We have here two basically opposing world-views, one called Materialism and one loosely called Deism. Materialism, most simply put, says that no miracles occur. At all.
Here is the first error: Pretending that there are two EQUAL world-views. In fact, both have to start with materialism (This defines what is natural), and theists like to think that supernatural things occur on top of this. The fact that no supernatural occurance has ever been observed casts considerable doubt on this.
It turns out that we're in miracle territory anyway, since chemical evolution requires either a miracle of structure, or a miraculously high number of chemical interactions between the roughly 10^81 atoms in our universe during the roughly 10^18 seconds it may have existed in order to form even relatively simple organic molecules, the precursors to proteins.
The thing is, I've personally gone through this and shown you to be wrong on this before. Why then do you keep repeating it?
Just tell me how the wildly oversimplified calculations preferred by creationists apply to this.
As far as the anthropic principle goes, you have this wrong as well. The probablility of us observing a universe suited to life is exactly 1 - unless we lived in a 'supernatural' universe, in which case there is no requirement that the rest of the universe has the same rules.
People will inevitable go on and argue that supernatural intervention renders science impossible, but that's mere rhetorical twaddle.
Actually, the presumption of no supernatural intervention is the basis of our entire society, and a significant improvement on the thousands of years of superstition based thinking.
Well, if you want a really practical fuel, don't ferment it, but directly process it into methanol using off-peak power from the fleet of nuclear reactors you've built to make the electric grid greenhouse gas free. You can throw any waste cardboard, wood, vegtable matter, paper, et. al into the same process as well. So your landfill turns into feedstock.
This probably wouldn't cover all fuel needs, but it would do a big chunk. And it would probably work out cheaper than the way we do things now, which is always handy.
Have you ever heard of Changing world technologies and their plans to convert garbage into crude oil? I've been following this one for about 2 years, and I think it's the "real deal". It's still in its infancy, but it's viable in many places now, today!
It's interesting, but not as much as it's cracked up to be (essentially, it cannot do the carbohydrate->oil conversion). For the disposal of hydrocarbon based wastes (animal fats, used types, cooking oil, etc) it appears quite useful and effective. Bear in mind that the amount of oil used to generate these wastes in the first place exceeds the amount that comes out of the plant at the end; it's recycling rather than making.
Wow even NASA is trying to lie to get additional funding from who, what?
This is what gets me. Given the nature of the current US administration, surely if NASA wanted to get more funding it would publish reports skeptical of global warming. Indeed, GW denial seems far more personally profitable nowadays than scientific research - just ask messers Critchon and Lomborg.
Well, if you look at the graph of temperatures, then there is indeed a warming trend between 1900 and 1950 that comes before human GHG emissions would be expected to have caused any effect; but the warming post-1980 is far greater than what would be predicted by the 'sunspot-only' model. Indeed, if all natural forcings are used, then we should have seen a very slight drop in temperatures over this period. Climate modellers do indeed look at external influences.
I had a look at the page you showed, and according to them they are considering solar activity and other "forcing conditions." Interesting term...
It's a standard one. And deviation in radiation flux from normal (baseline) is a forcing. So increased solar influx is a positive forcing, increased CO2 is a positive forcing, sulphate aerosols are a negative forcing, etc cetera. Furthermore these forcings are measurable - so, for instance, up until circa 1980 models with solar and aerosol forcings alone match the record pretty well, but over the last 25 years it is impossable to match observations and models without including GHG forcings.
The reason for model dependancy on CO2 is that it is the single largest change in forcing. That's not political, it's established science.
I guess basically scientist are getting these huge numbers by taking more accurate, recent data and using assumptions on how things evolve and decay to extrapolate the much older dates.
No, they use other radiometric dating systems. If you can't be bothered to research and learn the basics of this - and I would try to avoid using creationist sites in this - then you can hardly go around questioning it.
Everyone should do some real research on carbon dating.
Me, I just rely on what I learned at university.
Carbon dating has a practical upper limit of 100,000 or so years using the very latest techniques; the older the result, the more recent this limit. For objects less than 500 or so years old, the cource of carbon has to be carefully considered (i.e. deep sea water can date up to 1000 years older than the surface, since it's been that long since it was in equlibrium with the atmosphere).
So, if we date anything over 100,000 years old, we will get an anomlous date (from background radiation); anything younger than 1000 or so years is also in danger from this.
For dates older than 100,000 years or so, a variety of other methods are used.
Actually, you've got it the opposite way around; if we choose to bury rather than recycle our nuclear waste (only a tiny fraction actually needs disposal), then putting it in boreholes in subduction zones, where the crust is being returned to the mantle, would be the way.
Some would come out of volcanoes around 10 million years hence, but it would have decayed by then.
So I'm supposed to trust the credibility when the very first post immediately violates the sites stated policy by presupposing a conclusion.
How is it 'presupposing a conclusion'? It is a simple fact that the idea of an approaching ice age in the 1970s - when climate science was very much in it's infancy - was based on a couple of papers which were picked up on and publicised by the mainstream media. It was never 'mainstream'.
A lot of scientific theories have been very popular and well accepted for quite a while before they are disproven. Epicycles. The aether. Phlogiston. Eugenics. Cold fusion. The coming ice age in the 70's.
Epicycles can hardly be called scientific. The Aether and Phlogiston theories agreed pretty well with the measurements made at the time - but were discarded in the light of new evidence, despite the presumed damage to tenure etc. Cold fusion was never generally accepted, and neither was a 'coming ice age'. I'd choose your examples - should you have any - a bit more carefully.
On the one hand, climatologists would like to tell the truth.
So they are all liars? Are you seriously suggesting that a fairly large section of the scientific community is engaging in self-censorship? And if so, some proof would be nice. And, of course, proof that any researcher who 'cried wolf' would not get a load of funding from Exxon et. al.
So there is a huge incentive to interpret ambiguous data in such a way as to keep the global warming in the news
Ok.. some examples of climate researchers (not journalists) doing this would be nice. Otherwise it would look like you are just making things up to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
The data is very noisy and ambiguous.
That's simply not true. There is a very clear signature in all of the data starting circa 1980; the natural forcings cannot acount for this.
Well, this is true. The position that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate is an extradorinary claim, and demonstrating it would require extradordinary evidence. The claim that there is a great conspiricy to suppress such evidence - which is implicit in your post - also requires extradordinary evidence, of which you have given none.
Well, an electric car apparently does about 0.4 kWh to the mile. Assuming an effective 2 square meters solar cells, with an average 100W/square meter over 8 hours gives 0.2x8, or 1.6 kWh. So in a good case, you could drive 4 miles a day without recharging. Certainly whilst driving on a sunny day, the solar cells may give enough to power the air-con.
Not brilliant, but better than a hydrogen powered car (leave it for a week in the sun and the fuel evaporates..)
Breeder reactors actually produce a mixture of Pu-239 and Pu-240, which cannot be used for a bomb. It is of course a common fallicy to forget this. And, of course, Uranium is not enriched to weapons grade for reactor use.
Given your opposition to either using weapons grade plutonium in reactors or burying it, what exactly do you suggest we do with it?
The big money goal, if we're allowed to be futuristic, is to use biotech to allow chicken breast meat to be grown in vats.
These would have to be sterile to start with, and engineered to avoid the need for too many hormones; hence the result should be far more '(nasty)chemical free' than battery chicken.
It would also be more vegan than crop plants, since wild animals have to be killed to protect crops, but obviously not to grow meat in vats.
It's a pipe dream at the moment... but if we are ever going to give 9 Billion people the standard of living enjoyed by the west today, it is essential.
I took the liberty of creating a link for a Google search for you, since you're too busy trolling to do it yourself.
Your claim was that 'The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, for instance, launched more stuff into the atmosphere than all human activity during the 19th and 20th centuries combined.'. Even at a subset, that means you are claiming that the eruption put more CO2, SO2, Nitrogen oxides and particulates into the atmosphere than all human activities for the past 200 years. You've made an absurd claim that you can't back up in a couple of sentances, which looks a lot more like trolling than my post.
Mt. Pinatubo put around 17 Million tonnes of Sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere (17Tg). Humans emit 66Tg PER YEAR. However, volcanic emissions are injected higher than human ones, making the contribution for a single year approxamately equal.
Mt Pinatubo put around 44 Million tonnes CO2 into the atmosphere. That's around half a day's worth of human emissions. 3 Million tonnes HCl, the vast majority of which rained straight out.
And the effect was a short lived pulse of cooling; the particulates come out in a few months. This is why you don't see anything about longer term effects. There are none.
So, contrary to what is endlessly repeated and recycled, volcanoes do not have anything near the impact of humans and the figures - could you be bothered to research them - support this entirely.
