Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

_{Cornelius Hunter
April 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis. Read more

Comments

And, unsurprisingly, other places in African that do not have access to the nutrients provided by past (fairly recent) glaciation events and present snow runoff are found to suffer from nutrient deficiencies
Soil nutrient maps of Sub-Saharan Africa: - 207 Excerpt: Current cropping yields in Sub-Saharan Africa are low, often falling well short of water-limited yield potentials (Jayne et al. 2010). This underperformance is due to number of factors: soil nutrient deficiencies, soil physical constraints, pests and diseases and sub-optimal management. Whilst it is well established that nutrient deficiencies are constraining yields in SSA https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-017-9870-x
bornagain77_{April 14, 2018
April
04
Apr
14
14
2018
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, I already conceded volcanic soils to Bob at the bottom of post 66. In fact, I was the one who pointed that 'reprieve' for Bob's thesis out to Bob (and weave). As to how the Nile basic receives nutrients from (fairly recent) past glaciation events (and from present snow run off from freezing. expansion, melting of snow and ice):
List of glaciers in Africa Excerpt: Africa, specifically East Africa, has contained glacial regions, possibly as far back as the last glacial maximum 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Africa East Africa - map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/LocationEasternAfrica.png/245px-LocationEasternAfrica.png Nile River map http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nile-river-map.gif Nile River Facts the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. ... Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed. https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/
bornagain77_{April 14, 2018
April
04
Apr
14
14
2018
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H,
So what gives? Are glaciers necessary for civilisation because they are the only way soils can be fertile? In which case, how do you explain the fertility of the Nile basin?
And how does he explain the fertile soil on Hawaii or many of the Caribbean islands?Allan Keith_{April 14, 2018
April
04
Apr
14
14
2018
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

ba77 - Perhaps you've forgotten, but I was asking you about your claim that ice ages were necessary for human civilisation, because of the effects of glaciers. But you still haven't explained why the Nile, for example, is so fertile even though glaciers don't affect it. The nearest it gets to glaciation is melted snow. So what gives? Are glaciers necessary for civilisation because they are the only way soils can be fertile? In which case, how do you explain the fertility of the Nile basin? Why aren't you willing to provide an explanation? Why don't you want to back up your thesis?Bob O'H_{April 14, 2018
April
04
Apr
14
14
2018
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

