I guess with Climate change enlightenment was fun while it lasted. But now it’s dead (George Monbiot) there’s not much for those modelers and supercomputers at NCAR to do. So why not model parting the Red Sea? Beats making golden calves I suppose.
From the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Parting the waters: Computer modeling applies physics to Red Sea escape route
BOULDER—The biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea has inspired and mystified people for millennia. A new computer modeling study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) shows how the movement of wind as described in the book of Exodus could have parted the waters.
The computer simulations show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea. With the water pushed back into both waterways, a land bridge would have opened at the bend, enabling people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety. As soon as the wind died down, the waters would have rushed back in.
The study is intended to present a possible scenario of events that are said to have taken place more than 3,000 years ago, although experts are uncertain whether they actually occurred. The research was based on a reconstruction of the likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably over time.
“The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus,” says Carl Drews of NCAR, the lead author. “The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that’s in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in.”
The study is part of a larger research project by Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges. By pinpointing a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the crossing, the study also could be of benefit to experts seeking to research whether such an event ever took place. Archeologists and Egyptologists have found little direct evidence to substantiate many of the events described in Exodus.
The work, published in the online journal, PLoS ONE, arose out of Drews’ master’s thesis in atmospheric and oceanic sciences at CU. The computing time and other resources were supported by the National Science Foundation.
Wind on the water
The Exodus account describes Moses and the fleeing Israelites trapped between the Pharaoh’s advancing chariots and a body of water that has been variously translated as the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. In a divine miracle, the account continues, a mighty east wind blows all night, splitting the waters and leaving a passage of dry land with walls of water on both sides. The Israelites are able to flee to the other shore. But when the Pharaoh’s army attempts to pursue them in the morning, the waters rush back and drown the soldiers.
Scientists from time to time have tried to study whether the parting of the waters, one of the famous miracles in the Bible, can also be understood through natural processes. Some have speculated about a tsunami, which would have caused waters to retreat and advance rapidly. But such an event would not have caused the gradual overnight divide of the waters as described in the Bible, nor would it necessarily have been associated with winds.
Other researchers have focused on a phenomenon known as “wind setdown,” in which a particularly strong and persistent wind can lower water levels in one area while piling up water downwind. Wind setdowns, which are the opposite of storm surges, have been widely documented, including an event in the Nile delta in the 19th century when a powerful wind pushed away about five feet of water and exposed dry land.
A previous computer modeling study into the Red Sea crossing by a pair of Russian researchers, Naum Voltzinger and Alexei Androsov, found that winds blowing from the northwest at minimal hurricane force (74 miles per hour) could, in theory, have exposed an underwater reef near the modern-day Suez Canal. This would have enabled people to walk across. The Russian study built on earlier work by oceanographers Doron Nof of Florida State University and Nathan Paldor of Hebrew University of Jerusalem that looked at the possible role of wind setdown.
The new study, by Drews and CU oceanographer Weiqing Han, found that a reef would have had to be entirely flat for the water to drain off in 12 hours. A more realistic reef with lower and deeper sections would have retained channels that would have been difficult to wade through. In addition, Drews and Han were skeptical that refugees could have crossed during nearly hurricane-force winds.
Reconstructing ancient topography
Studying maps of the ancient topography of the Nile delta, the researchers found an alternative site for the crossing about 75 miles north of the Suez reef and just south of the Mediterranean Sea. Although there are uncertainties about the waterways of the time, some oceanographers believe that an ancient branch of the Nile River flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis. The two waterways would have come together to form a U-shaped curve.
An extensive analysis of archeological records, satellite measurements, and current-day maps enabled the research team to estimate the water flow and depth that may have existed 3,000 years ago. Drews and Han then used a specialized ocean computer model to simulate the impact of an overnight wind at that site.
They found that a wind of 63 miles an hour, lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be six feet deep. This would have exposed mud flats for four hours, creating a dry passage about 2 to 2.5 miles long and 3 miles wide. The water would be pushed back into both the lake and the channel of the river, creating barriers of water on both sides of newly exposed mud flats.
As soon as the winds stopped, the waters would come rushing back, much like a tidal bore. Anyone still on the mud flats would be at risk of drowning.
The set of 14 computer model simulations also showed that dry land could have been exposed in two nearby sites during a windstorm from the east. However, those sites contained only a single body of water and the wind would have pushed the water to one side rather than creating a dry passage through two areas of water.
