• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question about oxygen levels

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I have no problems with flood myths, as they can be found in cultures from all over the earth. Humans were around for the massive glacial floods that took place at the beginning of this interglacial, and it obviously left a deep impression on the humans of the time in order for it to yield such widespread legends.
Today, most non-scientists understand science only through analogies and descriptions of the actual events. (Big bang, inflationary model, for example.) One might expect the same from those who survived these mega cataclysmic events--these analogies become mythos when you forget the science behind the analogies.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Why not? We know that the auroras cause atmospheric pressure drops at the poles, which then draws up the warmer air from the tropical regions. (Which is why we have mini ice ages during sunspot minimums--there isn't the regular atmospheric pressure drop to draw the warm tropical air up towards the poles.)
What if a solar flare was a massive one?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why not? We know that the auroras cause atmospheric pressure drops at the poles, which then draws up the warmer air from the tropical regions. (Which is why we have mini ice ages during sunspot minimums--there isn't the regular atmospheric pressure drop to draw the warm tropical air up towards the poles.)
What if a solar flare was a massive one?
Do you have a source that supports these claims?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Do you have a source that supports these claims?
crossfire said:
Why not? We know that the auroras cause atmospheric pressure drops at the poles,
All of the scientific articles correlating auroras and barometric pressure were behind paywalls. :/ Without the actual articles, I can only point to the correlation between low pressure at the poles (polar vortex) and the areas where auroras frequent.
which then draws up the warmer air from the tropical regions.
The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earth’s poles.
What is the Polar Vortex?
more about understanding the polar vortex
The polar vortex doesn’t always influence winter weather in the mid-latitudes. When it does, however, the effects can be extreme. When the polar vortex is especially strong, for example, the polar jet steam tends to stay farther north and to exhibit a more zonal flow, with less meandering. At the surface, this stable stratospheric state is often associated with an even colder than usual Arctic, and milder-than-usual weather in the mid-latitudes. The Arctic Oscillation, which tracks hemisphere-scale wind and air pressure patterns, is often positive.

At the other extreme, the polar vortex is occasionally knocked off kilter when especially strong atmospheric waves in the troposphere break upward into the stratosphere. The vortex slows, and it may wobble, slide off the pole, split into several lobes, or—in the most extreme cases—temporarily reverse direction. Regardless of their “flavor,” these disruptions have one thing in common: a spike in polar stratosphere temperatures, which is why they’re called sudden stratospheric warmings.

In the weeks following the stratospheric upheaval, the polar jet stream will often develop a wavy shape, with deep troughs and steep ridges that can become nearly stationary for days. The exact nature of the interaction—how the polar jet “feels” the disruption in the polar vortex and why it reacts the way it does—isn’t fully understood. Under the high-pressure ridges, warm air floods north into parts of the Arctic, often driving extreme melt, while polar air fills the low-pressure troughs, bringing wintry conditions farther south than average. The Arctic Oscillation often slips into its negative phase.​
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex
Understanding Arctic Oscillation
The AO's positive phase is characterized by lower-than-average air pressure over the Arctic paired with higher-than-average pressure over the northern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The jet stream is farther north than average under these conditions, and storms can be shifted northward of their usual paths. Thus, the mid-latitudes of North America, Europe, Siberia, and East Asia generally see fewer cold air outbreaks than usual during the positive phase of the AO.

Conversely, AO's negative phase has higher-than-average air pressure over the Arctic region and lower-than-average pressure over the northern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The jet stream shifts toward the equator under these conditions, so the globe-encircling river of air is south of its average position. Consequently, locations in the mid-latitudes are more likely to experience outbreaks of frigid, polar air during winters when the AO is negative. In New England, for example, higher frequencies of coastal storms known as "Nor'easters" are linked to AO's negative phase.
Climate Variability: Arctic Oscillation


(Which is why we have mini ice ages during sunspot minimums--there isn't the regular atmospheric pressure drop to draw the warm tropical air up towards the poles.)
See the part about Zonal flow (less equator to pole mixing) being more prominent during strong polar vortexes. Slow and steady solar winds seem to correlate with a stronger (more stable) polar vortex, whereas higher solar storm activity seems to correlate with less stability in the polar vortex (more chaotic) and more zonal mixing.
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex

Also here is an article discussing the grand solar minimum (Maunder Minimum) and its correlation with the Little Ice Age (extended period of low temperatures,) sse this article. (It does mention the caveat of "correlation does not prove causation" right off the bat.)
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html

What if a solar flare was a massive one?
Well, there is a question everyone seems to be avoiding. (Possibly because of its parallels to an electromagnetic pulse??? Because it is not anthropomorphic? Who knows?)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
All of the scientific articles correlating auroras and barometric pressure were behind paywalls. :/ Without the actual articles, I can only point to the correlation between low pressure at the poles (polar vortex) and the areas where auroras frequent.