BA77 everywhere: Well done. Thank you for your tireless efforts against the a/mat trolls. I share many of your comments with friends and family. You are being read more than you probably realize. Your efforts are making a difference!Truth Will Set You Free_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Bob, slightly off topic,,, if you remember your history right, Newton, Leibniz (and Laplace) had a disagreement about God's role in creation. Newton was supposedly chastised by Leibniz (and Laplace) for invoking "God of the gaps":
Newton, Leibniz, and the Role of God in Planetary Orbits - December 2014 Excerpt: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" -- Sir Isaac Newton. "Principia Mathematica" (1687) Perhaps the most spectacular early success of Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was its natural explanation for Johannes Kepler’s observation that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits. But upon further reflection, some nagging problems emerge. The perfect elliptical orbits are only valid for an isolated planet orbiting around the sun. Gravity works on all objects, and so the other planets perturb the motion of the Earth, potentially leading to its ejection from the solar system. This problem vexed Sir Isaac, who postulated that God occasionally “reformed” the planets, perhaps by sending through a comet with just the right trajectory. In a famous exchange of letters, cut short only by his death in 1716, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, took Sir Isaac to task for his view. He objected that: "if God had to remedy the defects of His creation, this was surely to demean his craftsmanship."1 And moreover that: “..when God works miracles, he does it not to meet the needs of nature but the needs of grace. Anyone who thinks differently must have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God."2 In other words, the regular sustaining activity of God, as evidenced by natural laws, should be sufficient to explain the regular behavior of the solar system, without the need for additional ad-hoc interventions. Making it right the first time is more glorious than having to fix it later. Moreover, when God deviates from his regular sustaining activity to perform miracles, he does so for soteriological reasons, not to repair nature.,,, 1. 1. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion, CUP, Cambridge (1991), p147. 2. From letter 1 point 4 (Nov 1715). The full correspondence can be found online. https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/addressing-christian-concerns-about-the-implications-of-biologos-science-part-1
Yet that whole story turns out to be 'Whig history': Here is an interesting article about the Newton-Leibniz-Laplace controversy that shows the 'God of the gaps' controversy is not nearly as cut and dried as some atheists have tried to make it out to be:
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Newton (Part 1) - Luke Barnes a) Newton did develop perturbation theory for the orbits (and actually applied it to the moon), so it is false that God belief prevented him from attempting to solve the problem. b) the math was not "crumbs" for Newton, since Laplace had worked on foundations laid by some of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century (Euler, Lagrange, Clairaut), some of whom also failed to solve the very same problem Newton was working on, and one of these, Euler is regarded as the greatest mathematician of all time! c) Laplace did not really solve the problem in the end, but only for first degree approximations, but Haret showed that orbits are not absolutely stable using third degree approximations. d) Finally, and most ironically perhaps, it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.", to them, it would count as evidence against intelligent design if God had to intervene to prevent the solar system from collapsing. So intelligent design could just as easily be a motivation to prove the stability of the solar system. (article amended since first accessed) https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/ Laplace quoting Leibniz favorably https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
As to “Making it right the first time”, I hold that Newton, Leibniz and Laplace would be very pleased by what modern science has now revealed about the wisdom and power of God as to “Making it right the first time”: from post 3
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009 Milankovitch Cycle Design – Hugh Ross – August 2011 Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive. per reasons.org Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude. http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/4/2055/pdf/1538-3881_116_4_2055.pdf Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011 Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%. per darwinsgod Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine Research now establishes that every planet in our solar system must possess exactly the masses and orbits that they do for advanced life to be possible on Earth. No other known planetary system comes anywhere close to having the features to make advanced life possible. We live not only on a miraculously “rare” Earth but also a miraculously “rare” planetary system. For details and documentation, see my latest blog post. - Hugh Ross - June 2017 per reasons.org
That Bob, is what you call "Making it right the first time"bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Glacial Blessings Flow Earth's Icy Past Has Yielded Bountiful Food & Beauty by Hugh Ross http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo33/glacial-blessings-flow.php *Subscription requiredbornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Well Bob, The name “Snowy Mountains” itself does not help your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis. and to repeat 61,,, you claimed liquid water by itself (post 28 and 31) can do the trick, That is why I asked you this specifically in post 30:
You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine.
And in 31 you indeed held it to be the case that you were claiming liquid water, by itself, will do the trick.:
Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too.,,,
Yet now, when you are shown that liquid water by itself can not explain how nutrient rich soils are created, you want to recover part of the ‘ice cycle’, i.e. freezing and expansion, into your thesis. You gave that part up in post 31. And I certainly never would have spent all this time debunking your claim if you had originally claimed the ‘freezing and expansion’ part of the ‘ice cycle’ as part your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis. Indeed, freezing and expansion is just as, if not more, important than the grinding and pulverizing provided by glaciers. And both of those events together i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, I would hold, provide the best nutrient rich soils. It is disingenuous of you to now want to backtrack on what you originally claimed in 28 and 31. But then again, in you trying to do so you, once again, show everyone exactly why ‘bob and weave’ is such an appropriately earned nickname.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

ba77 - so you've retreated from your claim that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils, then? You're down to "ice cycles".Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

well Bob, I'm pretty happy with the state of evidence as it now sits for Australia, especially the 'uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils' part. I simply don't see you ever providing any robust evidence for your position without having to appeal to 'ice cycles' of some type, freezing and expansion, which you already conceded to my position at post 31. In fact, as far as the evidence now sits, I donated you your best evidential card thus far, i..e volcanic eruptions. And even then the nutrients did not appear out of nowhere but were delivered from the earth's mantle. Which is a point of evidence which actually backs my overall thesis that nutrients have to be replenished from the erosion of new mountain ranges. And again, I encourage readers to read Dr Ross's book "Improbable Planet" (Chpt. 15) for a more thorough treatment of the 'fine-tuned' ice age issue.
Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home – September 6, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894 Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014) https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097
Dr. Ross, in his usual meticulous manner, reveals a far tighter correspondence that I have been unable to successfully communicate thus far.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

ET @ 65 - then is would be a very different shape. Glaciers leave a distinctly different signature in the rocks: U-shaped valleys, morraines etc. bs77 @ 66 - read my 49. I gave you part of the Murray-Darling basin, but of course only part, because only part of it is fed from the Snowy Mountains.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

