeps have found great entertainment that my general knowledge was still in the right century, in the right half of the century, and was only off by about 1/5.5 of a century, as well as a fictional book as the basis of when dinosaurs became 'well known' doesn't mean the fictional book knew much at all when it came to knowing about dinosaurs, anything as to why they no longer exist, what kind ate which diet as to classify them, not to mention the overwhelming majority of people did not even read this fictional book, although certainly a great many did while at the same time there were probably more people who could not read and translations around the world were nothing at the click of a mouse and took many years to circulate.

I'm glad there are still a great many around here who think my statement of 1938 actually does turn out to be when many school first introduced dinosaurs and the theories and facts about them were first made to 'most people'. And I regret I cannot spend more time working on my long post inspired by how much you brought equally lengthy in honest collaboration to that specific conversation. I'm going to add one for piece to it tonight no matter that I am dead tired and would love to put it off until tomorrow, because my purpose here is not to laugh at someone who threw 1938 out there based on the loose interpretation that a fictional book that rose to great fame, certainly not in 1912 as no doubt it took a lot longer to circulate in the time of horses n carriages, maybe some trucks that had roads and access to where the books needed to go. I could have been 1922 when a school in Montana finally got the book for students to learn if they choose to read it, but it was 1938 when it was inserted into textbooks and became common knowledge. So, while it's true I did so nobody knew while including of course the people making the discoveries and directly related, I should have said in a different way 1938 is when it was entered into textbooks, therefore the first year that the theories tested about and taught in school as common knowledge.

So, in short, thank you for teaching me the decent probability that this book came out in 1912, but it still remains that the overwhelming minority of people knew about the creatures in this book in 1912, while more people know about it in 1913 than in 1912, and that some people still have never read the book until 1938 or ever at all until first ;earning about it in a textbook. After all, I am doing this the best I can in order for me to learn, and I learn a lot by sharing/teaching with others. If I get something wrong, I have no care in the world how it looks, so long as it's close enough many can tell I know what I'm talking about in general and which kind of facts we look up to accuracy compared to.

[Phatscotty]

Luckily, I do have the patience to wait for someone who wants to and can talk about the all the water resulting from the melting of the last ice age. Just curious, and this has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. What do you think happened to all the water resulting from the melting of the ice sheets marking the end of the last ice age? Hint, the North American ice sheet spanned from the North Pole to Kentucky and over Canada the ice sheet was stacked up to 2 miles thick.

The volume of ice in the Laurentide ice sheet is estimated to be in the ballpark of 25 million cubic kilometers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract), or about 6 million cubic miles. If the average ice thickness were 2 miles (I think that's as little high, but no worries), that would be a surface area of 3 million square miles, which is about 3/4 of the size of Canada.

Now, ice does expand when it melts, but only by about 10%. So let's say that there is an extra 7 million cubic miles of water to add to the oceans. It turns out that there about 300 million cubic miles of water in the ocean. So sea level would have risen by about 2%. Since the average depth of the ocean is about 2.3 miles, that would translate to an average sea level rise of 241 feet. I think more accurate estimates would give you more like 150 feet, but still, that's a lot of water.

Now, Noah allegedly come to rest on the top of Ararat. Which is over 16,000 feet tall. So we seem to be missing a few ice sheets.

First and foremost, thank you for bringing something to the table. I see you couldn't help bringing uncle Noah into it, but I digress. 241 ft huh? Not too shabby! I think we're gonna get closer to 400 feet at most and 250 feet at least, but hey, kinda puts the 80 centimeter best/160 centimeter worst 'flood' over the next 100-200 years everyone is freaking out about into perspective, eh?

#1 I did not say average thickness was 2 miles, I said 'up to' 2 miles in Canada, such as 2 miles thick at maximum by latest estimates and that it was in Canada where it's found to have been thickest, which does not mean all of Canada or an average in Canada. No biggie, but okay.

#2 There is also another hemisphere (Europe/Russia) also largely covered by an ice sheet that also melted, along with another pole (South) with plenty of ice to rock, along with no doubt ice and mountain snow in other parts of the world to add to that which are going to turn ice into water with an 18(f) spike in global temperature. In the South pole today, the ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole. I'm going to assume but not state as a fact there was likely a lot more during the ice age. Either way, more/less now, The Eastern hemisphere ice sheet and the South Pole are going to certainly double perhaps even triple your 7 million cubic miles, which I assume isn't a liberal estimate.



#3 There may be roughly 300 million cubic miles of water in oceans today, but certainly it wasn't 300mcm during the end of the piliasosctene ice age of 12-14,000 years ago.

The sverdrup, named in honour of the pioneering oceanographer Harald Sverdrup, is a unit of measure of volume transport. It is used almost exclusively in oceanography, to measure the volumetric rate of transport of ocean currents. Its symbol is Sv. Note that the sverdrup is not an SI unit, and that its symbol conflicts with the sievert's symbol. It is equivalent to 1 million cubic metres per second (264,000,000 USgal/s).[1][2] The entire global input of fresh water from rivers to the ocean is equal to about 1.2 sverdrup.[3]

You may have noticed the above 'almost exclusively' in oceanography. That's because it also happens to have been necessary to apply to volumetric rate of transport over land, specifically in North America. It's being plugged in by geologists to estimate hopefully the most accurate results yet on just how much water was flowing at what speed to move these thousands of boulders that weigh up to 18,000 tons strewn about the Washington state scablands 50-75 miles South of where this type of rock originated. I'll return to this in a bit because after we get into the timeline of the temp spike and sheet melting, I'm betting we can at least find a range on just how many millions of cubic miles (converted from meters) were flowing over the span of a per/second measurement converted into 48 hours as well as 2 weeks.

We also have the newest results and estimate as to timeline for how long it took to melt the ice sheets. Previous more crude science first estimated it took 100 years for the earth to rise 18 degrees (f), newer results but older to us estimated it was 10 years, and now the results from the Greenland core samples along with oceanic water level estimates along with geological studies on erosion estimates have got it narrowed down to at least 2 weeks at the longest, and 48 hours at the shortest. I assume I can find these charts as well as when and what science journals they were published in mid-2015, but just because I saw them presented does not mean they are available to copy with the click of a mouse on the internet. And it's 3AM where I am I didn't expect to get this deep tonight but I'm going to have to come back tomorrow and maybe these things will already be posted for me





POSTING FOR FEAR OF ERASURE NOT FINISHED WILL BE EDITED AND ANY PREMATURE RESPONSES MAY NOT BE RESPONDED TO SINCE THE POST IS NOT COMPLETE!

Why are you using today's land and sea map? When the glaciers were at their most, our land masses expanded greatly. Ever heard of the Continental shelve? That shelf was exposed, but wouldn't think a Bible Thumper guy like you to know that.

If all the glaciers and ice melted it would make the Oceans rise, but there would be still be lots of land left. Thinking all the ice disappeared overnight causing some great flood that would overrun humanity in a very short period,days perhaps is ridiculous.

Of course, using a term, "GREAT FLOOD" has been written in many superstitious books.

Showing big rocks with people on them? This is to prove a flood of biblical proportions?

land, sea, and ice shelves...


Well, #1, if that land and sea map were actually todays map, then I live on the sheet, and Minnesota cannot possibly be the land of 10,000 lakes.