First of all, the earth is coming out of an ice age. In geologic terms, the ice ages were yesterday, and the day before it was hot and sunny. Right now, we're in spring after the ice age, and it's hard to predict if we've reached summer or not, but we know it's not as hot as it was before the winter.
You could find the answers to this yourself with a little web research, c.f.: this. Peak temperatures were reached over 5000 years ago.
We haven't been observing long enough to be able to make any conclusion about what's going on in geological terms.
Only, of course, if you exclude all of the isotopic data, tree ring data, pollen data, etc, etc.
Scientists are mixed on how much the contribution matters, and not long ago, were predicting that there would be ice ages (the theory before global warming).
References, please. This particular piece of fiction is based on a couple of pop-science articles, but that dosen't seem to stop people echoing it repeatedly.
But, and this is important, global warming fails the science test. An increase in 0.5 degrees, average, over the last 100 years is frightening, but doing the same measurement in the 1930s reveals a net cooling effect! What gives?
Given that the human influence on Atmospheric CO2 levels was negligable in the 1930s, compared to today, this argument makes no sense. We would not expect to see global warming that long ago - indeed, if the temperature have been steadily rising since 1800 or so, then global warming would be disproven.
It is the strong departure of the global temperature trend from that predicted by solar/particulate forcing alone since 1980 or so that demonstrates global warming.
Global warming, as far as science is concerned, is bunk -- just like acid rain, second hand smoke, and nuclear winter.
Global warming and acid rain have been observed; they are hardly 'bunk'. The effects of second hand smoke are far more cloudy (sic.). And the cooling effect of the particulates released by several thousand nuclear detonations is, I suspect, less significant than the blast, radiation, firestorms and contamination..
The entire problem in the US stems from the fact that the government wanted cheap reliable fuel and saw nuclear power as the solution to it.
Your very use of a computer tends to indicate that you enjoy living in a society based on cheap, reliable power. And that power has to be generated one way or another; there is no impact-free way of getting it.
Among the consessions they made to get companies to build these hugely expensive power generators (beyond the obvious subsidy's) is that the government would take the waste that was produced and dispose of it.
Nuclear plants have the lowest operating cost per kWh of any major power source (apart from hydropower, but all the bast sites are already in use). Waste disposal is a political problem more than anything.
If you were to have a train derail or a vehicle hit and turn over the boxcar holding the waste, you could have a huge spill in a highly populated area.
No, you wouldn't. You do realise that the containers have been tested in collisions with concrete walls at over 100mph? It's not just loaded into boxcars.
Secondary, there is no way to guarentee that you won't have some of the radiated water from yucca seep into the ground water.
This is why they do all the research. It has also to be mentioned that there would be a lot of dilution and adsorbtion along the way, even in the worst case. As far as earthquakes go, the site is built into bedrock and hence will feel only minor shaking.
Out of interest, do you think that coal, oil and natural gas are non-polluting?
Greenland dumped over 200m of ice on the famous "frozen squadron" of WW2 planes in less than 50 years, equals more than 4m a year in relatively boring conditions, also on a continent which definitely doesn't get 4m a year of preciptation.
Here's a nice experiment you can do at home: Get a block of ice, and a piece of wire weighted at both ends. Drape the wire over the ice with the the ends hanging down. Note how the wire travels through the ice without breaking it. Ice - being less dense than water - demonstrates the counterintuitive property of melting under the pressure of, let's say, a WWII bomber.
You seem to have a relatively quiet Deluge in mind, but again all serious Creationist models postulate events which would tear up and lay down several kilometers of rock and soil in a very short space of time (minutes to weeks), plus very rapid tectonic events.
And raise the surface temperature of the entire planet to several hundred degrees celsius, of course. You forgot to mention that.
Yet conventional geology has no place for the kind of near-historical tectonics which *must* have occurred to produce this residue.
Hmmm. A few tens of meters of movement over a period of a few million years, in an active mountain forming region. Not such a big mystery, really.
Precious few conventional geologists will even question the geological canon lest they be branded Creationist and excommunicated from the profession
I'm not sure what this geological canon is meant to be, given the total transformation of the subject over the past 40 or so years. Of course, crackpot ideas that fail to pass even basic scrutiny are routinely dismissed, but it's the same in any field.
Slashdot Mirror
We have here two basically opposing world-views, one called Materialism and one loosely called Deism. Materialism, most simply put, says that no miracles occur. At all.
Here is the first error: Pretending that there are two EQUAL world-views. In fact, both have to start with materialism (This defines what is natural), and theists like to think that supernatural things occur on top of this. The fact that no supernatural occurance has ever been observed casts considerable doubt on this.
