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

Re: deep water = less ejecta?

>My reading of this is that they infer deep water from the shallow nature of 
>the crater--meaning (I think) that the water >absorbed enough energy to blunt 
>the force on the ocean floor.

It could also mean that the floor filled and rose more rapidly immediately 
after impact than it would have in a terrestrial setting, leaving a more 
shallow depression post-impact.

>In any case, if the crater is shallow it follows that less ejecta was blown 
>out (right?)

Maybe, but not necessarily.  Even if it is true, that would only refer to the 
melted rock ejecta; the rest would be water (which probably isn't much better 
for the global ecosystems), and the total ejected mass would likely be similar.

>If the water/rock ratio was appreciably different this should have a different 
>effect than previously believed.  For example, heat >energy in water vapor 
>would have a more local effect...at least versus the re-entry of solids 

The effect might be different, but I'm not sure we have reason to think it 
would be more local (perhaps fewer actual forest fires and more general 
broiling?).  The heat energy in the water vapor would still be transferred to 
the atmosphere, and thanks to the high heat capacity of water, it would be able 
to travel further before completely unloading its heat energy.  So, I think we 
need more information before assessing if this would make a major difference in 
the global scale.



Michael Habib, M.S.
PhD. Candidate
Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
1830 E. Monument Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
(443) 280 0181