#2, I'm not a Bible thumper by any means. Besides a couple times I picked up a Bible to read something and understand something to then get into a conversation so I could know what I and other were talking about, I haven't been to church in over a decade, but I have picked it up to reads the account of the Flood, and like so many others, I'm relying on the latest scientific studies to meet all criticism of the Great Flood, which trust me there is so much most people auto-deny it without feeling the need to have to know the reason why they do so or any formation that justifies not knowing the reason they deny the flood with 0 information, so much so that the horrible evil practice everyone can't stop judging religion by for burning at stakes and drinking poison for daring to dispute the Church's account of things we didn't understand until AFTER they were discovered has been too blind to see today it's the science and education institution who still exile ideas that challenge their models and go out of their way to even many times give flimsy reasons why new finding must be refuted and even false reasons, which is THE EXACT same thing many hate about religion and why they usually are more likely to cling to science, which causes serious concern for integrity in what one may believe in yet continue to turn a blind eye when science does it all the time now. The #1 guy (have to get his name later) who found the smoking gun that there was indeed a great flood was exiled from science for life based on his accurate findings in Michigan did support the theory there was a great flood rather than a semi-constant large flood repeated many times, and he was exiled and dismissed from his field based on not being able to explain where the water came from or how there was so much of it, which wasn't his field at all. He stuck to his guns and stated 'that's another scientists job, all I know is what I know and it would take this much water rushing this fast estimated for how long, and his works have come back around full circle to be justified. Think of all the science a good person like this could have discovered had not the scientific community did to him exactly what most science minded people have a problem with religion was doing 500 yeas ago in the dark ages. I know most probably were not aware this guy existed or that he was banned from science, but his name and the fact he was thrown into exile for daring to accurately report pure scientific information that would have to change the comfort of the established model at the time will be well known to all generations and perhaps we can literally evolve in understanding at least that all gatekeepers of knowledge who have great power are going to do such things, and rather than simply deny or hate or laugh at religion we can understand how power works and agree most of us do the same thing with information we don't like and with what we do like, regardless if the science is accurate or not so accurate.

#3 I note you are no longer denying the great flood, looks like some information has served you well.

#4, showing big rocks with people standing on them, that weigh 36,000,000 pounds swept 50-75 miles south is just one way we can get the most accurate estimate yet and how much water made up the great flood in this area, how fast it was rushing, and and flood that can sweep a 36,000,000 pound boulder I opine yes is truly great.

#5 If you are not a climate denier, think of how far the 80 centimeter flood over the next 200 years isn't going to move this boulder a singled millimeter, which according to both of our logic but contradicting your point can no doubt define the flood everyone is worried about from global warming is so 'ungreat' and what your own logic means about how a flood that could move it 50-75 miles in 2 weeks at most certainly does qualify as a great flood, and why 80 centimeters is nowhere near enough to even be called a flood, much less have a majority of people think it will destroy mother earth. Maybe our logic can be common here?

[Phatscotty]

So phat, what it comes down to is this, unless religion, gov't or the wealthy who actually control everything, approve it. Anyone who profers a different view point is ostracized,ridiculed or just flat ignored. Humorous at the start of this election campaign a few of our political giants, stated flat out global warming was a pseudo science, in reference to the world leaders making an attempt to slow it down.calling it fear mongering, those same politicians are on board with screaming all Muslims are terrorists. Odd isn't it? Demanding irrefutable evidence ignoring it on one hand, and using a radical group to demonize an entire religion, lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

Totes agree, and I don't expect most humans to act differently. Oil companies are going to pick the science with the least impact shown to pollute, global warming peeps are going to gravitate to the studies that produce results pointing to the greatest pollution and worst impacts on the planet. So natural, so long as we can evolve pass immediate dismissals based not on the science but on if the headline supports how we feel and the same for immediate acceptance of studies that confirm our bias and many times not even read the science behind it much less care about how accurate the science is or the reality and only care about the headline and go on to post it as fact, and so long as we can keep open minds to understand we don't know every single thing that affects climate change or even know when we do know every single things that does and know for a fact nothing else can be discovered throughtout all history later on based on new theories not yet existing to test how much it impacts climate change along with what we estimate what we do know so far about how much it actually factors into climate change, which is to ultimately state it's likely the % we now think humans contribute is probably only going to shrink more and more as other things are discovered to take up their % piece of how much they may/may not lend to climate change and that the tool to identify and measure certain things may not even exist yet and may not be able to be measured actually for many many many more years.

[Metsfanmax]

Let's leave aside the fact that you said, and I quote, "nobody knew what a dinosaur was before 1938." I will grant that somehow you can twist that to mean that nobody outside the scientific community knew what a dinosaur was before 1938, because I am a magnanimous and humble individual. Now I have no idea when the existence of dinosaurs became commonplace teaching in schools, but the existence of dinosaurs was known to the public well before 1938. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle's famous work The Lost World came out in 1912. And I think it's safe to say that if Arthur Conan Doyle was how the public first learned of dinosaurs, it wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes he's most famous for.

