No, Noah's flood, a reproduction of Gilgamesh's Deluge is/was an account of an event that is marked in the geological record.Chard wrote:No, Noah's flood was a delusion. Rising sea levels are not "global floods" by any means. Also, the dates are completely wrong for post-ice age sea level rise eleven millenia ago to coincide with King Gilgamesh, since his reign over Uruk happened around 2500BC.Outlaw Yogi wrote:But it was enough to cause 3 global floods ; 17,000 years ago, 14,000 years ago, and then again 11,600 years ago. You may know the last one as Noah's flood or King Gilgamesh's deluge.
The legendary tale(s) is/are no doubt embelished, but the 3 global floods since the last glacial maximum (21,000 to 18,000 years ago) are recorded in rock strata ect.
Rising sea levels, induced by increased global temps, are only one factor, with consequences of their own, like aquifer and ground salinity due to saline invasion. Some people realise vast areas of cropping lands will become salt pans, but not many realise salt dissolves bricks and cement. So entire cities are going to fall down on a global scale as the salt causes walls and foundations to crumble.
The floods are two fold. First there are less storms in frequency as clouds become more absorbent and hold water for longer, thus more drought and increased intensity of storms when it finally does rain.
Rising sea levels by themselves are indeed floods by themself. Numerous times in Earth's distant past sea levels have been much higher than they are now. This is why you can find sea shells in sand stone 500 metres above sea level in areas unaffected by seismic uplift.
During the last ice age oceans were 120 metres lower than now, making it easy for people and animals to migrate around the planet.
I did some calculations in the mid 2000s and worked out there's enough frozen water to raise sea levels by 97 metres. Then did a conservative prognostication of 80 metres to compare with topographical maps, just to see how far inland and up river system sea water would intrude.
I have also looked into the speed at which these global flooding events occur and noticed it was generally about 5 times faster than our current so called experts are predicting.
If that makes me a doomsayer, so be it, but at least I'll be more prepared than the average Joe. And the naysayers will not be welcome on my mountain. Infact I'll probably eat them.
Outlaw Yogi wrote:Personally, in with regards to GHGs I'd be paying more attention to CH4 and NO2 ... and investigating what impacts Precession of the Equinoxes has impacted climate alterations in the past.
CH4 and NO2 don't have to be released in any where near the volumes as CO2 because they are so much more potent GHGs.Chard wrote:Neither CH4 or NO2 or even SO2 are produced in anywhere near the amounts that CO2 is produced by natural or man-made sources.
CH4 is 24 times more heat holding/trapping than CO2, and NO2 is ten time more heat holding/trapping than CH4. Thus 240 time more potent than CO2.
So we have veg nazis blaming the beef industry for (supposedly CH4 induced) global warming but it's miniscule compared to the volumes of the far more potent NO2 released by agriculture every time a farmer fertilizes their crops.
Years ago a veg nazi who used to be a PA member blamed cows for global warming. I did the sums (2007 figures). Domestic and wild cattle release 20mT of CH4 annually. Multiply by 10 for CO2 equivalent equals 240mT CO2. Coal fired power stations alone release 4700mt CO2.
Then veg nazis claimed beef production polluted more in green house gas terms than transport. Again I did the sums. An English or European car pollutes 11 more than a cow, an Australian car pollutes 12 times more than a cow, and an American car pollutes 13 times more than a cow.
Nothing they say stacks up when scrutinised.
I could bang on about this till the planet boils over, but couldn't be bothered anymore. The point is most of you will be homeless or drown without a boat in the next few decades, and I'm not prepared to share my high ground with you.
