[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Effects of magnetosphere loss

 Forwarded message:
 > Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 13:59:59 -0400
 > From: "Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>
 > Subject: Re: Mass extinction theories - critical omission
 >     I have mentioned several times that the bolide would probably remove a
 > good portion of the Ozone layer, as well as other major parts of the
 > atmosphere.
 The Van Allen Belt is not part of the atmospher strictly speaking. It is the
 interface between the solar magnetosphere and the Earths. Even if the Earth
 didn't have an atmosphere it would have a magnetosphere (ie Van Allen Belt).
 The disruption to the belt would not come from the loss of ejected gases but
 rather the shift in the Earths center of gravity caused by the impact (and I
 assure you a 100mi. dia. crater will make the Earth wobble and ring for
 quite a while) and the em interactions of the impact (Q: has anyone
 calculated the EMP from such an impact?).
 >  As to the Van Allen Belts, I'm not sure if we know how long
 > they have been at their current size and density, or how quickly they grow,
 > or deteriorate.
 Actualy the Van Allen Belt can be measured in the geologic record by
 measuring the magnetic stripes in the sea floor upwellings. These are 1-to-1
 correllated since they come from the same thing - the Earths magnetic field.
 Pick stripes of a given polarity and correlate the changes in magenetization
 along that stripe in relation to other markers. One marker might be to
 compare it to both measurements and models of the long-term solar output.
 Seems to me that if there was an increased level of solar radiation (and I
 don't mean the UV that the ozone layer blocks) the consequences would be
 plastered all over both the geophysical and biological records. One would
 simply have to look at the effects of increased radiation on long-lived
 chemical and bio-chemical systems today and extrapolate backward looking for
 those same tale-tales. It might be as simple as looking at the ratios of
 isotopes in trapped air samples in the Antarctic and comparing them to the
 mid-ocean upwellings mag stripes.
 >  We also don't know how to check for their existance or
 > non-existance in the fossil record.  (Perhaps in relation to certain kinds
 > of extinction events???).
 See above.
 >     I too have mentioned that stripping the atmosphere of its protective
 > layers (or as you suggest, of a protective ionization layer) would allow
 > increased radiation - which would kill now, kill later, AND ALSO MUTATE
 Most mutations are neutral and don't effect the viability of the species or
 the individual. Next comes mutations that are harmful and finaly, and least
 likely, are mutations that are beneficial. While this is interesting it is
 probably pointless. Even if a given species were to exhibit a beneficial
 mutation the chances of the other ecologicaly linked species to have mutations
 that allowed them to survive would nullify the beneficial events. However
 powerful the positive forces might be they would not be sufficient to
 compensate for the ecological damage on a broad front.
                          To understand is to invent
                                        Jean Piaget
        The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
        Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
        www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                            -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-