Yup, your'e right, but let's also keep the fact the overall conversation was about how well known a thing may be. I'm glad all the usual peeps have found great entertainment that my general knowledge was still in the right century, in the right half of the century, and was only off by about 1/5.5 of a century, as well as a fictional book as the basis of when dinosaurs became 'well known' doesn't mean the fictional book knew much at all when it came to knowing about dinosaurs, anything as to why they no longer exist, what kind ate which diet as to classify them, not to mention the overwhelming majority of people did not even read this fictional book, although certainly a great many did while at the same time there were probably more people who could not read and translations around the world were nothing at the click of a mouse and took many years to circulate.

I'm glad there are still a great many around here who think my statement of 1938 actually does turn out to be when many school first introduced dinosaurs and the theories and facts about them were first made to 'most people'. And I regret I cannot spend more time working on my long post inspired by how much you brought equally lengthy in honest collaboration to that specific conversation. I'm going to add one for piece to it tonight no matter that I am dead tired and would love to put it off until tomorrow, because my purpose here is not to laugh at someone who threw 1938 out there based on the loose interpretation that a fictional book that rose to great fame, certainly not in 1912 as no doubt it took a lot longer to circulate in the time of horses n carriages, maybe some trucks that had roads and access to where the books needed to go. I could have been 1922 when a school in Montana finally got the book for students to learn if they choose to read it, but it was 1938 when it was inserted into textbooks and became common knowledge. So, while it's true I did so nobody knew while including of course the people making the discoveries and directly related, I should have said in a different way 1938 is when it was entered into textbooks, therefore the first year that the theories tested about and taught in school as common knowledge.

So, in short, thank you for teaching me the decent probability that this book came out in 1912, but it still remains that the overwhelming minority of people knew about the creatures in this book in 1912, while more people know about it in 1913 than in 1912, and that some people still have never read the book until 1938 or ever at all until first ;earning about it in a textbook. After all, I am doing this the best I can in order for me to learn, and I learn a lot by sharing/teaching with others. If I get something wrong, I have no care in the world how it looks, so long as it's close enough many can tell I know what I'm talking about in general and which kind of facts we look up to accuracy compared to.

I accept your apology.

[jgordon1111]

So phat, what it comes down to is this, unless religion, gov't or the wealthy who actually control everything, approve it. Anyone who profers a different view point is ostracized,ridiculed or just flat ignored. Humorous at the start of this election campaign a few of our political giants, stated flat out global warming was a pseudo science, in reference to the world leaders making an attempt to slow it down.calling it fear mongering, those same politicians are on board with screaming all Muslims are terrorists. Odd isn't it? Demanding irrefutable evidence ignoring it on one hand, and using a radical group to demonize an entire religion, lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

Totes agree, and I don't expect most humans to act differently. Oil companies are going to pick the science with the least impact shown to pollute, global warming peeps are going to gravitate to the studies that produce results pointing to the greatest pollution and worst impacts on the planet. So natural, so long as we can evolve pass immediate dismissals based not on the science but on if the headline supports how we feel and the same for immediate acceptance of studies that confirm our bias and many times not even read the science behind it much less care about how accurate the science is or the reality and only care about the headline and go on to post it as fact, and so long as we can keep open minds to understand we don't know every single thing that affects climate change or even know when we do know every single things that does and know for a fact nothing else can be discovered throughtout all history later on based on new theories not yet existing to test how much it impacts climate change along with what we estimate what we do know so far about how much it actually factors into climate change, which is to ultimately state it's likely the % we now think humans contribute is probably only going to shrink more and more as other things are discovered to take up their % piece of how much they may/may not lend to climate change and that the tool to identify and measure certain things may not even exist yet and may not be able to be measured actually for many many many more years.

Ditto

[Metsfanmax]

So natural, so long as we can evolve pass immediate dismissals based not on the science but on if the headline supports how we feel and the same for immediate acceptance of studies that confirm our bias and many times not even read the science behind it

Question for you: have you ever actually read a climate science paper? If not, how about any peer-reviewed scientific article?

[jimboston]

Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Biblical rabbit hole? Why are we talking about the Bible, or even the 'established' timeline of the Bible? There are over 200 religions and cultures over the world that recorded and passed on orally and in written form a very similar story about the great flood. Shall we conclude all their stories have the same timeline?

