Global Warming?

[chkntrktr]

I think a little research will show that such an impact would tend to cool the planet...i.e., contribute to an "ice age" scenario...rather than the opposite...duh!

Correct.
dinosaur

Even volcanic eruptions can cause cooling.

Was the Little Ice Age triggered by massive volcanic eruptions?

 

[EE_Bota]

Regarding the dinosaur extinction, I have seen some suggestions that a great deal of the destruction was from the heat of impact, followed later by a cooling. The information had estimations of the energy released by the impact, and it was right impressive and suggested that much of the land based life in the hemisphere of impact was dead within a few hours.

 

[madmax12]

Since two dinosaurs are written about in two separate historical books of the historical Old Testament, some consider the global flood of Noah's time to have played a role. It is stated to have covered the highest mountain peak under 20 feet of water. Any land creature not on the ark... Didn't make it.

It also might explain how some creatures were instantly frozen, as they were immersed and thrown, via extraordinary weather events, into a frozen climate.

 

[/pine]

Regarding the dinosaur extinction, I have seen some suggestions that a great deal of the destruction was from the heat of impact, followed later by a cooling. The information had estimations of the energy released by the impact, and it was right impressive and suggested that much of the land based life in the hemisphere of impact was dead within a few hours.

It would seem from a layman's point of view that the heat associated with an impact would be localized rather than global/hemispheric...it also seems that an impact significant enough for the associated heat to have more than a localized effect would have to be so massive that it would entail much more catastrophic changes to the planet than just climate...

I would also think that a heat source of such magnitude (to cause hemispherical impact) would also leave other physical evidence...especially near the point of impact?

As far as having an effect to to cause such instantaneous death...I have to think about the frozen animal specimens that have been found with fodder still in their mouths etc. with no other physical signs (other than temperature) that caused their deaths...

can you cite any references for the impressive "suggestions" you mention?

 

[EE_Bota]

I would also think that a heat source of such magnitude (to cause hemispherical impact) would also leave other physical evidence...especially near the point of impact?

I want to comment on the use of the word "impact" which could be pretty confusing in this discussion. I view your phrase "to cause hemispherical impact" as meaning that it had an effect on the hemisphere. Responding to the meat of your statement now, the information claimed there was a massive impact crater down in the Mexico. They represented it as being much like a super massive nuclear blast, with the heat the surface of the earth far and wide until depleted.

As far as having an effect to to cause such instantaneous death...I have to think about the frozen animal specimens that have been found with fodder still in their mouths etc. with no other physical signs (other than temperature) that caused their deaths...

can you cite any references for the impressive "suggestions" you mention?

Unfortunately, I think I have confused the discussion because I am quite sure you know all about this, so somehow I have said something in a strange way that has accidentally obscured what I was referring to:

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the topic "Effects" you will see what I mean about the heat effects.

Sorry to confuse folks.

 

[/pine]

I want to comment on the use of the word "impact" which could be pretty confusing in this discussion. I view your phrase "to cause hemispherical impact" as meaning that it had an effect on the hemisphere. Responding to the meat of your statement now, the information claimed there was a massive impact crater down in the Mexico. They represented it as being much like a super massive nuclear blast, with the heat the surface of the earth far and wide until depleted.



Unfortunately, I think I have confused the discussion because I am quite sure you know all about this, so somehow I have said something in a strange way that has accidentally obscured what I was referring to:

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the topic "Effects" you will see what I mean about the heat effects.

Sorry to confuse folks.

Other than the heat created by a "super massive nuclear blast"...there is the "shock pressures" that could also possibly have a wide spread effect on flora and fauna...

Popigai Crater, Russia

 

[IslandTractor]

Since two dinosaurs are written about in two separate historical books of the historical Old Testament, some consider the global flood of Noah's time to have played a role. It is stated to have covered the highest mountain peak under 20 feet of water. Any land creature not on the ark... Didn't make it.

It also might explain how some creatures were instantly frozen, as they were immersed and thrown, via extraordinary weather events, into a frozen climate.

How many of you "deniers" accept the stories in the bible as equal or more reliable than "modern" (post Darwin) experimental and observational science?

I am fascinated by the confusion on matters of biology and other science between beliefs based on scientific evidence and religious beliefs based on what was recorded in the bible (or other religious texts). Some people seem to assume that because the word "belief" is used to describe each that they are therefore equally valid sources to determine the history of the universe. Do those of you who dispute the role of man and fossil fuel in climate change fall into that group? Is someone who is willing to believe biblical stories as literally true also more willing to believe the various conspiracy theories used to disparage the great majority of climate scientists who believe that man plays a great role in driving the current climate change?

 

[madmax12]

How many of you "deniers" accept the stories in the bible as equal or more reliable than "modern" (post Darwin) experimental and observational science?

I am fascinated by the confusion on matters of biology and other science between beliefs based on scientific evidence and religious beliefs based on what was recorded in the bible (or other religious texts). Some people seem to assume that because the word "belief" is used to describe each that they are therefore equally valid sources to determine the history of the universe. Do those of you who dispute the role of man and fossil fuel in climate change fall into that group? Is someone who is willing to believe biblical stories as literally true also more willing to believe the various conspiracy theories used to disparage the great majority of climate scientists who believe that man plays a great role in driving the current climate change?

Consider the way u just addressed me. In what way could we have an objective discussion? U clearly consider me the fool, and the denier. Is it not possible that the role is reversed? If u do not consider it possible that the other view has anything to study...then u r not able to objectively research the subject, at all.

 

[/pine]

once again for the highly gullible and misguided fools that consider anyone that questions an unproven science as "deniers"...:

"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Richard Fenyman

 

[IslandTractor]

Consider the way u just addressed me. In what way could we have an objective discussion? U clearly consider me the fool, and the denier. Is it not possible that the role is reversed? If u do not consider it possible that the other view has anything to study...then u r not able to objectively research the subject, at all.

Religious explanations of natural phenomenon are almost by definition not scientifically investigated. Hard to objectively research miracles etc that occurred hundreds of years before they were first recorded in the bible.

Your point is good though as religions themselves don't try to disprove their own "theories" or to collect data prospectively to answer questions. Science does and as you seem to value objective research I presume you come down on the science side of the debate intellectually even if you reference the Noah myth.