Rain & Energy

[Kitsune]

On another board, the argument of the energy of a flood would basically heat the planet to boiling. I have seen it in a number of different sources

On another board, "An Ancient" tried to argue against that. What are responses to this?

My point still stands, his calcs, which I saw (they aren't actually his, but Mike Wong's, anyways), when he brought them to this board, are based on pure energy in -> energy out calculations, which is fine in the lab, the point being, as I just pointed out, simple raw energy in -> energy out calcs give 1kt of energy per square mile in a heavy downpour, since kt level davastation does not ensue, it is evident that the simple raw energy in is not in fact distributed in the manner a face value of 1KT of energt would suggest, hence, the raw energy output of assumed rainfall (agian, working theoretically) would not in fact cause super-heating of the earth.

On a similar note, the big tsunami was in the order of 1 GT IIRC, yet it patently did not have the heating effects of a 1 GT nuclear blast.

[Solauren]

Point out that if the rain was hot enough to cause a problem, it would be gaseous (i.e vapor) and therefore not fall, and would radiate it's energy out into space.

As for the Tsunami, point out there is a difference between 1 Gigaton worth of sesmic energy, and 1 Gigaton of heat energy.

For example, heat energy heats things up without moving them (though it may cause them to move as a result of heating, i.e gas expanding, rocks melting).
Sesmic energy moves things without heating them (though it may cause heating via friction).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

On another board, the argument of the energy of a flood would basically heat the planet to boiling. I have seen it in a number of different sources

On another board, "An Ancient" tried to argue against that. What are responses to this?

My point still stands, his calcs, which I saw (they aren't actually his, but Mike Wong's, anyways), when he brought them to this board, are based on pure energy in -> energy out calculations, which is fine in the lab, the point being, as I just pointed out, simple raw energy in -> energy out calcs give 1kt of energy per square mile in a heavy downpour, since kt level davastation does not ensue, it is evident that the simple raw energy in is not in fact distributed in the manner a face value of 1KT of energt would suggest, hence, the raw energy output of assumed rainfall (agian, working theoretically) would not in fact cause super-heating of the earth.

On a similar note, the big tsunami was in the order of 1 GT IIRC, yet it patently did not have the heating effects of a 1 GT nuclear blast.

There was a couple of threads about this some time ago, but, essentially the biggest problem with the Flood is where all the water came from. Most proposed solutions to that problem would have the water being injected into the atmosphere as superheated vapor. Noah would be poached well before the water actually started coming back down. Once the water started coming back down, it would carry at least 7.8E+25 joules of energy. Most of which would go into heating the air (due to air friction acting on the raindrops.) The resultant heat release over the specified duration would be akin to having the eyewall of a Category 5 hurricane striking everywhere simultaneously.

[Azrael]

My point still stands, his calcs, which I saw (they aren't actually his, but Mike Wong's, anyways), when he brought them to this board, are based on pure energy in -> energy out calculations, which is fine in the lab, the point being, as I just pointed out, simple raw energy in -> energy out calcs give 1kt of energy per square mile in a heavy downpour, since kt level davastation does not ensue, it is evident that the simple raw energy in is not in fact distributed in the manner a face value of 1KT of energt would suggest, hence, the raw energy output of assumed rainfall (agian, working theoretically) would not in fact cause super-heating of the earth.

Translation: The energy calcs only work in the lab, because I say so. Here's a vauge allusion about the energy in a heavy down pour to prove it.

On a similar note, the big tsunami was in the order of 1 GT IIRC, yet it patently did not have the heating effects of a 1 GT nuclear blast.

Translation: I'm an apologist cocksucker who doesn't understand that most of the energy in a tsunami will be used to move water in/off of land and opposed to that of a nuclear fireball which will be used almost exclusively to produce heating effects. Plus, I ignore the fact that heating or no, both produce similar devestation to boot!

I not going to pretend that I am mathmatically competent enough to come up with the calcs myself. The sad part is, I don't need to. That's how piss poor this rebuttal is.

[PainRack]

isn't ancient post well....... ancient? I haven't been back to SB for months, but I recall reading this exact post.

[Kitsune]

isn't ancient post well....... ancient? I haven't been back to SB for months, but I recall reading this exact post.

It is a new post but echoes his earlier posts

[Darth Wong]

On another board, the argument of the energy of a flood would basically heat the planet to boiling. I have seen it in a number of different sources

On another board, "An Ancient" tried to argue against that. What are responses to this?

My point still stands, his calcs, which I saw (they aren't actually his, but Mike Wong's, anyways), when he brought them to this board, are based on pure energy in -> energy out calculations, which is fine in the lab, the point being, as I just pointed out, simple raw energy in -> energy out calcs give 1kt of energy per square mile in a heavy downpour, since kt level davastation does not ensue, it is evident that the simple raw energy in is not in fact distributed in the manner a face value of 1KT of energt would suggest, hence, the raw energy output of assumed rainfall (agian, working theoretically) would not in fact cause super-heating of the earth.

On a similar note, the big tsunami was in the order of 1 GT IIRC, yet it patently did not have the heating effects of a 1 GT nuclear blast.

He's an idiot. He's assuming that the 1 GT somehow disappeared, when in reality it was simply distributed over a large area. And 1 kT is actually not a huge amount of energy, especially when distributed over a square mile. He idiotically concludes that "energy in = energy out" is somehow false because of his subjective assumptions of what that much energy should look like (at any dispersion level), even though it is a law of physics.

