----- Original Message -----
From: glenn morton
At 12:56 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Diane Roy wrote:
AR:
>> Have you taken this into account in your computations? <<
GLENN: 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.
AR: It is not their calculations which concern me. It is your calculations. You never consider heat loss, only heat gain.
As for their calculations, they are based on the philosophy tenet of Acualism not under catastrophic conditions, therefore their heat loss calculations are not going to be comparable to catastrophic conditions.
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.<<<
GLENN: 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.
AR: You didn't read what I said. Yes, there would be evaporated (vaporaized) water injected into the atmosphere, but there would also be liquid water injected into the atmosphere. There would be more liquid water then water vapor injected into the atmosphere. Some of it would indeed be hot, but less than boiling, it would still be liquid. And that liquid water would lose it's heat very quickly, especially in the very high atmosphere.
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.
AR: This quote fails to mention the large qunatities of rock of all sizes (not just dust) which is also injected into the atmosphere. Most of the pieces larger than dust does falls back down stirring up the atmosphere. This quote also fails to mention the large quantities of liquid water which is also injected into the atmosphere and which also falls back out carring with it much of the dust and rock. It is true that dust and water vapor will stay in the atmosphere longer than rock and liquid water. However, interpreting the effect of that dust and water depends up ones paradigm, Actualistic or Catastrophic -- A single impact or a series of impacts.
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.<<
Glenn: Name those researchers. I bet you can't name a single SECULAR (not ICR
hack) researcher in this field.
AR: (You can't resist those childish urges to name call can you?!) I have read nearly every book found in the NAU (Northern Arizona Universiy) Library and the local public library about Asteroid Impacts (scientific and popular). I did not make a file of quotes, which would be very large, so, I am unable to whip out a list of quotes, authors and books. However, I remember what I read, and anyone who is informed at all on this topic, who has read extensivly, will recognize the points I made above.
From Allan:
>> The large quantities of liquid water also injected into and above the
atmosphere would wash much of the CO2 from the atmosphere.<<
GLENN: 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?
AR: It is well known that rain cleans pollutants from the air. Anyone who has lived in a big city with smog knows the difference before and after a rain storm. In the Actualistic model, the high atmosphere is not affected by rain and a single impact would not affect the overall atmospheric structure. But, in a Catastrophic model, liquid water (not just water vapor) is injected into and above the high atmosphere. The natural effect of liquid and vaporozed water in the high atmosphere will be the cleaning and removing of pollutants. Multiple impacts would also stir up the atmospheric structure, so actualistic interpretations are not likely very acurate.
"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
AR: This interpretation of quntities of burning vegetation is based on the Actualistic assumption that the amount of vegetation found on the globe then was the same or similar as that today. In the Creationary Catastrohy model, the quantity of vegetation is thought to be several time larger than today. And the density of vegetation may well have been greater than most places today. So, the amount of soot would likely represent a small portion of the globes vegetation.
AR: A side effect of multiple impacts would be global rains from high altitudes. This would reduce the impact of buring forests and the infrered radiation not only from ejecta and other asteroids.
GLENN: 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.
AR: there are programs on the web which do the do the calculations.
GLENN: 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?
AR: I NEVER, EVER READ ANYTHING UNCRITICALLY!!! There is vast differences between the philosphical assumption of Actualism and the philosophical assumption of Catastrophism! When I read a scientific article I look for clues to the philosophcial assumptions upon which the authors base their conclusions. If I find those assumption invalid, I take their conclusions with a lot of salt.
Allen 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). <<
GLENN: 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!
AR: see what I wrote above. Their assumptions are based on Actualism. In the catastrophic model these individual events would have a much smaller impact, tempered by global rains.
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.<<
GLENN: Chixulub particles are found around the world in the irridium layer. It
affected much more than merely 1000 mile radius.
AR: I was talking about the IMMEDIATE effects, that is: the blast shock-wave, the incandescent spontainous burning, the majority of partiulates (from dust to Boulders). Secondary effects would be rains, water vapor and dust (irridum) in the atmosphere and re-entry of some of the ejecta. High altitude rains would temper the effects of ejecta re-entry. Only the IMMEDIATE effects would most likely be of a great threat to the Ark.
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.<<
GLENN: 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.
AR: Those who are familiar with the many books and papers written will know that more liquid water is injected into the high atmosphere than water vapor. And anyone familiar with the effects rain has on entrained pollutants does not need numberless citations to prove it. Who all here can think for themselves?
>> 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.<<
GLENN: 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.
AR: Glenn, where are your sources? (I couldn't help it! Glenn must be rubbing off!) This is assuming that there is an atmosphere to supply friction. The big blasts blow the atmosphere clean away. Aside from the matter blown away (ejecta) at the initial blast, almost anything small enough (dust, sand, water droplets) follows the fireball up and becomes injected into (and in some cases, above) the atmosphere (I learned this from reading several books about nuclear blasts). It is the particulates that follow the fireball upward which cause the problems in the atmosphere because of their long term entrainment. Most of the ejecta has a short term effect on the atmosphere. Some of the ejected water will be vaporized, but much of it will go up to high altituds as liquid water and fall as liquid water.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 15:42:26 EDT