Timelines and the one version out of 200+ that you choose to start with aside, I'm not sure any of this relates to how so many have come to the conclusion that there was no great flood. I would be curious to see your source for the official established timeline for a story in the Book of Genesis, if you would be so kind.

Various parts of the Earth have been flooded or under-water at various times. Some of this was caused long-term geological stuff, so by very big storms. Even todays parts of the populated planet get flooded. A Hurricane the size of Katrina; or a Tsunami like those experiences in the Asian / Pacific Islands cause massive floods.

Pre-historic people would look at floods like these, and think they covered "The Entire Earth", because from their point of view... living in a small area, not wandering far from where they were born, not communicating with people in other parts of the continent or world, etc... they essentially were covering their entire world.

If that's what you mean by "Great Flood". Fine.

If you mean a flood that literally covered the Entire World. No.
If you mean a flood that involved a man and his family building a boat; and putting all species of animals on it. No.

[Bernie Sanders]

If you mean a flood that literally covered the Entire World. No.
If you mean a flood that involved a man and his family building a boat; and putting all species of animals on it. No.

Why is that so far fetched?

Fox News says Bible story of man living in whale is true!

[jonesthecurl]

It ain't necessarily so...

[Phatscotty]

So natural, so long as we can evolve pass immediate dismissals based not on the science but on if the headline supports how we feel and the same for immediate acceptance of studies that confirm our bias and many times not even read the science behind it

Question for you: have you ever actually read a climate science paper? If not, how about any peer-reviewed scientific article?

Admitting I have not yet done so and that you can't know this, climate science papers and peer -reviewed scientific articles I have not only read but over time will be brought to the table and shared here along with other places is exactly what I know will edify the existence of this thread in it's entirety... obviously the answer is YES! I'm not going to go straight from young earth creationism into climate change data, hope you can understand that and I think you have by our latest exchange. It was a good one that opened the door to start trying to present this data, but sadly it still ended with uncle Noah .

Lately, I have been reading A LOT of the newest and most accurate to date climate change data, exactly the kind you are asking me if I've ever read. These science papers I speak of and you ask about, including some of them that have come from you and others like RDRS and Greekdog in the past, much of it right here in this forum. I'm simply saying thank you, I've grown since then, and now here are some newer papers and articles for you .

I'm man enough to admit in the past it was a lot to take in, being able to understand the specific information and formulas and graphs, and it made my head hurt, and quitting was the easiest thing in the world to do. Besides the fact I've already taken, passed, and got credit for various different science courses in college and even scored a perfect 84/84 on a Chemistry mid term test. I'm not tooting my horn one bit or trying to justify my background is enough to deal with a specific field of science such as this and a single paper in said field, I'm doing the opposite. Obviously, I am not a scientist, and already admitted there isn't much to toot, which probably lumps me into the same category as everyone else who doesn't read the papers you are asking me about, yet has strong opinions on the topic matter.

However, perhaps 18 years ago, there was another field which will go unnamed but relates because then just as now I was introduced to some hardcore top level peer reviewed scientific articles that I could barely finish reading to completion. Never mind the fact my head started to hurt 20 seconds after I began reading, had no clue what virtually all of the advanced terminology meant, couldn't integrate ANY of it, I stuck through it. I kept reading such papers and articles, learning terminology for myself, not only how to read those graphs but eventually how to make them myself with a French curve, and eventually my head began to hurt less and I started learning more. After about a year it was true I could at least hang in jargon field conversations with like minded/trained people who sometimes were experts. After 2 years, school was out and I put my money where my mouth and my understanding on the issue was and even though everyone laughed at me and said I was crazy, I didn't care. I made a boat load of money, and everyone else was scratching their heads about how all of a sudden they lost not only a shit load of money but their very homes they and their families lived in. That did not make me happy, I never rubbed their noses in it or said 'told ya so', in fact many resented me because they knew I was only trying to help the people I cared about in my personal life by passing on what I had learned, but most likely it just made their head hurt. Many have even concluded I was just lucky.

I have accepted that's just how most of humanity works, tackled how present certain information about what I know and how it's usually received, and worked for many years now on how to create my own formula in explaining things of interest to plant the seeds that will later allow me to have much deeper conversation on a topic that others can come to at their own time and how it won't make their head hurt and hopefully we both learn something from each other.