The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earth’s poles.
What is the Polar Vortex?
more about understanding the polar vortex
The polar vortex doesn’t always influence winter weather in the mid-latitudes. When it does, however, the effects can be extreme. When the polar vortex is especially strong, for example, the polar jet steam tends to stay farther north and to exhibit a more zonal flow, with less meandering. At the surface, this stable stratospheric state is often associated with an even colder than usual Arctic, and milder-than-usual weather in the mid-latitudes. The Arctic Oscillation, which tracks hemisphere-scale wind and air pressure patterns, is often positive.

At the other extreme, the polar vortex is occasionally knocked off kilter when especially strong atmospheric waves in the troposphere break upward into the stratosphere. The vortex slows, and it may wobble, slide off the pole, split into several lobes, or—in the most extreme cases—temporarily reverse direction. Regardless of their “flavor,” these disruptions have one thing in common: a spike in polar stratosphere temperatures, which is why they’re called sudden stratospheric warmings.

In the weeks following the stratospheric upheaval, the polar jet stream will often develop a wavy shape, with deep troughs and steep ridges that can become nearly stationary for days. The exact nature of the interaction—how the polar jet “feels” the disruption in the polar vortex and why it reacts the way it does—isn’t fully understood. Under the high-pressure ridges, warm air floods north into parts of the Arctic, often driving extreme melt, while polar air fills the low-pressure troughs, bringing wintry conditions farther south than average. The Arctic Oscillation often slips into its negative phase.​
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex
Understanding Arctic Oscillation
The AO's positive phase is characterized by lower-than-average air pressure over the Arctic paired with higher-than-average pressure over the northern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The jet stream is farther north than average under these conditions, and storms can be shifted northward of their usual paths. Thus, the mid-latitudes of North America, Europe, Siberia, and East Asia generally see fewer cold air outbreaks than usual during the positive phase of the AO.

Conversely, AO's negative phase has higher-than-average air pressure over the Arctic region and lower-than-average pressure over the northern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The jet stream shifts toward the equator under these conditions, so the globe-encircling river of air is south of its average position. Consequently, locations in the mid-latitudes are more likely to experience outbreaks of frigid, polar air during winters when the AO is negative. In New England, for example, higher frequencies of coastal storms known as "Nor'easters" are linked to AO's negative phase.
Climate Variability: Arctic Oscillation



See the part about Zonal flow (less equator to pole mixing) being more prominent during strong polar vortexes. Slow and steady solar winds seem to correlate with a stronger (more stable) polar vortex, whereas higher solar storm activity seems to correlate with less stability in the polar vortex (more chaotic) and more zonal mixing.
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex

Also here is an article discussing the grand solar minimum (Maunder Minimum) and its correlation with the Little Ice Age (extended period of low temperatures,) sse this article. (It does mention the caveat of "correlation does not prove causation" right off the bat.)
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html


Well, there is a question everyone seems to be avoiding. (Possibly because of its parallels to an electromagnetic pulse??? Because it is not anthropomorphic? Who knows?)
I do not see any connect to an auroroa there. Or solar flares. I thinkthat you read something into those articles that does not exist.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I do not see any connect to an auroroa there. Or solar flares. I thinkthat you read something into those articles that does not exist.
Like I said, the articles correlating barometric pressure and auroras were behind paywalls.

The article about the Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) and the Little Ice Age would cover the correlation between lack of aurora activity (solar minimum) and little ice age/zonal banding associated with the stable polar vortex and minimal Arctic Oscillation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Like I said, the articles correlating barometric pressure and auroras were behind paywalls.

The article about the Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) and the Little Ice Age would cover the correlation between lack of aurora activity (solar minimum) and little ice age/zonal banding associated with the stable polar vortex and minimal Arctic Oscillation.


Can you at least link the article behind paywalls? Thank you.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
But your (young) earth is only 6,000 years old from the time of Adam. What does Bible say about that?

Im not a YEC. I’ve stated this many times (though not to you, I don’t believe).

And from my study of the first 2 chapters of the Bible, the Young Earth concept isn’t supported by the Scriptures.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Im not a YEC. I’ve stated this many times (though not to you, I don’t believe).

And from my study of the first 2 chapters of the Bible, the Young Earth concept isn’t supported by the Scriptures.
It depends upon how a person defines a YEC. Many of your beliefs are YEC beliefs. The mountains for example are far far older than you believe them to be.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Many of your beliefs are YEC beliefs.
No, they aren’t. The Earth coud very well be billions of years old. It doesn’t effect my POV of the Flood.

You are rich, presuming to tell me what my own beliefs are.
The mountains for example are far far older than you believe them to be.

