New thought on glaciers

[Capt Nemo]

Just had a new thought on the glaciation in Wisconsin. What if the north polar ice sheet shifted south during the Biblical flood and pushed everything around?

Here's what the ice sheet on Lake Winnebago can do in a wind. Think of what a continent sized ice sheet could do if it got moving!




So instead of a couple thousand year march, the bottom of the floating ice sheet bulldozed everything rather quickly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[pcampbell]

zero downnside?

No your right not zero downside. Mostly downsides in the economic sense. However if we develop technology that can compete on the market there isn't a downside. We are already seeing this happen with solar becoming a better investment then coal.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[pcampbell]

So, Pccampbell, you don't have a measurement from 97,984 B.C.?

You do realize that there are many isotopes that decay extremely fast? We have observed the full decay of dozens of isotopes and the rate never changed.

But again believe whatever you want.

 

[Sockeye1730]

So, Pccampbell, you don't have a measurement from 97,984 B.C.?

Yes we do! lol! Ice core samples...this has already been discussed. Quite easy to extrapolate C-14 from the trapped atmospheric gasses the layers of ice.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Big misunderstanding here. Ice age periods of glaciation are not the same as glaciers. Two different animals - similar spelling. One is a continent wide ice sheet the other is an accumulation of snow and ice on a mountain slope. The two have different physical dynamics.

Mountain glaciers typically have a yearly cycle of accumulate/melt. Ice sheets covering continents have a multi thousand year lifetime with a single accumulate/melt cycle over those thousands of years.

The annual freeze/melt cycle of cold weather climate glaciers produces a lot of accelerated weathering of rock due to expansion and contraction inside the rock boundaries.

Glaciated ice sheets grind rock at the surface due to extreme weight and minor ice sheet movement. These two very different processes produce very different results.

All my doctorates are honorary - none required an ability to read or write.

Heavy Pans

 

[Duckshot]

Pccambell,
How long did you spend watching this decay? How old do you presume the earth to be and what fraction of that time was use to determine decay to be a constant over the lifespan of the earth?

 

[spaghettigold]

No your right not zero downside. Mostly downsides in the economic sense. However if we develop technology that can compete on the market there isn't a downside. We are already seeing this happen with solar becoming a better investment then coal.

They can,t compete (atleast now) and we pay for it with money and freedoms

we get taxed the crap out with co2 taxes,and thats what it is ,a opportunity to raise more taxes and increased gov regulation.The green industrie is a industrie like every other industry ,they are not less greedy and they are lobbying for regs to outlaw the cheaper old style industrie.
For many scientists it,s a lifetime well paying nice job and they have to push the alarm button constantly to get more funds to further study that the weather get,s warmer.I've heard there where periods of time (and probably still are)where scientists decided to go with studying climate change because they knew that the funding would come easiyer.
And by the way just yesterday a new study came out that stated up to 50 %of the warming we see now is not man made.
If you ask me it's probably even more and humans take themself just to serious.
We are at the end of a glacial period and it,s going to get warmer and no taxes ,gov. control is going to change it.
There will be downsides but also benefits,ever thought of that?

Gov.all over the world today are using terrorist fear to strip us from our privacy and civil rights,while climate change and co., is used to raise taxes and increase ressource and land use control.
At the end it's always joe average that pays the bill,food gets more expensive because transport companys pay co2 taxes for fuel,who pays in the end? Building your own house cost you another 50 grand more because you have to reach energie efficiency goals,who pays for it? etc.etc.
Private mobility taxed the sh..out of us,a good way to get more people (working class for the beginning) out of the cars while not loosing eny tax income because those who can still afford it pay more.. and the list goes on..that's just a glimpse i give you about the downsides we are experiencing here in the middle of europe.

 

[pcampbell]

I agree you make some good points. Especially about taxation. I do not think taxes and penalties should be controlling the market in any way.

For example we should NEVER force anyone to build solar over other energy developments through the use of government force. However it is definitely not a bad thing to invest in the development of green technology. If solar can compete on the open market then great, build solar plants. But if only way to make them compete is to penalize other energy sources and subsidize solar that is not an open market solution.

However what we are seeing now is that un-subsidized solar can compete with coal. And that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Kray Gelder]

Goodguy. I don't see denouncing. All theories are vetted by their piers. They must be. A consensus is eventually reached. This particular idea of God induced catastrophe has been, and is still being debated, science on one side, theologians on the other. The actual evidence falls heavily on the side of science. This was not a personal attack.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Good god, this entire thread is like a group of people trying to explain the color of the sky to a blind man who continually says they are wrong even though he has never seen it himself.

 

[spaghettigold]

I agree you make some good points. Especially about taxation. I do not think taxes and penalties should be controlling the market in any way.

For example we should NEVER force anyone to build solar over other energy developments through the use of government force. However it is definitely not a bad thing to invest in the development of green technology. If solar can compete on the open market then great, build solar plants. But if only way to make them compete is to penalize other energy sources and subsidize solar that is not an open market solution.

However what we are seeing now is that un-subsidized solar can compete with coal. And that is a step in the right direction.

good for solar if it's competitive,although people living in cold cloudy parts of the world probably need old school energie or other solutions

 

[Kray Gelder]

Sockeye, I like jokes. I like smoke.