“People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts,” Drews says. “What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws.”
================================================
Now, if we can just get them to turn their attention to the more recent portion of the Holocene, say 1000 years ago to present, we might be able to get another good movie line out of it:
Let the name of Mann be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of AGW. Let the name of Mann be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
——–
Janice,
Indeed, and to a non-scientific & uncritical civilization all of nature will appear as magic. In our current civilization you get a lot of that.
Homo sapiens clearly loves fictional stories! Religion has that aspect of good entertainment valued fictional stories, independent of the epistemological question of all the faith/supra-naturalism/superstition.
Victor Hugo said something to the effect that non-fiction has the capacity to tell us what is but fiction can tell us what ought to be. Wasn’t it he who also said if he couldn’t write fiction then he would throw away his pen?
John
As others have pointed out, accusing these folks of violating the modern doctrine of “separation of church and state” (nowhere in the Constitution) is a ridiculous red herring.
While the charge that they are wasting taxpayers’ money on idle pursuits has more credibility, in point of fact these scientists are officially tasked with studying the physics of wind and waves, which is certainly a legitimate scientific pursuit. It is not unreasonable to allow scientists in a particular field the scope to devise tests of data collection, models, hypotheses, etc., and if these actually contribute to an interesting historical question, so much the merrier. I can’t fault them for that.
What we ought to consider is whether and to what extent the Federal government ought to be funding scientific research at all, and if so, what kinds and under what circumstances. Congressmen and the press have a lot of fun with research grants for outlandish-sounding topics, like “frog digestion” or “fruitfly coloration”, but I would assume most readers here know that basic research in any number of fields often looks completely irrelevant and impractical—if not inscrutable—to the lay public.
Nevertheless, it was not very long ago that research of almost all kinds (except perhaps for public health and warfare) was undertaken by private entities, whether industry, foundations, universities, or tinkerers in their garages, and not by government. Arguably that is impossible today. But it is not altogether impossible, and it may be that it is time to draw some lines, if for no other reason than (as we have seen with ‘climate science’) government sponsorship can, and often does, introduce an unwelcome ‘results bias’.
/Mr Lynn
OT I know, but I found this funny
http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/3297-oregano-reduces-cows-methane-emissions-by-40
Appears Penn State has found a way to reduce its production of hot air..
Well if you want to get nitpicky; there’s nowhere in the Constitution where the federal Government or the Congress have any authority with regard to any schools public or private.
Schools after all, were one of the three or so things that early settlers needed to provide on a community basis whenever they set up small communities; and what they taught in those schools (farmer Joe’s Daughter as school marm) was whatever that group of settlers thought it was appropriate for their kids to learn. The other two issues were of course organizing a bucket brigade for whenever someone’s barn caught fire; and the other was to empower a local sheriff to keep order.
Nowadays of course, Police and fire protection and local schooling are the last things that governments fund. Only after they satisfy the needs of the special interests of the folks that put them in power do they even think about the original reasons for having local governments in the first place.
The Federal Government is supposed to first of all take care of defense (of the United States); and the Congress is authorised to lay and collect taxes for that purpose; and also to pay the debts of the United States; well they also are to provide for the general welfare of the United States; which is that Political entity that is head quartered in Washington DC. Nowhere does it empower them to take care of the welfare of every Tom Dick and Harry; just that Federal Government which was one of the three parties to that original Constitution. (the others being “we” the people, and the several sovereign States of the Union.)
Congress doesn’t have any taxing authority for anything else. Well they do an end run around the Constitution by funding everything that comes to their idle minds with deficit spending;l which then makes those costs a part of the Debts of the United States; which the Congress is then authorised to lay and collect taxes for.
I’m not sure; but I believe you will find enabling wording to that effect somewhere in Article I Section 8; it should be in the first clause there somewhere.
The socialists of course like to cite the preamble to the Constitution where the words “of the United States” are omitted; so they claim that is their authority to give handouts to anybody who will vote to keep them in power.
