I know that each Christian has their own path to the truth of Christ, but mine has always been Genesis. My trust in God’s creative power began as a child and has carried me through and has always sung in my soul.
Did my discussion of Ozone make it here? In case it got lost, (I have learned to save comments before trying to post them), here it is (again?):
I learned about the Ozone Layer in grade school science classes, I think, but never tied it directly to the loss of Earth’s water. I noticed, early on, that ancient accounts seem to portray an Earth with more water than it has today. Abbreviating my thinking, I thought that the water lost over the past few millennia must have migrated to outer space. I have thought this through a little more, and it seems that the solar wind, which is largely made up of hydrogen ions (protons) both added and swept away the H+ (H2 blasted apart by solar gamma and other radiation) ions, leaving some dynamic equilibrium population. H2O would be broken down into individual atoms and then ions, leaving O+ (O2 blasted apart), hence the Ozone layer. O+ ions are high-energy, and their stochastic motion tends to migrate them from denser to less dense regions, thus farther from Earth. Gravity is of little to no effect, and decreases farther from Earth’s surface, in consonance with density-related stochastic motion. At some point an O ion’s collisions will result in its being beyond effective association with Earth. It is in outer space, “lost” from Earth.
I learned about the Ozone Layer in grade school science classes, I think, but never tied it directly to the loss of Earth’s water. I noticed, early on, that ancient accounts seem to portray an Earth with more water than it has today. Abbreviating my thinking, I thought that the water lost over the past few millennia must have migrated to outer space. I have thought this through a little more, and it seems that the solar wind, which is largely made up of hydrogen ions (protons) both added and swept away the H+ (H2 blasted apart by solar gamma and other radiation) ions, leaving some dynamic equilibrium population. H2O would be broken down into individual atoms and then ions, leaving O+ (O2 blasted apart), hence the Ozone layer. O+ ions are high-energy, and their stochastic motion tends to migrate them from denser to less dense regions, thus farther from Earth. Gravity is of little to no effect, and decreases farther from Earth’s surface, in consonance with density-related stochastic motion. At some point an O ion’s collisions will result in its being beyond effective association with Earth. It is in outer space, “lost” from Earth.
I have written about Earth's measurable loss of water. Secular "scientists" aren't too hot about considering whether Earth may have been flooded, and (Young-Earth) Creationists don't like considering whether Earth may be 10,000 years old, but 10K is a solid round number and within a power of ten of both 1,001 and 99,999, so why not hold it lightly and say peak glaciation was 10,000 years ago? All the water from the flood may have wound up frozen in the global ice cap, and whether that was 5,000 or 10,000 years ago, we can compute the volume of liquid water then and now, and the water in the oceans is now short. Know how they compute fuel usage in a test car? Not by precisely measuring the gas in the tank before and after, but by comparing the incremental loss of gas in a small glass tube. Same with water. Between peak glaciation and today, the measurable icemelt is 50% more than the rise in ocean levels (more precisely, the change in Earth's water inventory. So Earth's water loss is consistent with a recent creation of Earth.
David, I don't understand how these water measurements could have been made. Who filled the measuring tubes thousands of years ago? Was the starting point just assumed? I'm just a layman asking questions...
I gathered information from several (secondary or tertiary—I’ve never found any primary research on it) sources to establish the thickness and extent of the peak ice cap. Used Antarctic icecap density as representative density of peak icecap density. I verified that the area of the ocean (total oceans of the world) changes a minimal percent for a depth change of 100-200m. (I also calculated the volume of the ocean and the volume change with a depth change of 100m, but this was using USCGS data that only showed ocean depths every 5’ of longitude and latitude; newer, more precise data seems to be available today.) The volume of water that represents ice melt change from peak ice to today should have raised ocean level 150m. Again, I have not found primary research, but numerous secondary and tertiary sources reiterate a rise of about 300 feet (100m). (Several studies do indicate more variance, but a number of these use data In seismically active locations where water depths are likely to have varied dramatically over several thousand years. Accuracy demands numerous shoreline studies worldwide in littoral areas with present depths between 50m and 200m.) This area needs a robust discussion of all these measurements and approximations, and offers opportunities for numerous studies. Too much risk that Desiccation is consistent with numerous observations, challenging billions of years.