You said something about Australia being free from the effect of glaciers,,,
"Or the Murray-Darling in Australia. Liquid water erodes, and this provides nutrients that are washed downstream."
Yet, glaciation has occurred in Australia at Snowy Mountains
The Last Ice Age in Australia Studies of relics of the last Ice Age, particularly in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania have led to a complete revision of the glacial history of these regions, which were the only areas in Australia where glaciers existed. Hypothetical ideas about glacier extent and its timing that stood for nearly a century have been replaced with a robust chronology placing Australia into a global context. It transpires that there was not just one but at least four major advances of glacier ice during the last 70,000 years. The coldest part of the last ice age was 20,000-22,000 years ago and only lasted a few thousand years. The ensuing global warming is the greatest in recent geological history. Using the altitude of the ice age landforms we have calculated that mean temperatures around Canberra are about 9oC warmer today. http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age
And the Snowy Mountains, unsurprisingly, form the headwaters of the Murray-Darling in Australia
Map of the Murray–Darling basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin#/media/File:Murray-catchment-map_MJC02.png The Snowy Mountains also feed the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers from the Tooma River, Whites River and Yarrangobilly River. The range is perhaps best known for the Snowy Mountains Scheme, a project to dam the Snowy River, providing both water for irrigation and hydroelectricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains#Snowy_Mountains_Scheme
And yet the rest of the land in Australia that do not have access to the nutrients that were released by the initial glaciation and subsequent 'freezing and expansion' of snow and ice on Snowy Mountains have a 'uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils'
Ecology of Australia: the effects of nutrient-poor soils and intense fires. Australia, the flattest, driest, and geologically oldest vegetated continent, has a uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17624961
All is not lost for you Bob, I found that Volcanic soils do offer you somewhat of a reprieve from the 'ice cycle' monopoly on nutrients:
Volcanoes often produce fertile soil, so lush vegetation is common on volcanic slopes, and fertile soils attract people who want to farm the land and raise livestock. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=6635
Myself, I prefer 'ice cycles' to volcanic eruptions :)bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Bob- what if glaciers carved out the Nile river basin and that allowed the water to flow?ET_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Whatever Bob (and weave). I'll let post 61 stand on its own merits. Might I suggest that you ask Allen for some of his 'thousands of papers' so as to back up some of your claims? I'm not nearly as impressed with your personal opinion as you seem to be.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you're still not defending your claim - that the ice ages were necessary for fertile soils, because of glaciers. Yes, ice can and does break down rock, but so does water (both directly and by abrasion when it carries rock and sand). You haven't actually shown that water isn't enough, just claimed that "[t]ropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients" whilst only linking to something about the Amazon. That's not the only part of the world with tropical soils, and you repeatedly ignore the Nile, which historically has been fertile because of all the sediment that's washed down it, without the help of any glaciers at all.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

But that doesn’t mean that all fertile soils are the results of glaciers.
Snowball earth.ET_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Bob, you claimed liquid water by itself (post 28 and 31) can do the trick, That is why I asked you this specifically in post 30:
You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine.
And in 31 you indeed held it to be the case that you were claiming liquid water, by itself, will do the trick.:
Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too.,,,
Yet now, when you are shown that liquid water by itself can not explain how nutrient rich soils are created, you want to recover part of the 'ice cycle', i.e. freezing and expansion, into your thesis. You gave that part up in post 31. And I certainly never would have spent all this time debunking your claim if you had originally claimed the 'freezing and expansion' part of the 'ice cycle' as part your 'liquid water alone' thesis. Indeed, freezing and expansion is just as, if not more, important than the grinding and pulverizing provided by glaciers. And both of those events together i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, I would hold, provide the best nutrient rich soils. It is disingenuous of you to now want to backtrack on what you originally claimed in 28 and 31. But then again, in you trying to do so you, once again, show everyone exactly why 'bob and weave' is such an appropriately earned nickname. Moreover, you still have not attempted to answer the question asked to you at the end of post 30.
At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind? And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?
bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Of somewhat related note, it is interesting to note the catastrophic worldwide 'superflood' events that accompanied the end of the last ice age:
Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83),,, Romuald Schild of the Polish Academy of Sciences cites an abrupt warming that took place in the northern Atlantic at around 12,700 years ago, stopped and equally abruptly went into reverse 10,800 years ago - when there was a sudden 800-year plunge to almost full glacial temperatures - then turned again to another episode of abrupt warming about 10,000 years ago. Robert Schoch reports that the bulk of the first warming- 'approximately 27 degrees Farenheit, a massive increase' - occurred after 11,700 years ago: Remarkably, the ice-core data suggests that half of the temperature change, in the neighbourhood of 14 degrees Farenheit, occurred in less than 15 years centering around 9645 BC. That's a bigger temperature increase, and faster, than the scariest doomsday scenario about global warming in the twenty-first century. http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm
bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

