[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: CORRELATIVE AND CAUSITIVE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH EXTINCTION SCENARIOS
> And this tiny partical of dust is supposed to kick up enough dust and rock to
> cloud up the atmosphere, block out the sun, then bake the earth enough to
> cause massive firestorms!? Give me a break! Am the only one that thinks that
> this is just slightly absurd?
I think the asteroid-doomsday scenario is absurd beyond words, but in
all fairness it should be pointed out that very large volcanic eruptions
have demonstrated significant effects on the atmosphere. Krakatau is
one example. A better example is Mount Tamboro, which blasted out
something like fifty cubic miles of ejecta back in 1814. New England
farmers knew 1815 as "The Year Without a Summer or "Eighteen Hundred and
Froze to Death." Frost in Boston in July, that sort of thing.
Matter of fact, the Year Without a Summer is one reason why I reject
Asteroid Doomsday -- as Buchholz points out, a scaled-up Asteroid Winter
effect based on Tamboro is _too_ strong to explain the known
extinctions. Everything on land should have died, if not from the
darkness than from the cold. Many plants can survive subfreezing
temperatures, but very few can _grow_ when it's below freezing.
-- Jon W.