So I will leave it up to you Constitutional lawyers to cite the most recent case; or any case for that matter, where the Supreme Court cited the Preamble to the Constitution as the enabling authority for any decision they handed down. So far as I know it has never happened. The first words in the Constitution of the United States are :- “Article I , section 1 …. ” NOT “We the People”; that’s just what is written on the library card that tells you what the Constitution is for (to define the federal Government structure, and cede certain powers to it; “in order to form a more perfect union…”)
But then all you citizens know that already, much better than I do.
This was on ABC World News tonight, they were talking with Drews. It was said there would be ankle deep mud.
Four hours to cross just over two miles, but with near hurricane force winds and ankle deep mud… And large quantities of heavily armed soldiers who would kill you if you didn’t escape. Yup, sounds possible. Well, the survivors reported it was possible…
Did I forget to mention that my Grandma was wearing very little in the way of costuming? Back in the 20’s, movies were made without the censor police. The hot California Sun burned her in places that had never seen the light of day. And she was a red headed, fair skinned Irish woman, 5 ft 2, with flashing blue eyes and a temper to match. Add a sunburn in sensitive areas and you have ignition!
There’s no violation of separation of church and state here. I saw not one sentence promoting any given religion. The bible is an historical documented. Fragmented, interpreted and reinterpreted, out of order, possibly a blend of mythos and legend from multiple sources, some exagerated and some very possibly just a story for the purpose of illustrasting a point, but still a collection of events which by and large have some foundation for having occurred. Examining, as a minor part of a larger study, if a scientific explanation for the events of the bible is possible, is interesting and has merit.
Consider that the Hebrews supposedly left Egypt and settled in the “land of milk and honey”. Sounds like a verdant paradise. But Israel today would be mostly desert if not for massive irrigation projects. So is it not worth asking the question, is there historical evidence that can correlate the roots of the story with an accurate timeline? If so, what caused the area to become desert instead of the “land of milk and honey”? The point here is that you can’t blame CO2 emissions for the change. Was the planet cooler or warmer then than now? If cooler, it warmed up considerably over a few thousand years without serious CO2 emissions to drive it. If warmer, it sort of pokes a hole in the notion that a warmer earth will be less productive and have less precipitation (at least in that area).
I think the scientific investigation contributes to knowledge, and the discussion here was very interesting, and I’m glad to see the topic didn’t descend into religious debate. That said, I am reminded of a profound comment on religion I saw 30 years ago scrawled on the wall of a public washroom. With the moderators indulgence:
Jesus Saves
Moses Invests
Wow, I was mistaken, computer models are REAL science. Lord Rees Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society on HARDtalk said/agreed we are close to understand everything in science,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tvssj/HARDtalk_Lord_Rees_Astronomer_Royal_and_President_of_the_Royal_Society/
Modern theory’s are right (for the most part) and future scientists will be needed to hone down the loose ends of those sciences by properly trained university teachers ( no improper teachers, no)making science more interesting for the next generations, instead of wasting time on boring stuff like data gathering we already know! The future of science will be full of exciting new modern computer technologies to adjust and proxie for modeling software with real BIG computers and then …….even BIGGER computers one can only hope!:)
Computer modeling science proves and explains everything when you look at it,
With a adjustment here,
and a doubling there.
Here a hockey,
there a proxie,
Everywhere a grant, grant.
Oh my puter shows alarm, UN, EU owe!
Or modelings many uses for studying true proven sciences like,
Over population of 4th dimensional universe.
Quantum mechanics the science of nothing.
The Big bang theory
Black holes, worm holes and star trek.
The multiple big bang theory!
Climate warming/change/disruption/…..agrovation?
Plate tectonics, tree rings and crop circles.
Astronomic studies of 1% stars, 99% dark matter( must be capable of Ocular night observation and in need of a grant)
Planetary CO2 sequestering and Solar system environmentalism
Future Paleontology
And a new modern science study,
Biblical modeling, flat earth geology and climate science. ( We’re not really concerned about an applicants knowledge on these sciences, but they must have grade 8, a few hours experience in computer modeling or a back ground in video gamestery) 🙂
Now if they could only model insanity, I’m sure they would find it’s even worse then we predicted.
“There’s no violation of separation of church and state here. I saw not one sentence promoting any given religion.”
““The parting of the waters described in the book of Exodus that enabled Moses and the Israelites to escape the pharaoh’s army is possible, computer simulations run by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder show.”
So “the book of Exodus” isn’t particular to religion? Hmmm… last I looked “the book of Exodus” was a book promoting religion.