ba77 - once more you are failing to defend your contention that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils. The best you can come up with is "melting snow", which ignore a couple of points. In order of importance: (1) snow (melted or otherwise) is not the same as a glacier. (2) melting makes snow liquid, and it is the liquid that flows and erodes. I know glaciers can provide fertile soils - I used to live in Denmark, which is basically outwash from Norway and Sweden. But that doesn't mean that all fertile soils are the results of glaciers.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Bob, to be clear, your claim is that liquid water (post 28 and 31), all by its lonesome, can supply the necessary nutrients for 'nutrient rich' soil. Whereas my claim is that the entire 'ice cycle', i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, is necessary to produce the necessary nutrients from mountains. You further claimed that tropically situated 'river basins' prove your point that the ice cycle (and glaciation in particular) are not necessary for nutrient rich soils. Yet, as pointed out, "Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients. In some parts of the Amazon River Basin, white, sandy soils are found, which have evolved through erosion over hundreds of millions of years. And yet, although these soils have lost their mineral content and fertility, rich rainforests grow on them". Moreover, as was also shown, the Nile river basin receives a large part of its nutrients from "Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains". Again your claim (post 28 and 31) is that liquid water, all by its lonesome, can do the trick, and yet 'melting snow' is found to be integral to Nile flooding. This is not what you need to try to prove your point. What you need to prove your 'liquid water alone' point beyond any doubt, is that you would have to find a tropical river basin with nutrient rich soil that has been supplied completely, throughout its entire history, with liquid water with no help from snow runoff and/or glaciation from mountains. Good luck with that wild goose chase. Even the Tigris and Euphrates river system of the 'fertile crescent' is fed by run off starting in the Taurus Mountains. Taurus mountains have glaciers and snow (ice cycles) year round:
the rugged mountains of eastern Turkey are high enough and cold enough to sustain year-round ice. About two-thirds of Turkey’s glaciers lie within the Taurus Mountains, a chain of peaks that stretch from the Mediterranean coast toward the borders of Iran and Iraq. The southeastern portion of the range supports Turkey’s largest glaciers. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79395 The Tigris is 1,750 km long, rising in the Taurus Mountains of eastern Turkey about 25 km southeast of the city of Elazig and about 30 km from the headwaters of the Euphrates. The river then flows for 400 km through Turkish territory before becoming the border between Syria and Turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Mountains Taurus Mountains, called as Toros in Turkish, is a mountain range in the Mediterranean region of Turkey, running approximately 560 kms parallel to the coast, and forming the southern border of the Anatolian plateau. Rising at the western-most range of the Great Himalayas, it is Turkey's second chain of folded mountains after Pontus mountains. http://www.allaboutturkey.com/taurus.htm
Bottom line, the richest nutrient rich soils in the world are found in places where glaciation events have been fairly recent, whereas tropical regions are, to repeat, "Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients." whereas on the other hand recent glaciation events 'produce extremely fertile soils':
Glacial Geology Regardless of whether the landscape was produced by T2 or T3 events, all of the late Wisconsin deposits, and especially the tills, produce extremely fertile soils,,, https://igws.indiana.edu/MarionCounty/GlacialGeology.cfm picture: https://igws.indiana.edu/images/marioncounty/Fig1BGlacialGeoTimeline.jpg
In fact, I live at the base of the 'glaciation debris fields' which provide the head waters for the Mississippi river, Bottom line, your parents duped you if they told you that the 'ice cycle' and/or glaciation was unimportant for essential nutrient dispersal throughout the biosphere.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

The Nile is notable for being incredibly fertile, because of the sediment that's washed down the river (all without the help of any glaciers: it's because of monsoon rains) so you might want to try a different argument.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land. And this is why the Nile flooded. https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients. In some parts of the Amazon River Basin, white, sandy soils are found, which have evolved through erosion over hundreds of millions of years. And yet, although these soils have lost their mineral content and fertility, rich rainforests grow on them. In rainforests, some of the highest trees on the planet shoot to the sky. Dead plants and animals quickly decompose and their organic matter is utilized by other organisms. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/ecosystems_amazon/rainforests/ Glacial Geology Regardless of whether the landscape was produced by T2 or T3 events, all of the late Wisconsin deposits, and especially the tills, produce extremely fertile soils,,, https://igws.indiana.edu/MarionCounty/GlacialGeology.cfm picture: https://igws.indiana.edu/images/marioncounty/Fig1BGlacialGeoTimeline.jpg Again, life enabling nutrients are coming from newly uplifted mountains. While the ‘universal solvent’ of liquid water, as well as wind blown dust, can explain the worldwide dispersal of the nutrients that are essential for life in a timely manner, liquid water and wind, by themselves, cannot explain how the mountains are weathered in a timely manner, geologically speaking, in the first place. You need the 'ice cycle'. To argue is otherwise is just plain wrong. (and bizarre.) water cycle https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpgbornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