I know that each Christian has their own path to the truth of Christ, but mine has always been Genesis. My trust in God’s creative power began as a child and has carried me through and has always sung in my soul.
Did my discussion of Ozone make it here? In case it got lost, (I have learned to save comments before trying to post them), here it is (again?):
I learned about the Ozone Layer in grade school science classes, I think, but never tied it directly to the loss of Earth’s water. I noticed, early on, that ancient accounts seem to portray an Earth with more water than it has today. Abbreviating my thinking, I thought that the water lost over the past few millennia must have migrated to outer space. I have thought this through a little more, and it seems that the solar wind, which is largely made up of hydrogen ions (protons) both added and swept away the H+ (H2 blasted apart by solar gamma and other radiation) ions, leaving some dynamic equilibrium population. H2O would be broken down into individual atoms and then ions, leaving O+ (O2 blasted apart), hence the Ozone layer. O+ ions are high-energy, and their stochastic motion tends to migrate them from denser to less dense regions, thus farther from Earth. Gravity is of little to no effect, and decreases farther from Earth’s surface, in consonance with density-related stochastic motion. At some point an O ion’s collisions will result in its being beyond effective association with Earth. It is in outer space, “lost” from Earth.
I learned about the Ozone Layer in grade school science classes, I think, but never tied it directly to the loss of Earth’s water. I noticed, early on, that ancient accounts seem to portray an Earth with more water than it has today. Abbreviating my thinking, I thought that the water lost over the past few millennia must have migrated to outer space. I have thought this through a little more, and it seems that the solar wind, which is largely made up of hydrogen ions (protons) both added and swept away the H+ (H2 blasted apart by solar gamma and other radiation) ions, leaving some dynamic equilibrium population. H2O would be broken down into individual atoms and then ions, leaving O+ (O2 blasted apart), hence the Ozone layer. O+ ions are high-energy, and their stochastic motion tends to migrate them from denser to less dense regions, thus farther from Earth. Gravity is of little to no effect, and decreases farther from Earth’s surface, in consonance with density-related stochastic motion. At some point an O ion’s collisions will result in its being beyond effective association with Earth. It is in outer space, “lost” from Earth.
I have written about Earth's measurable loss of water. Secular "scientists" aren't too hot about considering whether Earth may have been flooded, and (Young-Earth) Creationists don't like considering whether Earth may be 10,000 years old, but 10K is a solid round number and within a power of ten of both 1,001 and 99,999, so why not hold it lightly and say peak glaciation was 10,000 years ago? All the water from the flood may have wound up frozen in the global ice cap, and whether that was 5,000 or 10,000 years ago, we can compute the volume of liquid water then and now, and the water in the oceans is now short. Know how they compute fuel usage in a test car? Not by precisely measuring the gas in the tank before and after, but by comparing the incremental loss of gas in a small glass tube. Same with water. Between peak glaciation and today, the measurable icemelt is 50% more than the rise in ocean levels (more precisely, the change in Earth's water inventory. So Earth's water loss is consistent with a recent creation of Earth.
David, I don't understand how these water measurements could have been made. Who filled the measuring tubes thousands of years ago? Was the starting point just assumed? I'm just a layman asking questions...
I gathered information from several (secondary or tertiary—I’ve never found any primary research on it) sources to establish the thickness and extent of the peak ice cap. Used Antarctic icecap density as representative density of peak icecap density. I verified that the area of the ocean (total oceans of the world) changes a minimal percent for a depth change of 100-200m. (I also calculated the volume of the ocean and the volume change with a depth change of 100m, but this was using USCGS data that only showed ocean depths every 5’ of longitude and latitude; newer, more precise data seems to be available today.) The volume of water that represents ice melt change from peak ice to today should have raised ocean level 150m. Again, I have not found primary research, but numerous secondary and tertiary sources reiterate a rise of about 300 feet (100m). (Several studies do indicate more variance, but a number of these use data In seismically active locations where water depths are likely to have varied dramatically over several thousand years. Accuracy demands numerous shoreline studies worldwide in littoral areas with present depths between 50m and 200m.) This area needs a robust discussion of all these measurements and approximations, and offers opportunities for numerous studies. Too much risk that Desiccation is consistent with numerous observations, challenging billions of years.
Thanks for explaining the many assumptions and approximations. Now one more dumb question - If the earth is really losing water, where did it go?