If you look at part two of the author’s video you’ll see the picture of Charleton Heston as Moses on the “Phd” poster about the research. I gather that “Moses” isn’t promoting religion either, he’s just a modern day secular character. But wait, there’s more, it goes on for example with this:
“The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus,” said Carl Drews of NCAR”
Exodus and Moses being promoted by a paid member of NCAR. A federally funded organization promoting religion in a paid for study as plain as day. Not good.
Give us a break.
I am late to this one folks!
“The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus,” says Carl Drews of NCAR, the lead author.
Now, did they read the account in Exodus first, then do the model or the other way round?
pwl;
Exodus and Moses being promoted by a paid member of NCAR. A federally funded organization promoting religion in a paid for study as plain as day. Not good.
Give us a break.>>
What an astounding leap in logic. If the research is correct, and there is a physical explanation for the biblical account, then the occurence was of natural origin, not an act by a supernatural all powerful deity, and the beneficiaries of it were simply fortunate in their timing as the victims were unfortunate in theirs. How does one promote religion by attempting to falsify its main tenet, that the event was an act of god? The study seems flawed to me, but not as flawed as your accusation. If the researchers are correct in their assertion, then no god is required to explain the event, the core premise of the bible is undermined as a consequence, and religion’s detractors, not its adherents, will applaud the study.
Give me a break.
davidmhoffer says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:59 am
If the research is correct, and there is a physical explanation for the biblical account, then the occurence was of natural origin, not an act by a supernatural all powerful deity, and the beneficiaries of it were simply fortunate in their timing as the victims were unfortunate in theirs.
The weasel words here are “a physical explanation”. Of course there is a physical explanation. Theirs simply strains credulity in that according to their theory, an extraordinary wind event just “happened” to have occurred at the precise time it was needed, indicating that it was indeed an act of God.
Bruce Cobb;
The weasel words here are “a physical explanation”. Of course there is a physical explanation. Theirs simply strains credulity in that according to their theory, an extraordinary wind event just “happened” to have occurred at the precise time it was needed, indicating that it was indeed an act of God.>>
I said their study was flawed. There are far more credible explanations than theirs. As for the fortuitous timing, consider the number of freak weather events that have happened on this globe over the past few thousand years. The vast majority of them go unremarked. It is simply a matter of odds that a tiny handful of them would inadvertantly impact the course of history and be recorded by primitive societies as an act of god.
The point is NOT that the study is correct or not. That is irrelevant.
The point is that US Federal Funds were used to conduct a study with a clear Religious Goal and that is a violation of the Separation of Church and State. Next thing you know every religion will be wanting their share of research monies for their mythology research and the flood gates will really open.
It’s very clear that the study crossed the line from science into something else, and evidently the author of that study is into that something else in spades. Which is perfectly fine as long as it’s not done with tax payers monies and there in lies the problem, US Federal Funds of Federally Funded US Agencies were used to fund that religious study.
If this is the kind of research games that are going on at organizations like NCAR, Nasa, the NSF or ONR (which funded the study) then these research organizations are deeply in trouble and is an indication of the lack of quality of the people involved in climate research indeed. If they allow blatant violations such as this religious study then what other games are they up to with other studies and projects?
Well pwl, the loudness of your protests has been noted, if not their legitimacy. After all, it’s allowable for NASA to use federal funds for Muslim outreach.
This was just part of a larger project, just picking a historical example when running the software to see what could happen. Would it have made much difference if they had picked some random point in time and some part of a North American river or lake to examine? Would you still be making a fuss if some Native American legend had told of the possible parting being examined? Exodus is part of the history of a people, with a religion universally ascribed to all members of that people. Can you argue the distinction between a historical and a religious event when they are both drawn from the same record?
Perhaps your complaints will have a better reception over at Farming-gila… Phony-gully… whatever-it-is. I hear they go for that sort of stuff over there.
😉
Yes, kadaka thanks for pointing out another violation!
Researching history on the federal dollar is fine. Researching religious mythologies on the federal dollar is not.
If you do a search on google now you’ll see all the articles about this. The religious are already milking this for all they can get from it. That would be fine had they funded it, but now they have the “legitimacy of government” associated with their claims and that is where this violation escalates beyond the trivial into a serious matter as the government is prohibited by law from supporting religion. That is there to protect all Americans from theocracy which is what Iran has, and I suppose that would be fine with many Americans but it’s not in alignment with the law or the Separation of Church and State.
