Re: craters (part of YEC defined)
Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:02:48 -0800
Allen Roy wrote:
> > From: Massie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Almost none of
> > the energy will be reflected back into space ...
> It seems to me that a goodly portion of the energy would be lost into
> space. The path of least resistance is upward away from the planet. The
> density of the planet will certainly bounce much of the energy away. I'm
> not saying that alot of energy will not be absorbed by the planet, oceans
> and atmosphere, but a part of the energy must be accounted for as escapting
> into space.
> I was just reading in Strahler and Strahler, "Modern Physical Geography,"
> the section dealing with the earth's radiation ballance (chapter 4). I
> found it interesting that 32% of solar radiation is reflected directly back
> into space (pg. 60). And that 68% of the earth's long wave radiation
> (heat) is radiated out into space. 8% is direct loss from the earth's
> surface into space. 60% is radiated from the atmosphere into space.
> They point out that the system is an open system. Any increase in the
> input will cause a corresponding amout in output. There would be a lag
> time between an increase in the input and the increase in output because of
> the natural storage of heat in the system -- in the atmosphere, the latent
> heat of water in the atmosphere, and in the ground.
> When dealing with a catastophe balance of heat on earth one must not
> neglect to take into account the corresponding increase in heat radiation
> into space both directly from the surface (like volcanism) and from the
> atmosphere. It makes sense that an increase in the heat of the atmosphere
> will increase the amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere into space.
> Most objections that I have read about catastrophic events are based solely
> on the increase of heat into the system with nothing being calculated about
> the corresponding increase in radiation of heat into space.
> You hear of how Noah and Family would be broiled alive in extreme
> temperatures. But where is the calculations of corresponding heat loss
> into space?
Eventually the heat will go back into space and the earth will reach a
steady state balance with space. This is true no matter how much energy
is dumped onto the planet and would for example be true even if the
earth were struck by Mars so what is your point.
The issue is of course the transient effects and by transient I don't
mean one second.
The energy dumped onto the earth by all asteroid impacts that are KNOWN
is enourmous. If the YEC natural history encompases the concept that
these known asteriod impacts occured during the flood development time
then this is a lot of energy to put onto the surface of the planet in a
short period of time.
The input energy is kinetic and very little is absorbed by the
atmosphere inbound. On striking the earth, the kinetic is converted
into heat and primarily the earth or water is heated. However, energy
may propagate out in seismic or ocean waves and this can have quite a
devastating effect on the fragile animal or vegetation life and on
humans. Note that some earthquakes have killed based on earth motion
being severe enough to though a man up into the air.
Obviously things are a bit more complicated. Ejectile matter streams
into the atmosphere and can set off fires and all of this and smoke from
the impact can cause global climate changes. All of this depends on
many variables and we need to find residuals to determine which effects
However, my point is that forcing these impacts to occur during the
flood development time puts a tremendous amount of very energetic events
close together and there seems to be no recognition of the consequences
of this or the enormous record it would leave.
Have you got the slightest idea of the magnitude of the Mexico crater?
We are not talking about a Tungusto event or Krakatoa but perhaps
something 100 times more energetic.