Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    The impact of 15km asteroid would be devastating, although it probably wouldn't kill everyone. We'd lose a sizeable proportion of the world's people unless we had decades to prepare. But since geothermal heat would continue, and since the technology for using it is available, there would be many areas where it could be employed.
    Unlikely.

    An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

    Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.

    Fossil fuels would presumably still be available, and since the darkness would likely last for years, but not for decades, survivors could hang on.
    There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

    And the location of the impact would matter.
    The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

    The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

    Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.

    Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

    Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.

    It would be a very different world afterwards, but one with human survivors, I think.
    It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      Unlikely.

      An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.
      Show us the numbers. That seems crazy on the face of it.

      Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed.
      How would a 15km asteroid take out infrastructure all over the world? The Chicxulub asteroid would have produced a large tsunami, and would have been lethal over a large part of the continent. The biggest factor would have been dust tossed up into the atmosphere, which would have persisted for a year or more. Even large volcanic eruptions can toss up enough material to cause drastic cooling.

      The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

      Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

      The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.
      Existing technology would be sufficient. Most people might die, but a hemisphere away, not so much.

      There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm.
      You've been misled about that. As you just learned, the effects of just one or possibly two large volcanic eruptions essentially affected an entire year. There would be a lot more micron-level ejecta from a large asteroid hit. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

      The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.
      No, that's wrong too. Just the entry of a asteroid 15km wide would release a huge amount of heat, over a very large area. A relatively small body entering the atmosphere over Sibera, likely around 50 to 200 meters wide, flattened forests over 2000km, and broke windows over a hundred miles away.

      If that had entered over Europe, there would likely have been millions of casualties.

      Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.
      Show us your numbers. That seems rather unlikely:

      A magnitude 5.0 earthquake is about 200 tons of TNT, magnitude 6.0 is 6,270 tons
      https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...arthquake3.htm

      The Tunguska hit in Siberia is estimated to have been about about 30 megatons of TNT. And that was only a tiny fraction of what a 15km object would be.

      Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.
      Last time it happened, almost every land animal larger than a few kilograms, died.

      The researchers were even able to estimate what kind of asteroid must have impacted the Earth 65.5 million years ago to throw up such a consistent layer of debris around the entire planet. They estimated that the impactor must have been about 10 km in diameter, and release the energy equivalent of 100 trillion tons of TNT.

      When that asteroid struck the Earth 65.5 million years ago, it destroyed a region thousands of kilometers across, but also threw up a dust cloud that obscured sunlight for years. That blocked photosynthesis in plants – the base of the food chain – and eventually starved out the dinosaurs.

      https://www.universetoday.com/39801/k-t-boundary/
      This message is hidden because ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Unlikely.

        An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

        Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.

        There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.



        The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

        The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

        Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.

        Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

        Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.



        It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.
        i may watch deep impact tonight - haven't seen it in a while and tea leoni

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Show us the numbers.
          Show us your numbers.

          That seems crazy on the face of it.
          That's nice.

          However, your incredulity isn't a very convincing counterargument.

          How would a 15km asteroid take out infrastructure all over the world?
          I never insisted that it would.

          The point was: If it was enough to wipe out more than half, it would go on to take out the other half. I also assumed that whatever amount the immediate aftereffects of the strike killed, it would also take out all their infrastructure.

          The Chicxulub asteroid would have produced a large tsunami, and would have been lethal over a large part of the continent.
          If indeed it actually happened — a very unlikely scenario — the waves would not have gotten much more than about 10km inland. The first decent slope would have all but ended things.

          You've been watching too many science fiction movies.

          The biggest factor would have been dust tossed up into the atmosphere, which would have persisted for a year or more. Even large volcanic eruptions can toss up enough material to cause drastic cooling.

          The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

          Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

          [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
          I'm prepared to assume that this all happened as you assert. The simple answer to such a "global cooling" would be fossil fuels. Why on earth would you think anything else?

          Existing technology would be sufficient.
          Exactly.

          You've been misled about that.

          As you just learned, science fiction wonderings aren't convincing. Physics don't stop just because you have a vivid imagination.

          Just the entry of a asteroid 15km wide would release a huge amount of heat, over a very large area. A relatively small body entering the atmosphere over Sibera, likely around 50 to 200 meters wide, flattened forests over 2000km, and broke windows over a hundred miles away.
          Did you find me saying that it wouldn't?

          Once again, you refuse to respond to what I say, preferring instead to argue with what you wish I'd said.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

            The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

            The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

            Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.
            Yep.
            With the population distribution, it wouldn't be difficult to kill off all the people that live near the ocean.


            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.
            Yep.

            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

            Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

            Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.

            It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.
            Diminished sunshine can last a lot longer than then initial darkness and catastrophes can have global effects that are survivable.

            What would happen if we had another year without a summer?

            Year Without a Summer


            The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death) because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

            Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

            In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent "dry fog" was observed in parts of the eastern United States. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the "fog". It has been characterized as a "stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil".

            You saw it too?
            Learn to read what is written.

            _____
            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
              I see that [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] is trying to be dishonest by pretending that there is such a thing as a "world" temperature record when almost all of the temperatures we have recorded are from the United States and western Europe.
              Well, let's take a look...



              Looks as though you were fooled again. And since much of the data is now by satellite, it really wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, if scientists were foolish enough to weight the United States more than the rest of the world, we'd actually get lower temperatures for much of the latter part of the 20th century.
              This message is hidden because ...

              Comment




              • Looks like Barbarian has been fooled again.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment

                Working...
                X