OK, so you're not going to defend your theory, then. I guess the criticism that there are fertile river basins that are not fed by glaciers, even though your theory is that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils, might have some validity if you can't easily refute it.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Since you do not see fit to produce any papers backing up your bizarre claim, i.e. that the 'ice cycle' in unnecessary for nutrient release from newly uplifted mountains, it is pointless to continue is it not? Which is fine by me, as I am more than satisfied that I have made my point, whereas you, basically, are left believing that life enabling nutrients appear out of nowhere,,, i.e. since you deny that the timely weathering of newly uplifted mountains by the 'ice cycle' is necessary as to explaining how the life enabling nutrients in the biosphere arrived.. One of us believes in magic Bob, and it ain't me.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

ba77 - if glaciation is so necessary for nutrients, can you have another go at explaining why the Congo and Nile basins are so fertile, if they haven't had any glaciers in their catchments? As for papers, this stuff is so basic I think it's in the undergraduate textbooks.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Bob, as you claimed in post 28 and 31, you are basically claiming that liquid water, all by its lonesome, can explain how the nutrients that are essential for life came to be in the soils. You are wrong. The nutrients necessary for life are coming from the weathering of newly uplifted mountains. While the 'universal solvent' of liquid water, as well as wind blown dust, can explain the worldwide dispersal of the nutrients that are essential for life in a timely manner, liquid water and wind, by themselves, cannot explain how the mountains are weathered in a timely manner, geologically speaking, in the first place. water cycle https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg You need freezing and expansion and glaciation.,,, Frankly, It is beyond me why anyone would try to argue otherwise. (But then again, your nick name is 'bob and weave' :) ) Without freezing and expansion and glaciation the newly uplifted mountains will obviously weather much less slowly than they do with freezing and expansion and glaciation. The nutrients necessary for life will, obviously, stay locked up in the mountains much longer than they normally would otherwise. And I would argue that such a retardation of the timing in the weathering of newly uplifted mountains would have catastrophic effects on the ability of earth to host life. The papers I have thus far cited back up this basic point up, Hugh Ross has many more papers listed in chapter 15 of his book "Improbable Planet" that further back up this basic point. Whereas you have, thus far, listed no paper to back up your position. But have only stated your personal opinion 'learned at your parents knee' as if that is authoritative. Which is OK, I guess, in so far as that goes since they taught geology, but hardly authoritative as to establishing your rather bizarre claim that liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine without the need for freezing and expansion and glaciation. To establish that claim you need much more than just your personal opinion (no matter how highly you may think of it yourself). You need peer-reviewed scientific evidence! Not to worry though Bob, Allan is to the rescue and has promised to produce 'thousands of papers' that will help you prove your rather bizarre point.,,, :) Personally, I would not hold my breath waiting for those 'thousands of papers'.bornagain77_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 47 - Hm. So, the Cambrian explosiuon was the result of increased weathering? This happened after the "snowball earth" ice age. In other words weathering was higher when there were fewer glaciers.Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 33 -
So water rushing over nutrient rich sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon and UK and then creating valleys out of sedimentary rocks tells us how those nutrient rich sedimentary rocks were formed in the first place? Really???
No, that's not what I was arguing, but if you want to take that line, then go ahead. Sedimentary rocks pre-date the last ice age.
as to: So what glaciers were there in Australia?
The Last Ice Age in Australia ... http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age
That piece you link to kindly explains
Studies of relics of the last Ice Age, particularly in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania have led to a complete revision of the glacial history of these regions, which were the only areas in Australia where glaciers existed.
So at best you get part of the Murray river watershed, but nothing from the Darling.
Apparently you still think that nutrient rich farmland can appear out of nowhere when you go on to state:
And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?
Again, nutrient rich soil just does not ‘randomly’ and magically appear out of nowhere.,,, read the material provided.
several major ice sheets covered the mountains and surrounding regions of the Andes in South America, the Sierra Nevada and Sierra Madre in North America, the Alps and the Caucasus in Europe, Kilimanjaro and the Atlas in Africa, the Japanese Alps, the Altai and the Tien Shan in Central Asia, the Zagros in Western Asia, Taiwan, and the mountainous regions of New Guinea. https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

So the only glaciers in Africa were in the Atlas mountains and on Kilimanjaro. Neither of which are part of the catchment areas of the Congo or Nile, so can't explain the geography of those two rivers. So, um, try again?Bob O'H_{April 13, 2018
April
04
Apr
13
13
2018
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

AK, if you are going to defend a point with 'thousands of papers', it is good to know exactly what you are trying to defend,,, see post 31
31 Bob O'HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.
How are you coming on those "thousands of papers?"bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next