Yes, quite a few are. I have never said they *all* were young. But some ranges are geologically young, exhibiting youthful characteristics. They have crisp and pristine features, with a lot less erosion than what you’d expect of millions of years (as you claim) even on their softer rocks, like the dolomitic limestone of the Himalayas & shale interbedded with limestone in the northern Alps.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, they aren’t. The Earth coud very well be billions of years old. It doesn’t effect my POV of the Flood.

You are rich, presuming to tell me what my own beliefs are.

Yes, they are. For example your unsupported beliefs about how much erosion to expect. That is a straight YEC claim..

Yes, quite a few are. I have never said they *all* were young. But some ranges are geologically young, exhibiting youthful characteristics. They have crisp and pristine features, with a lot less erosion than what you’d expect of millions of years (as you claim) even on their softer rocks, like the dolomitic limestone of the Himalayas & shale interbedded with limestone in the northern Alps.

For mountains a "geologically young chain" would be less than 100 million years. Humans were not around for over 99% of that time.


And dolomitic limestones are quite resistant to erosion. That is why they tend to form cliffs. Shale on the other hand tends to erode more easily. I am sorry, but when it comes to rocks and erosion you have no clue. You only make hand waving claims but never support them with evidence. You know who else does that?

YEC's
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Yes, they are. For example your unsupported beliefs about how much erosion to expect. That is a straight YEC claim..



For mountains a "geologically young chain" would be less than 100 million years. Humans were not around for over 99% of that time.


And dolomitic limestones are quite resistant to erosion. That is why they tend to form cliffs. Shale on the other hand tends to erode more easily. I am sorry, but when it comes to rocks and erosion you have no clue. You only make hand waving claims but never support them with evidence. You know who else does that?

YEC's
I guess you will never learn.

Millions of years would make them all rounded stumps, like the Great Smokies. They are old, but we don’t see that with the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rockies, et.al. Millions & millions of years? .... lol.

That much time with the extreme weathering that some of the Alps & Himalayas experience, and their Dolomitic formations (Moh’s scale: 3.5 to 4) would have already been reduced to rubble.

I feel you’ve been misled... and I think you want to be.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I guess you will never learn.

Millions of years would make them all rounded stumps, like the Great Smokies. They are old, but we don’t see that with the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rockies, et.al. Millions & millions of years? .... lol.

That much time with the extreme weathering that some of the Alps & Himalayas experience, and their Dolomitic formations (Moh’s scale: 3.5 to 4) would have already been reduced to rubble.

I feel you’ve been misled... and I think you want to be.

I'm no expert but I believe the Himalayas are still being formed because India is still crashing into Eurasia but it's been going on for 40 or 50 million years.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm no expert but I believe the Himalayas are still being formed because India is still crashing into Eurasia but it's been going on for 40 or 50 million years.
That's what I hear from people measuring them.
But hey....perhaps they should be consulting the
Bible instead of instrumentation. That would cure
their folly, eh.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
For mountains a "geologically young chain" would be less than 100 million years. Humans were not around for over 99% of that time.
How old are the Olympic Mountains formed by the subduction zone in your avatar? 35-50 million years old?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How old are the Olympic Mountains formed by the subduction zone in your avatar? 35-50 million years old?
Largely by accretion of oceanic sediments and even oceanic crust from when the two plates meet. There is also some volcanic activity too:

"The Olympic Mountains are comprised of a large uplifted and folded section of oceanic crust that was accreted onto the continent over the last 40 million years at the margin of the Cascadia subduction zone. The range is cored by highly folded and disrupted sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, which are flanked to the east by a horsheshoe-shaped border of Crescent Formation basalt and overlying sedimentary rocks. These rocks are locally covered by young glacial and non-glacial sediments."


ger_popular_geomap_olympics.png

Here is a Wiki article that covers the area in general. Please note that the volcanic activity from subduction is inland a fair distance. Even though the subduction zone surfaces out in the Pacific the current volcanoes from it, Baker, Rainer, Mt. Ste. Helens and others, are inland a fair distance. This illustration may look familiar to you:


JuandeFucasubduction.jpg



Juan de Fuca Plate - Wikipedia


And that is not all that shaped the area tectonically. Plates in plate tectonics also ride on "plumes" or hot spots. The Hawaiian island chain is the classic example of islands caused by an oceanic plate moving over a plume, or hot spot caused by rising hot mantle material.

Pacific_basin.gif


Hawaiian hotspot [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

Though that activity was just a little bit more to the south. It appears that the Yellowstone hot spot missed the peninsula:

img7795.jpg


I thought that it was a complicating matter, but now that does not appear to be the case. The geology of the Pacific Northwest is a bit of a mess:

Just how long has the Yellowstone Hotspot been around? | U.S. Geological Survey
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
So the Olympics is basically stuff scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate as the rest of the plate subducts, as well as part of the North American plate folding at the edge from the force of the subduction going underneath.
 
Top