This is wierd. I think this may have discovered why I occasionally get
wierd math answers. I use the Windows 3.1 calculator for most calculations
here because it is convenient. I just did the calculation again, (on
Windows 3.1 calculator) and I got 10^14 again. But looking at it, you are
correct that it should be 10^13. But the calculator consistently but
erroneously is giving me 10^14!!! BILL GATES, I WANT MY MONEY BACK. (course
I have had this computer for quite some time having 3 kids in college does
not lend itself to computer purchases). I guess I will have to bring my
calculator home from the office more often.
>This would reduce your
>answer temp. by a factor of 10^(1/4) = 1.7783. This makes the mean radiant
>temp. at about 1819 K or 1546 deg C. Of course this ignores the effect of
>the latent heat of vaporization of the hydrosphere which would consume only
>about some 5 x 10^26 J or 5 % of the released energy in boiling off the
>oceans. With this amount of H2O greenhouse gas in the atmosphere the surface
>temp would probably have to be significantly higher than this so that the
>effective radiant temp. higher up in the outer atmosphere could average
>around 1800 K. This would also make the atmospheric surface pressure
>comparable to the pressure on the abyssal plains under the current oceans and
>the superhot atmosphere would be nearly all water. So unless Noah's ark was
>a giant balloon it would not float on a liquid ocean; it would sit on the
>dry bottom under superhot superpressurized water vapor atmosphere that would
>make Venus seem a mountaintop in Antarctica.
>
Yes it would. Skying down the sulfer slopes of Venus would be quite luxurious.
>BTW, how on earth could the pre-flood lithosphere just decide to sink into
>the mantle? Did the mantle supposedly have lots of empty pockets in it
>that filled in, or what? What was the stuff (if any) that this oceanic
>lithosphere stuff displaced when it subducted into the mantle? Whatever was
>displaced would have its gravitational potential energy increased as that
>stuff was displaced upward to make room for the subducting material. In
>order to have a net energy release and a spontaneous collapse the displaced
>stuff would have to be less dense than the sinking lithosphere rock. If this
>is the case, what prevented the collapse from occurring immediately after the
>earth was formed?
Here is what Baumgardner says:
"There are good physical reasons for believing that subduction can occur in
a catastrophic fashion because of the potential for thermal runaway in
silicate rock. This mecahnism was first porposed by Gurntfest in 1963 and
was considered by several in the geophysics community in the early 1970s.
Previous ICC papers have discussed the process by which a large cold
relatively more dense, volume of rock in the mantle generates deformational
heating in an envelope surrounding it, which in turn reduces the viscosity
in the envelop because of the sensitivity of the viscosity to temperature.
This decrease in viscosity in turn allows the deformation rate in the
envelope to increase, which leads to more intense deformational heating, and
finally, because of the positive feedbak, results in a sinking rate orders
of magnitude higher htan would occur otherwise. it was pointed out that
thermal diffusion, or conduction of heat out of the zone of high
deformation, competes with this tendency toward thermal runaway. It was
arguee there is a threshold beyond which the deformational heating is strong
enough to overwhelm the thermal diffusion, and some effort was made to
characterize this threshold." John Baumgardner, "Runaway Subduction as the
Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood," 3rd Int. Conf. on Creationism,
(Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994) p. 63-64
I would point out that Baumgardner's numerical model IS probably getting
lots of positive reviews and the Baptists were saying. But this is entirely
different than saying that his view of continental drift is getting rave
reviews.
>
>Glenn are the answers to these background questions simple enough to explain
>here without us having to go dig up our own copies of these papers?
Well basically John is trying to use the temperature dependence of the
rheological parameters to reduce friction and viscosity. That is his aim.
I would agree with those who have said that John is approachable.
There is one thing though that I would check for in his program. Because of
my involvement with the temperature under the canopy issue 15 years ago,
Jody Dillow had John write a atmospheric radiation code to try to calculate
the surface temperature of the earth under the canopy in order to counter my
work. John graciously provided me with a copy of the code that Jody had
based his paper on. As I studied the 1-dimensional code, I found that at
each atmospheric level, John had included a term for wind-current
re-distribution of heat. In other words he removed heat from each level and
sent it north to the pole. The only problem was that this energy was never
again accounted for in the temperature calculation. This is why Jody's book
The Waters Above arrived at a 70 deg F. temperature for the canopy. Energy
was removed and thrown out of the calculation at every step, meaning that
they were not conserving energy.
So, If I were to look at John's work, I would look at the assumptions that
went into it.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm