Re: Ark-Typal Miscalculations

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:09:18 -0600

Hi Rhizon,

One can obviously play around with all sorts of assumptions. and as you
note, that is an endless game. But there is one thing I want to comment on.
It is what you say is most important.

At 03:20 PM 2/12/98, Rhizon Schein wrote:
> Finally, and most significantly, after dissolution of
>raincloud cover, objects would be radiating to deep space @ close to 0
>Kelvin - entailing a temperature differential of around 300 degrees!

So are you saying that there is no atmosphere on earth and no water vapor in
the atmosphere, no methane? Are you saying that the sun was extinguished?

Both water and methane absorb strongly in the infrared bands which raises
the earth's temperature far above what it would be without an atmosphere.
(See Kondratyav "Radiation in the Atmosphere, 1969, p. 119. CO2 which
should have been plentiful given all the volcanoes that went off in the
flood, also strongly absorbs in the infrared region of the spectrum. This
is the region of the spectrum that the earth radiates the max energy in at
the earth's surface temperature. That is the only way that you can have the
situation you describe i.e. that the atmosphere doesn't interact with
radiation or that there is no atmosphere. For a chart of the absorption of
the atmosphere, see Goody and Walker, Atmospheres, Prentice-hall, 1972), p. 50

Secondly, given the fact that the earth rotates and the sun does shine the
effective temperature of the environment surrounding the earth is just
slightly below the freezing point of water, 253 deg K not absolute zero. The
253 K is the effective temperature of the earth. It is the temperature the
earth would have if it had no atmosphere. The atmosphere causes the surface
to be hotter, 288 K. (see Goody and Walker, Atmospheres, p. 49)


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood