My interest in that issue stems from my first paper in the Creation
Research Society Quarterly, in Dec. 1979 entitled "Can the Canopy Hold
Water." In that I used a simplifed atmospheric heat exchange technique
which showed that the surface temperature of the preflood world with a
water vapor canopy would be too hot for life. I performed all the
calculations on a 4 function nonprogrammable Rockwell calculator (this was
before the days of home computers).
Anyway, after the article was published, I had some people send me tracts
on how to become a christian. I guess they thought you couldn't be a
Christian if you didn't believe in the vapor canopy. Jody Dillow wrote
several articles which criticized the work. But finally after 11 years, I
finally got the acknowledgement from ICR itself that my conclusion (if not
my calculated temperature) was correct. A vapor canopy of any substance,
would produce a surface temperature on the earth which is far too high to
allow for life. Vardiman and Rush, both at the time with ICR wrote:
"Morton(1979) was apparently the first to conclude that the canopy would
have made the earth's surface too hot for human habitation (Kofahl did not
calculate surface temperatures). Morton made a number of assumptions that
greatly simplified the problem, and his surface temperatures are much
higher than ours, but the general conclusion is the same: Life as we know
it would not have been possible under a conopy of 1013 mb (1 atm), nor even
with a canopy of only 50 mb. When other features such as clouds are added
to the model, this conclusion could be modified greatly, however.
Preliminary explorations with cloud layers at the top of the 50 mb canopy
have shown significant radiation effects which lower the surface
temperature drastically. Unfortunately, while the surface temperature
decreases when clouds are added, so does the temperature of the canopy,
reducing its stability." ~ David E. Rush and Larry Vardiman, "Pre-Flood
Vapor Canopy Radiative Temperature Profiles," in Robert E. Walsh, and
Christopher L. Brooks, Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), p. 238
In the new Proceedings, my eye caught Vardiman's article. He is still
trying to explain the vapor canopy and he is continuing to fail, which is
consistent with my conclusion 19 years ago (I really can't believe that it
has been that long). Vardiman postulates a water vapor canopy with the most
water compatible with temperature which allows life. He then plays around
with five parameters in a 1-d numerical model of the atmosphere with the
view to find a way around the temperature problem. These parameters are
albedo, cloud cover, solar constant, solar zenith angle and cloud
thickness/ base height. He concludes,
"Surface temperatures were most strongly affected by changes in the solar
constant. A 50% reduction in the solar constant reduced the surface
temperature under the canopy from 335K to 240K. The albedo, solar zenith
angle, and cirrus cloud thickness also produced strong effects on the
surface temperature. However, none of the effects was so dramatic that the
concern over limitations on water content in the canopy by hot surface
temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were introduced into
the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized,
it is estimated that the water content of the canopy could possibly be
raised to as much as 1.0 meter. This is less than 10% of the water content
suggested by Dillow. Unfortunately, this amount of water in a canopy would
not contribute significantly to the waters of the Genesis Flood or produce
significant pressure and density effects. However, it would produce large
differences in temperature, atmsopheric stability, cloud formation, and
precipitation from that experienced today."
"Although this result is disappointing for advocates of a vapor canopy,
the story may not yet be complete. it is possible that the high albedo
produced at the top of a cloud layer in the cnopy may reduce the flux of
radiation into the canopy and atmosphere greatly reducing the heating. This
effect was not included in the simulations of this paper." ~ Larry
Vardiman "Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles,"
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburg:
Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp 607-618, p. 616
He then gives recommendations for future research including what he
suggested above and the incorporation of 3d global climate models. He then
writes:
"If these efforts fail to permit a sizeable quantity of water to be
maintained in the canopy, then consideration should be given to exploring
canopies in orbits above the atmosphere where thermodynamic considerations
do not constrain the quantity of water" ~ Larry Vardiman "Sensitivity
Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles," Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburg: Creation Science
Fellowship, 1998), pp 607-618, p. 616
This is an excellent example of the tendency for young-earth creationists
to believe their interpretation of scripture rather than any data which
contradicts it. Several things are wrong with Vardiman's suggestion. 1.
water in orbit has enough kinetic and potential energy to vaporize it as it
falls to earth. Showering the ark with scalding water and steam is not a
way to ensure Noah's survival. 2. Thermodynamic conditions would cause the
water to sublimate . In other words, sunlight striking the water would
make it act like a comet with gaseous emissions of considerable volume
being sent into space. 3. It couldn't be a canopy since a shell in orbit is
not stable in the polar directions. The slightest imbalance in a shell in
orbit would cause it to crash into the earth. 4. The water vapor canopy
would have to be reduced to a ring.
But Vardiman didn't do the simplest calculation to test the suggestion he
just made. Vardiman should look at another item I published in the Quarterly:
Morton, G. R. (1980). Objections to an Ice Canopy. Creation Research
Society Quarterly. 17:138.
Unfortunately, the vapor canopy is so ingrained in ICR's dogma, that it
cannot see that it is totally useless as an apologetic. Yet inspite of now
8 years of hard work by Vardiman showing that the canopy is not a viable
explanation, ICR continues to assert that the bible teaches a vapor
canopy. Why do good christians tie the infallible word of God to a science
that is false?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm