At 12:56 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Diane Roy wrote:
>> This supports what I said before. With any explosion this size or
larger, most of the energy will be expended into space, not into the
atmosphere, so computations of injected energy into the atmosphere must be
reduced taking into consideration the vast amounts which go directly into
space. Have you taken this into account in your computations? <<
Yes, Allan, all those researchers listed in Alvarez and Asaro's article
took into account the fact that lots of the energy leaves the earth. What
remains is still enough to destroy everything.
Allan wrote:
>>> Not only will evaporated rock and water be injected into the
atmosphere, but solid rock pieces of all sizes and large quantities of
liquid water. That liquid water will help wash the atmosphere of dust and
chemicals that had also been injected into the atmosphere and reduce the
impact of a Nuclear winter and/or greenhouse effect. All those on the Ark
were there for approximately a full year. They would be protected in the
vessel from an impact winter and/or a greenhouse heating longer than the
proposed effects of the impacts.<<<
The water won't help if it is vaporized and scalding hot, which it would
be. We aren't talking about a garden sprinkler here, Allan.
From the article:"In 1981 Cesare Emilliani of the University of Miami, Eric
Krause of the
University of Colorado and Eugene M. Shoemaker of the USGS pointed out that
an oceanic impact would loft not only rock dust but also water vapor into
the atmosphere. The vapor, trapping the earth's heat, would stay aloft much
longer than the dust, and so the impact winter would be followed by
greenhouse warming.
From Allan
>> Other researchers mention that much larger quantities of liquid water
than water vapor would also be lofted and injected into and above the
atmosphere. That liquid water would help wash out the dust and rock
particles from the atmosphere.<<
Name those researchers. I bet you can't name a single SECULAR (not ICR
hack) researcher in this field.
From Allan:
>> The large quantities of liquid water also injected into and above the
atmosphere would wash much of the CO2 from the atmosphere.<<
Cite a reference for this. THat is not what real researchers into this
field have concluded. Is your 'research' methodology merely to disagree
with anything experts say with the mantra, "'other researchers say?'" and
then leaving them unnamed?
From Allan:
>> In the immediate vicinity of the blasts, temps would be quite high, but
I have yet to see anyone consider the quantity of heat loss which a highly
disturbed atmosphere would radiate to space. Since only one impact is ever
considered at a time, the affect on the overall's atmosphere's stability is
considered minimal. But with a series of impacts within just a few days of
each other for several months, the atmosphere is not likely to remain
stable. Heat loss is likely to be much greater. The formation of nitric
acid and acid rain may well have been of minimal concern.
Then you didn't read the article before engaging your typewriter. If you
had read a bit further you would have seen the answer you said wasn't
there. You are incredible in your research and thoughtfulness, Allan. Here
is what they say (I won't snip it from the letter since it followed your
erroneous claim above).
"Another killing mechanism came to light when Wendy Wolbach, Ian Gilmore
and Edward Anders of the University of Chicago discovered large amounts of
soot in the KT boundary clay. If the clay had been laid down in a few years
or less, the amount of soot in the boundary would indicate a sudden burning
of vegetation equivalent to half of the world's current forests. Jay Meos
of the University of Arizona and his colleagues have calculated that
infrared radiation from ejecta heated to incandescence while reentering the
atmosphere could have ignited fires around the globe." Walter Alvarez and
Frank Asaro, "An Extraterrestrial Impact," Scientific American, Oct. 1990,
p. 80-82
From Allan:
>>The question is, how big is the radius from the impact site which would
be affected by the heat of re-entry of blast debris? If the Ark were
outside that radius, if would not be affected.<<
Allan, have you personally done a single calculation on the re-entry of a
meteor into the earth's atmosphere? I have. I have a program that
calculates the energy of impact, and the atmosphereic breakup of meteors of
various composition as they re-enter. I wrote it several years ago from an
article in Sky and Telescope.
I wrote:
>>Now lets apply the Chixulub impact to the flood. Noah is on the ark when
Chixulub hit (Chixulub struck Cretaceous limestone strata covered by a
shallow sea.)The energy is 1 billion megatons or 4.2 x 10^24 joules. This
is more energy than I calculated for all the other craters COMBINED!!!!
Yes, some of the energy does escape from earth, especially some of the
gas. <<
How much of the energy escapes from earth? I expect that only a
relatively small portion of that energy remains in the biosphere. Probably
even less than that of impacts a couple magnitudes smaller. Lets see the
computations for heat loss due to the blasting of the hole in the
atmosphere and due to a highly disturbed atmosphere. You have so far only
considered and computed the input of energy. What about the other half of
the picture, the loss of energy due to the catastrophe?
Did you not read what Meos said about the re-entry of rocks would cause the
sky to glow with enough heat to start fires all over the earth? Can you
read a scientific article without running it through that filter of yours?
I wrote:>> The rocks travel at a slightly lower speed and go suborbital
reentering the atmosphere with such fury that they burn those floating
vegetation mats everyone talks about down to the water line (by the way the
ark is also at risk of burning due to the incandescence of the re-entering
rocks. After the top deck of the ark burns, the darkness commences, but it
isn't a cold dark, it is a hellish dark. <<<
Allan replied:
>> This assumes that the Ark is within the affected radius of the impact
site. lets supposed that an impact will kill and burn everything within a
1000 mile radius (this is a generous estimate according to what I have
read). <<
Then you didn't read the extract I spoon fed you from Scientific American.
It said that fires would be started from all over the world. Conveniently
forgot that didn't you!
Allan wrote
>> This would affect about 3,141,592 square miles. However, the surface of
the earth is approximately 183,346,494 square miles. That means that any
single impact (assuming all were as large as Chixulub) would have immediate
effect on less than 2% of the surface of the globe. If we double the
affected radius (2000 mi.) it would affect less than 7% of the globe. It
would not be hard for the Ark to be far from the immediate effects of most
impactors.<<
Chixulub particles are found around the world in the irridium layer. It
affected much more than merely 1000 mile radius.
Allan wrote:
>> Given that much more liquid water is inject into the atmosphere than
water vapor and CO2, the concentrations of such acids would likely not be
great.<<
Oh how easily you can say this, Allan and not cite a single researcher in
the field. I did cite a number of them in that article and if you were
intellectually honest you would go look up their research and consider it.
As it is, you merely state meaningless sentences saying that you don't
agree with them. But you don't cite any articles countering them. This says
a lot about your level of research.
>> The majority of water injected into the atmosphere will be liquid not
vapor. And your computations do not consider heat loss of an atmosphere
under catastrophic conditions.<<
Water ejected with enough speed to go ten kilometers high or more will have
a good chance of vaporizing merely from friction with the atmosphere.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 10 2000 - 07:11:29 EDT