The point of all this, know for a fact that this is what I am trying to do here. I already know the story I'm trying to present one piece at a time, I already know the science exists and it's likely I can find it on the internet to share here with everyone else, and in doing this I am volitionally choosing to think and learn for myself. Already this has made my head hurt, and you will see eventually when I get these graphs and charts and journals and specific names, that these are exactly the kinds of things you are asking if I have ever read, and know that this is how I am learning for myself. I can guarantee you and I are going to relate to specific climate change information at a much higher level than ever before, because much if not most of these one piece at a time climate change science papers and data, which has been peer reviewed and has been published, is exactly what I will try to find to share with you. I don't know for a fact I can find this on the internet to post here, but if I have to I will put it on the internet myself from the books and magazines and journals I possess. So rather than doubting my ability to be able to read what I have already clearly read a lot of as an argument to dismiss me, know that it's possible I'm going to be presenting you with exactly what you assume I can't read or perhaps simply wonder if I can, and then deal with your possible tendency as a human being (just like the rest of us) to deny these peer-reviewed scientific papers chalk full of the latest climate data.

[tzor]

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Oy Vey. Is this even a serious question?


Well then. Have you ever seen Antarctica? Land of penguins? Do you know what's on the top of Antarctica? A ton of ice! All that Ice exists above the water level of the oceans, because it is ... WELL FROZEN! Unlike a flood where you literally need a rising tide, you can raise the amount of ice by lowering the oceans. And you can lower the oceans a lot. How much is a lot? Well the oceans were so depleted you could walk from Alaska to Russia. (No, seriously, I think Sara Palin did that back then. Or perhaps not.)

During the last glacial period, enough of the earth's water became frozen in the great ice sheets covering North America and Europe to cause a drop in sea levels. For thousands of years the sea floors of many interglacial shallow seas were exposed, including those of the Bering Strait, the Chukchi Sea to the north, and the Bering Sea to the south. Other land bridges around the world have emerged and disappeared in the same way. Around 14,000 years ago, mainland Australia was linked to both New Guinea and Tasmania, the British Isles became an extension of continental Europe via the dry beds of the English Channel and North Sea, and the dry basin of the South China Sea linked Sumatra, Java and Borneo to the Asian mainland.

You can't steal from the ocean to make the great flood (unless it was the great wave ...) while you can steal from the ocean to make the great ice ages.

Click image to enlarge.

Edit: I forgot to add the obvious, ICE is less dense than water; that's why ice cubes float. Glaciers are less dense than the oceans they displaced so you get more coverage.

[Bernie Sanders]

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Oy Vey. Is this even a serious question?


Well then. Have you ever seen Antarctica? Land of penguins? Do you know what's on the top of Antarctica? A ton of ice! All that Ice exists above the water level of the oceans, because it is ... WELL FROZEN! Unlike a flood where you literally need a rising tide, you can raise the amount of ice by lowering the oceans. And you can lower the oceans a lot. How much is a lot? Well the oceans were so depleted you could walk from Alaska to Russia. (No, seriously, I think Sara Palin did that back then. Or perhaps not.)

During the last glacial period, enough of the earth's water became frozen in the great ice sheets covering North America and Europe to cause a drop in sea levels. For thousands of years the sea floors of many interglacial shallow seas were exposed, including those of the Bering Strait, the Chukchi Sea to the north, and the Bering Sea to the south. Other land bridges around the world have emerged and disappeared in the same way. Around 14,000 years ago, mainland Australia was linked to both New Guinea and Tasmania, the British Isles became an extension of continental Europe via the dry beds of the English Channel and North Sea, and the dry basin of the South China Sea linked Sumatra, Java and Borneo to the Asian mainland.

You can't steal from the ocean to make the great flood (unless it was the great wave ...) while you can steal from the ocean to make the great ice ages.

Click image to enlarge.

Edit: I forgot to add the obvious, ICE is less dense than water; that's why ice cubes float. Glaciers are less dense than the oceans they displaced so you get more coverage.

Check out the big brains out on Tzor. Very impressive!