 

[spaghettigold]

Goodguy. I don't see denouncing. All theories are vetted by their piers. They must be. A consensus is eventually reached. This particular idea of God induced catastrophe has been, and is still being debated, science on one side, theologians on the other. The actual evidence falls heavily on the side of science. This was not a personal attack.

what if the scientists and the theologians are explaining the same things,just with other words

 

[Duckshot]

Good god, this entire thread is like a group of people trying to explain the color of the sky to a blind man who continually says they are wrong even though he has never seen it himself.

More like a person believing that birds can't fly because somebody someplace somewhere took a snapshot of a bird and it wasn't flying. Carbon dating has been around for what? 50? Maybe 70 years? And, in that six decades or so somebody determined that the earth is a couple of billion years old yet they have a snapshot of 60 years of carbon decay they say proves it decays at a constant rate over a couple of billion years.

They might be right, or they might be totally wrong. That bird might have been an ostrich too.

But Y'all just know that the science is always correct. After all, its written in a textbook like the tougne map was.

 

[Goodyguy]

At some point we either have faith in what is said to have been proven by scientific study or we only rely on what we perceive to be true by our own experience.
I choose to rely on both but with reservation to be skeptical of anything that doesn't fit into my belief of infallibility.

In other words I'm open minded but not to the point of letting my brains fall out.

GG~

 

[spaghettigold]

something to reconcile thelogians and scientists maybe

genesis for example sounds like a wrap up of the setting of laws of nature,big bang and the dynamics afterwards,when light first was able to travel trough space,followed by a very short cut of the evolutionary process on earth.
Or adam and eve is a wrap up of the human evolutionary process including the psychological consequences of that progress.,when the ape went human.
The science tells us that we where apes that grew bigger brains than the other animals.
Those bigger brains led to our self awareness,we suddenly where able to think about ourselfs,think about the past and future,be aware of our life and our transcience.Thats the main thing that makes us different from animals,the bigger brains.Thats how scientist put it, grosso modo.
But there,s a price to that,self awareness ,knowledge is pain.
The adam and eve analogie explains it like this ;adam and eve where living in paradise,in the garden of eden.Now what could have been this paradise?
This paradise was the state of not beeing aware of one self,having no knowledge of future ,death ,good and bad.etc..the state of beeing a animal(ape), living in the present,not worrying about life and death,no sins and guilty feelings, cause as animal you don't know about good and bad,therefore you are innocent.Infact they where allowed to do everything they wanted,exept to eat from the tree of knowledge.

Eventually murphy's law came in to play and they ate from the tree of knowledge(grew bigger brains ),recognized they where naked(self awareness) ,got the knowledge of good and bad (and the all the other problems)and got kicked out of paradise(the state of unawareness and innocence)
Every human beeing is repeating this evolutionary process till today when we start as babys and pretty much unaware and innocent little childrens we live in the present (paradise),don,t worry about beeing naked,growing into responsable adults worriyng about past and future ,our responsabilities,our transcience etc etc.

You could not write about carbon decay then,people would not understand.If you want to tell a story for everybody it has to be written in a simple way.Using analogies, equations etc..thats one way of interpretation i like the most

 

[Kray Gelder]

Hey PC. Mind if I weigh in? Let's talk climate change. The rate of warming may be accelerating. It's certainly warmer at the poles than it was in the last century. The ice is melting. No one is ignoring this. We are being pounded with it everyday. America was cleaning up their pollution act before this fad rolled around. The last one was global cooling. As a the Greatest most Powerful Nation, we are already making headway, and gaining momentum. Chill out a bit, it will get better if the rest of the developing world quits belching coal smoke. Until then, relax a bit. I rode a motorcycle on the Southern California freeways in the early 70's. The air was so bad. When I got where I was going I would smell like I'd been in garage full of running 2-stroke lawnmowers. It's so much improved.

 

[Kray Gelder]

Duckshot, I'm liking you more everyday. You just gotta sort out the BS with Science. Most of it is correct, don't you think? You don't live in a cave and break bones with rocks to suck out the marrow, do you? If you do, then I get your point. But give science some credit. How old do you WANT the world to be?

 

[Sockeye1730]

More like a person believing that birds can't fly because somebody someplace somewhere took a snapshot of a bird and it wasn't flying. Carbon dating has been around for what? 50? Maybe 70 years? And, in that six decades or so somebody determined that the earth is a couple of billion years old yet they have a snapshot of 60 years of carbon decay they say proves it decays at a constant rate over a couple of billion years.

They might be right, or they might be totally wrong. That bird might have been an ostrich too.

But Y'all just know that the science is always correct. After all, its written in a textbook like the tougne map was.

Good grief.

I think I'll take my dog to the glacier here for a walk tonight. Yes, it's receding.

 

[Duckshot]

Duckshot, I'm liking you more everyday. You just gotta sort out the BS with Science. Most of it is correct, don't you think? You don't live in a cave and break bones with rocks to suck out the marrow, do you? If you do, then I get your point. But give science some credit. How old do you WANT the world to be?

How old do I want it to be?



It is what it is. Can't change it, what do I care?

 

[Duckshot]

Hey Sockeye1730,

Just what exactly did you mean when you said "Even the Mayans figured out the planetary orbits thousands of years ago..."

Thanks