It turns out that we're in miracle territory anyway, since chemical evolution requires either a miracle of structure, or a miraculously high number of chemical interactions between the roughly 10^81 atoms in our universe during the roughly 10^18 seconds it may have existed in order to form even relatively simple organic molecules, the precursors to proteins.
The thing is, I've personally gone through this and shown you to be wrong on this before. Why then do you keep repeating it?
Just tell me how the wildly oversimplified calculations preferred by creationists apply to this.
As far as the anthropic principle goes, you have this wrong as well. The probablility of us observing a universe suited to life is exactly 1 - unless we lived in a 'supernatural' universe, in which case there is no requirement that the rest of the universe has the same rules.
People will inevitable go on and argue that supernatural intervention renders science impossible, but that's mere rhetorical twaddle.
Actually, the presumption of no supernatural intervention is the basis of our entire society, and a significant improvement on the thousands of years of superstition based thinking.
Well, if you want a really practical fuel, don't ferment it, but directly process it into methanol using off-peak power from the fleet of nuclear reactors you've built to make the electric grid greenhouse gas free. You can throw any waste cardboard, wood, vegtable matter, paper, et. al into the same process as well. So your landfill turns into feedstock.
This probably wouldn't cover all fuel needs, but it would do a big chunk. And it would probably work out cheaper than the way we do things now, which is always handy.
Forgive my inexperience, but how does anyone get the Suicide Bomber class past level 1?
In which case, following the French model and using Nuclear power for processing and producing nuclear fuel would be better.
Have you ever heard of Changing world technologies and their plans to convert garbage into crude oil? I've been following this one for about 2 years, and I think it's the "real deal". It's still in its infancy, but it's viable in many places now, today!
It's interesting, but not as much as it's cracked up to be (essentially, it cannot do the carbohydrate->oil conversion). For the disposal of hydrocarbon based wastes (animal fats, used types, cooking oil, etc) it appears quite useful and effective. Bear in mind that the amount of oil used to generate these wastes in the first place exceeds the amount that comes out of the plant at the end; it's recycling rather than making.
Wow even NASA is trying to lie to get additional funding from who, what?
This is what gets me. Given the nature of the current US administration, surely if NASA wanted to get more funding it would publish reports skeptical of global warming. Indeed, GW denial seems far more personally profitable nowadays than scientific research - just ask messers Critchon and Lomborg.
Well, if you look at the graph of temperatures, then there is indeed a warming trend between 1900 and 1950 that comes before human GHG emissions would be expected to have caused any effect; but the warming post-1980 is far greater than what would be predicted by the 'sunspot-only' model. Indeed, if all natural forcings are used, then we should have seen a very slight drop in temperatures over this period. Climate modellers do indeed look at external influences.
This was the state of the science in 1950.. I'd suggest you read A HREF="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm"> this.
I had a look at the page you showed, and according to them they are considering solar activity and other "forcing conditions." Interesting term...
It's a standard one. And deviation in radiation flux from normal (baseline) is a forcing. So increased solar influx is a positive forcing, increased CO2 is a positive forcing, sulphate aerosols are a negative forcing, etc cetera. Furthermore these forcings are measurable - so, for instance, up until circa 1980 models with solar and aerosol forcings alone match the record pretty well, but over the last 25 years it is impossable to match observations and models without including GHG forcings.
The reason for model dependancy on CO2 is that it is the single largest change in forcing. That's not political, it's established science.
Or, of course, it wasn't actually wood. Or whatever it was had modern contamination. You can look it up here.
I guess basically scientist are getting these huge numbers by taking more accurate, recent data and using assumptions on how things evolve and decay to extrapolate the much older dates.
No, they use other radiometric dating systems. If you can't be bothered to research and learn the basics of this - and I would try to avoid using creationist sites in this - then you can hardly go around questioning it.
Everyone should do some real research on carbon dating.
Me, I just rely on what I learned at university.
Carbon dating has a practical upper limit of 100,000 or so years using the very latest techniques; the older the result, the more recent this limit. For objects less than 500 or so years old, the cource of carbon has to be carefully considered (i.e. deep sea water can date up to 1000 years older than the surface, since it's been that long since it was in equlibrium with the atmosphere).
So, if we date anything over 100,000 years old, we will get an anomlous date (from background radiation); anything younger than 1000 or so years is also in danger from this.
For dates older than 100,000 years or so, a variety of other methods are used.
Actually, you've got it the opposite way around; if we choose to bury rather than recycle our nuclear waste (only a tiny fraction actually needs disposal), then putting it in boreholes in subduction zones, where the crust is being returned to the mantle, would be the way.
Some would come out of volcanoes around 10 million years hence, but it would have decayed by then.
So I'm supposed to trust the credibility when the very first post immediately violates the sites stated policy by presupposing a conclusion.
How is it 'presupposing a conclusion'? It is a simple fact that the idea of an approaching ice age in the 1970s - when climate science was very much in it's infancy - was based on a couple of papers which were picked up on and publicised by the mainstream media. It was never 'mainstream'.
A lot of scientific theories have been very popular and well accepted for quite a while before they are disproven. Epicycles. The aether. Phlogiston. Eugenics. Cold fusion. The coming ice age in the 70's.
Epicycles can hardly be called scientific. The Aether and Phlogiston theories agreed pretty well with the measurements made at the time - but were discarded in the light of new evidence, despite the presumed damage to tenure etc. Cold fusion was never generally accepted, and neither was a 'coming ice age'. I'd choose your examples - should you have any - a bit more carefully.
On the one hand, climatologists would like to tell the truth.
So they are all liars? Are you seriously suggesting that a fairly large section of the scientific community is engaging in self-censorship? And if so, some proof would be nice. And, of course, proof that any researcher who 'cried wolf' would not get a load of funding from Exxon et. al.
So there is a huge incentive to interpret ambiguous data in such a way as to keep the global warming in the news
Ok.. some examples of climate researchers (not journalists) doing this would be nice. Otherwise it would look like you are just making things up to support the conclusion you've already decided on.
The data is very noisy and ambiguous.
That's simply not true. There is a very clear signature in all of the data starting circa 1980; the natural forcings cannot acount for this.
("Extraordinary results require extranordinary evidence.")
Well, this is true. The position that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate is an extradorinary claim, and demonstrating it would require extradordinary evidence. The claim that there is a great conspiricy to suppress such evidence - which is implicit in your post - also requires extradordinary evidence, of which you have given none.
Well, an electric car apparently does about 0.4 kWh to the mile. Assuming an effective 2 square meters solar cells, with an average 100W/square meter over 8 hours gives 0.2x8, or 1.6 kWh. So in a good case, you could drive 4 miles a day without recharging. Certainly whilst driving on a sunny day, the solar cells may give enough to power the air-con.
Not brilliant, but better than a hydrogen powered car (leave it for a week in the sun and the fuel evaporates..)
Breeder reactors actually produce a mixture of Pu-239 and Pu-240, which cannot be used for a bomb. It is of course a common fallicy to forget this. And, of course, Uranium is not enriched to weapons grade for reactor use.
Given your opposition to either using weapons grade plutonium in reactors or burying it, what exactly do you suggest we do with it?
The big money goal, if we're allowed to be futuristic, is to use biotech to allow chicken breast meat to be grown in vats.
These would have to be sterile to start with, and engineered to avoid the need for too many hormones; hence the result should be far more '(nasty)chemical free' than battery chicken.
It would also be more vegan than crop plants, since wild animals have to be killed to protect crops, but obviously not to grow meat in vats.
It's a pipe dream at the moment... but if we are ever going to give 9 Billion people the standard of living enjoyed by the west today, it is essential.
Given that you called me a troll , it's fair enough for me to assume that you agreed with the original poster...
I took the liberty of creating a link for a Google search for you, since you're too busy trolling to do it yourself.
Your claim was that 'The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, for instance, launched more stuff into the atmosphere than all human activity during the 19th and 20th centuries combined.' . Even at a subset, that means you are claiming that the eruption put more CO2, SO2, Nitrogen oxides and particulates into the atmosphere than all human activities for the past 200 years. You've made an absurd claim that you can't back up in a couple of sentances, which looks a lot more like trolling than my post.
A good starting point..
Mt. Pinatubo put around 17 Million tonnes of Sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere (17Tg). Humans emit 66Tg PER YEAR. However, volcanic emissions are injected higher than human ones, making the contribution for a single year approxamately equal.
Mt Pinatubo put around 44 Million tonnes CO2 into the atmosphere. That's around half a day's worth of human emissions. 3 Million tonnes HCl, the vast majority of which rained straight out.
And the effect was a short lived pulse of cooling; the particulates come out in a few months. This is why you don't see anything about longer term effects. There are none.
So, contrary to what is endlessly repeated and recycled, volcanoes do not have anything near the impact of humans and the figures - could you be bothered to research them - support this entirely.
First of all, the earth is coming out of an ice age. In geologic terms, the ice ages were yesterday, and the day before it was hot and sunny. Right now, we're in spring after the ice age, and it's hard to predict if we've reached summer or not, but we know it's not as hot as it was before the winter.
You could find the answers to this yourself with a little web research, c.f.: this. Peak temperatures were reached over 5000 years ago.
We haven't been observing long enough to be able to make any conclusion about what's going on in geological terms.
Only, of course, if you exclude all of the isotopic data, tree ring data, pollen data, etc, etc.
Scientists are mixed on how much the contribution matters, and not long ago, were predicting that there would be ice ages (the theory before global warming).
References, please. This particular piece of fiction is based on a couple of pop-science articles, but that dosen't seem to stop people echoing it repeatedly.
But, and this is important, global warming fails the science test. An increase in 0.5 degrees, average, over the last 100 years is frightening, but doing the same measurement in the 1930s reveals a net cooling effect! What gives?
Given that the human influence on Atmospheric CO2 levels was negligable in the 1930s, compared to today, this argument makes no sense. We would not expect to see global warming that long ago - indeed, if the temperature have been steadily rising since 1800 or so, then global warming would be disproven.
It is the strong departure of the global temperature trend from that predicted by solar/particulate forcing alone since 1980 or so that demonstrates global warming.
Global warming, as far as science is concerned, is bunk -- just like acid rain, second hand smoke, and nuclear winter.
Global warming and acid rain have been observed; they are hardly 'bunk'. The effects of second hand smoke are far more cloudy (sic.). And the cooling effect of the particulates released by several thousand nuclear detonations is, I suspect, less significant than the blast, radiation, firestorms and contamination..
Do you have any numbers to back that up? (Answer: No, but that's not going to stop you posting, of course)
The entire problem in the US stems from the fact that the government wanted cheap reliable fuel and saw nuclear power as the solution to it.
Your very use of a computer tends to indicate that you enjoy living in a society based on cheap, reliable power. And that power has to be generated one way or another; there is no impact-free way of getting it.
Among the consessions they made to get companies to build these hugely expensive power generators (beyond the obvious subsidy's) is that the government would take the waste that was produced and dispose of it.
Nuclear plants have the lowest operating cost per kWh of any major power source (apart from hydropower, but all the bast sites are already in use). Waste disposal is a political problem more than anything.
If you were to have a train derail or a vehicle hit and turn over the boxcar holding the waste, you could have a huge spill in a highly populated area.
No, you wouldn't. You do realise that the containers have been tested in collisions with concrete walls at over 100mph? It's not just loaded into boxcars.
Secondary, there is no way to guarentee that you won't have some of the radiated water from yucca seep into the ground water.
This is why they do all the research. It has also to be mentioned that there would be a lot of dilution and adsorbtion along the way, even in the worst case. As far as earthquakes go, the site is built into bedrock and hence will feel only minor shaking.
Out of interest, do you think that coal, oil and natural gas are non-polluting?
Greenland dumped over 200m of ice on the famous "frozen squadron" of WW2 planes in less than 50 years, equals more than 4m a year in relatively boring conditions, also on a continent which definitely doesn't get 4m a year of preciptation.
Here's a nice experiment you can do at home: Get a block of ice, and a piece of wire weighted at both ends. Drape the wire over the ice with the the ends hanging down. Note how the wire travels through the ice without breaking it. Ice - being less dense than water - demonstrates the counterintuitive property of melting under the pressure of, let's say, a WWII bomber.
You seem to have a relatively quiet Deluge in mind, but again all serious Creationist models postulate events which would tear up and lay down several kilometers of rock and soil in a very short space of time (minutes to weeks), plus very rapid tectonic events.
And raise the surface temperature of the entire planet to several hundred degrees celsius, of course. You forgot to mention that.
Yet conventional geology has no place for the kind of near-historical tectonics which *must* have occurred to produce this residue.
Hmmm. A few tens of meters of movement over a period of a few million years, in an active mountain forming region. Not such a big mystery, really.
Precious few conventional geologists will even question the geological canon lest they be branded Creationist and excommunicated from the profession
I'm not sure what this geological canon is meant to be, given the total transformation of the subject over the past 40 or so years. Of course, crackpot ideas that fail to pass even basic scrutiny are routinely dismissed, but it's the same in any field.