[Cyborg Stan]

Lesee... taking the +100 Billion Megaton figure from this page, dividing it by the surface area of the Earth gives us something around 200 KT per square km. Considering raindrops tend to go to terminal velocity fast, most of that is going to be heating up the atmosphere. Furthermore, it differs from a regular rainstorm in not only depth, but coverage. Regular rain could easily be viewed as simple heat redistribution, taking away heat from areas in which evaporation occur and adding heat where it falls again. Raining everywhere however...

[nasor]

I’m not a meteorologist, but I thought that the water in rain clouds exists as suspended microdroplets, not actual vapor. Rain isn’t actually caused by water vapor in the air condensing suddenly into a rain drop, but rather by already-condensed drops aggregating into larger drops. So there wouldn’t be much heat of condensation released when it starts raining – the heat of condensation was released when the cloud formed, which presumably took a lot longer than the rain will last.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong here…

[Alan Bolte]

Presumably, in order to have rain all over the globe, you need to have clouds form all over the globe, so unless you go and directly put microdroplets all through the atmosphere, you're going to have the vapor condensing anyway.

[nasor]

Presumably, in order to have rain all over the globe, you need to have clouds form all over the globe, so unless you go and directly put microdroplets all through the atmosphere, you're going to have the vapor condensing anyway.

I was thinking of the "1kt per square mile" figure in the original post, where he seemed to be arguing that the energy calculations didn't work properly because heavy rain over a square mile doesn't produce a lot of damage. You wouldn't really have much energy from the heat of condensation being released over the square mile that was being rained on, because the heat of vaporization was released slowly over a larger area when the cloud formed.

[Alyeska]

What is the source for the 100 billion megaton figure? Is that for a specific amount of water to a certain depth for the entire planet?

[Alyeska]

Lesee... taking the +100 Billion Megaton figure from this page, dividing it by the surface area of the Earth gives us something around 200 KT per square km. Considering raindrops tend to go to terminal velocity fast, most of that is going to be heating up the atmosphere. Furthermore, it differs from a regular rainstorm in not only depth, but coverage. Regular rain could easily be viewed as simple heat redistribution, taking away heat from areas in which evaporation occur and adding heat where it falls again. Raining everywhere however...

Your math is a little off. I came up with 196 MT, not KT.

[Alyeska]

Here is a good one. An Ancient has seemingly disapeared from the thread after first being very active in it. What caused him to disapear? He was asked to provide a source for the water.

[Cyborg Stan]

Your math is a little off. I came up with 196 MT, not KT.

Probably goofed up with the m^2 -> km^2 conversion.

[Alyeska]

That of course screwed over dumbasses argument. Sorry, not 1 KT but 196 MT.

[PainRack]

isn't ancient post well....... ancient? I haven't been back to SB for months, but I recall reading this exact post.

It is a new post but echoes his earlier posts

God, an almost exact copy? Shit.

[Alyeska]

Mike, I have a request. Can you please post the math behind the One Hundred Billion Megaton quote from your flood page? I would like to be able to use this as a source and have the math on hand. Right now An Ancient is challenging the figure because I can't back it up with math.

[Kitsune]

God, an almost exact copy? Shit.

Can't teach an old Bible Thumper new Tricks

Mike, I have a request. Can you please post the math behind the One Hundred Billion Megaton quote from your flood page? I would like to be able to use this as a source and have the math on hand. Right now An Ancient is challenging the figure because I can't back it up with math.

"An Ancient" forgot a key element called "Time"

[Cyborg Stan]

Mike, I have a request. Can you please post the math behind the One Hundred Billion Megaton quote from your flood page? I would like to be able to use this as a source and have the math on hand. Right now An Ancient is challenging the figure because I can't back it up with math.

Seems to be just KE = mgh, with M being a million trillion tons, and h being 50 km. The million trillion tons, assuming that I didn't mess up again, seems to be the amount of water needed to cover the Earth's surface in a mile of water. Any errors from rounding should be more than made up in the fact that a mile of water would not come even close to covering the mountains.

[Alyeska]

I've never heard of the MGH calculation before. More then that, how can it calculate KE without a velocity for the water?

[Cyborg Stan]

Gravitational Potential Energy = mass * acceleration due to gravity * height

It's an approximation common when close to the ground so the acceleration due to gravity doesn't change much. (Even at 50 km, it should have close to 98% of the acceleration near the ground.) Technically speaking, it really doesn't calculate the KE of the water, since that can be limited by the atmosphere, but any KE would be quickly turned to heat anyway which is what we wanted anyway.

[Darth Wong]

One of the problems with people who don't understand physics, like "The Ancient" and his mottle-headed ilk, is that they refuse to grasp the concept that energy simply does not disappear. Ever. It only changes into a different form. So all of that gravitational potential energy must go somewhere, be it kinetic energy or frictional heating of the atmosphere.

[Alyeska]

I understand this. However, I am asking for how you got the hundred billion megaton figure. I tried my hand at the calcs and I only came up with 3.2x10^12 on energy.

[Cyborg Stan]

Hm. (Re)-plugging in in the GPE = m*g*h formula gives us

M = surface area of the Earth * depth of flood (assume a mere mile deep Flood) * density of water = 5.107*10^14 m^2 * 1609.344 m * 1000 kg/m^3
G = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
H = height fallen = 50,000 m

divide this by 4.184*10^15 J per MT gives us around 97 billion megatons. If we just want MT per square km, we simply stick in 10^6 m^3 where the surface area of the Earth previously was, giving it around 188 MT per square km this time.