Oh, and no need for your cynical personal attack attitude in your last paragraph. Very unprofessional of you.
“”” pwl says:
September 23, 2010 at 11:15 am
The point is NOT that the study is correct or not. That is irrelevant.
The point is that US Federal Funds were used to conduct a study with a clear Religious Goal and that is a violation of the Separation of Church and State. “”””
Well I don’t see where you get the “religious goal from”. Seems like the aim was not unlike the aims of the “Mythbusters” program; to simply see if an ancient written account of a supposedly historically factual event is plausible or not. Seems like they established some conditions under which the story could have been true.
I didn’t read where their computer program assigned any divine providence to the causation of whatever wind storm was apparently capable of explaining the physical parameters of the written account.
And get over it; there isn’t any Constitutional provision for a “Separation of church and State”. Just says Congress shall make no law. There isn’t any Constitutional provision for Life, Libertty and the pursuit of Happiness either. I think you will find the word LIFE appears nowhere in the original Constitution as written; and just three times in the amendments; once in the 5th amendment where it apparently lays the groundwork for the provision of a process of (Federal) law to deprive some person of life (maybe a Federal death penalty); and then twice in the 14th amendment; where it apparently extends the same provision (should they choose) to the several States.
But school children and the media and a host of others are constantly talking about a Constitutional right to life. Maybe they should read the Declaration of Independence; where it says everybody already has that right; long before there even was a Constitution.
So if there was any law prohibiting these public empolyees from using the computer for that particular simulation; on the grounds that the proposed simulation was religious in nature; then such a law would itself be un-Constitutional.
No law means NO LAW. The very existence of such a law is in and of itself proof that that law is Unconstitutional; since its intent is the “prohibit the free exercise”.; and NO (federal) LAW with such intent is allowed.
Why is it that so many people who want to be free from religion; don’t stop at that but want to interfere with other people’s rights to make their own decisions about that.
There is plenty of laws in the USA that prevent the USA Government from funding religious projects.
“Why is it that so many people who want to be free from religion; don’t stop at that but want to interfere with other people’s rights to make their own decisions about that.” – George E. Smith
You’re free to do as you please with regards to your “own decisions” about that George E. Smith. I am in no way desiring to prevent you from making your own decisions about that George E. Smith and your implication that I am indicates that you fail to comprehend the issues involved.
“Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]”
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]”
“James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817) and is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
He was the principal author of the US Constitution, and is often called the “Father of the Constitution”. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafting many basic laws, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”.[2] As a political theorist, Madison’s most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
Well, there is much more… but hopefully you get the point.
From: pwl on September 23, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I sure do. If the point was that you can argue just about anything with selective Wiki-quoting.
Separation of church and state in the United States
It is clear that in the early United States, both pre-Constitution while support for ratification was gathered and subsequently after ratification, the First Amendment meant the federal government would have no official state religion, there would be no “Church of the United States” as there was a “Church of England,” nor was preference to be given to one particular religion over another thus minority religions would not be selectively persecuted by government.
It shall be noted that several individual States did have official religions. Several were previously Church of England as colonies, considered disestablished by the Revolution. But even after ratification of the Constitution, some official State religions remained. Connecticut was Congregational Church until adopting their 1818 State Constitution. The North Carolina State Constitution is interesting. It has changed over time from allowing only Protestants to hold public office to only Christians to the current version which forbids only atheists. A 1961 US Supreme Court case found that unenforceable, but no one has required that language be stricken from the NC State Constitution.
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) is notable as the start of the use of a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause, giving us the current legal view you espouse of the “wall of separation between Church and State.” You apparently concur with Justice Wiley Rutledge:
Rutledge was noted as strongly liberal and favored by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, BTW.
This argument about a theoretical legal concept could go on indefinitely, but we already debate quite frequently on this site of the difference between models and reality and I see no reason to continue arguing about a model government. I will however freely quote from the back of a dollar bill, “In God We Trust.”
————-
Interesting Note: There appears to be a dead link to a reference at the “Separation” article, could be a short-term glitch or a moved item:
This brought up an error page from my ISP, Earthlink, with a Yahoo search box and the following text:
I would laugh if the reality didn’t hurt so much…