Remember me
▼ Content

A personal experience for climate change deniers



Page 3 of 4<1234>
22-10-2020 21:49
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Parlor trick. You've been fooled again. CO2 does absorb infrared light. Big deal. The surface has to cool to emit that infrared light. CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool by interacting with the atmosphere.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot stop light. You cannot stop heat. You cannot slow or stop thermal energy. There is always heat. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

No argument presented. False authorities. Denial of science.


The argument I am presenting is increased density is the cause for increased heat.

You continue to make comments that are not applicable to the argument I made to try to deceive a sense of victory.

In regards to the density argument you said, CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.

But CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. For example It is a byproduct of breathing. When you breathe, the CO2 you exhale wasn't adding pressure to the atmosphere before you exhaled it. The carbon was contained in your body. But after you exhale, the CO2 is contained in the atmosphere. Thus the density in the atmosphere is increased ever so slightly each time you exhale (if plants, rocks, and seas can't absorb it all).

Measurements at Mauna Loa, and confirmed at Duncan61's yard, indicate not all CO2 added to the atmosphere has been absorbed.
23-10-2020 01:42
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Parlor trick. You've been fooled again. CO2 does absorb infrared light. Big deal. The surface has to cool to emit that infrared light. CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool by interacting with the atmosphere.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot stop light. You cannot stop heat. You cannot slow or stop thermal energy. There is always heat. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

No argument presented. False authorities. Denial of science.


The argument I am presenting is increased density is the cause for increased heat.

You continue to make comments that are not applicable to the argument I made to try to deceive a sense of victory.

In regards to the density argument you said, CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.

But CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. For example It is a byproduct of breathing. When you breathe, the CO2 you exhale wasn't adding pressure to the atmosphere before you exhaled it. The carbon was contained in your body. But after you exhale, the CO2 is contained in the atmosphere. Thus the density in the atmosphere is increased ever so slightly each time you exhale (if plants, rocks, and seas can't absorb it all).

Measurements at Mauna Loa, and confirmed at Duncan61's yard, indicate not all CO2 added to the atmosphere has been absorbed.



Spongy, have you ever considered the heat for an El Nino comes from something in the sea floor?
23-10-2020 02:09
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
James___ wrote:

Spongy, have you ever considered the heat for an El Nino comes from something in the sea floor?


Hmm...

This map of hydrothermal vents :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#/media/File%3ADistribution_of_hydrothermal_vent_fields.png

Seems to match this location described:

the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including the area off the Pacific coast of South America
23-10-2020 02:46
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I I loved this test as it proves my theory.
.The CO2 chamber was over 7% CO2 and achieved 1 degree
.The temperature in the tests did not keep increasing it stayed constant
.I have always maintained that CO2 can raise temperature but it is the amount 0.001 degree maybe and if the Earth is a degree warmer so what.The sea is not rising and nothing is going extinct.
23-10-2020 04:33
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
The main issue with temperature rising, is they are pointing at average temperature. But, it should be obvious, that average, doesn't really apply. Not every point on earth is warmed equally, all day, everyday. Only half the planet is exposed to the sun at a time. The sun's energy to doesn't reach very far, past just the surface, and it's a huge planet. The difference between night time low, and daytime high, is 10 F - 20 F, sometimes even greater. Average is pretty meaningless, when applied to trying to represent global temperature.

Density... CO2 isn't the only thing added and removed from the atmosphere. Water Vapor is one of the more obvious and active ingredients. Contents of the atmosphere isn't evenly and consistently mixed all over the planet. There is no actual limit to how far our atmosphere can extend above the surface, no hard barrier. It's entirely flexible.

We need to understand and define everything, put a label on things. Might not be accurate, or even be true, but we need that definition, to make sense of the world around us. Basically, if we don't understand something, can't explain it, we'll make something up, we speculate, we guess, we agree with other, on what puts our mind at ease. It's a belief we accept, until something better comes along.
23-10-2020 05:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Parlor trick. You've been fooled again. CO2 does absorb infrared light. Big deal. The surface has to cool to emit that infrared light. CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool by interacting with the atmosphere.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot stop light. You cannot stop heat. You cannot slow or stop thermal energy. There is always heat. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

No argument presented. False authorities. Denial of science.


The argument I am presenting is increased density is the cause for increased heat.

Argument by repetition fallacy. No argument presented.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You continue to make comments that are not applicable to the argument I made to try to deceive a sense of victory.
Lie. I am not declaring victory. You are simply not making any valid arguments. Fallacies are not valid arguments. They are errors in logic, just like a math error.
Spongy Iris wrote:
In regards to the density argument you said, CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.
That's right.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But CO2 is being added to the atmosphere.
It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.
Spongy Iris wrote:
For example It is a byproduct of breathing. When you breathe, the CO2 you exhale wasn't adding pressure to the atmosphere before you exhaled it.
You really have no sense of scale, do you?
Spongy Iris wrote:
The carbon was contained in your body. But after you exhale, the CO2 is contained in the atmosphere. Thus the density in the atmosphere is increased ever so slightly each time you exhale (if plants, rocks, and seas can't absorb it all).
No, you have no sense of scale at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Measurements at Mauna Loa,
Has problems. Mauna Loa is an active volcano. There is no valid reference point.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and confirmed at Duncan61's yard,
Neither Mauna Loa nor Duncan's yard is measuring global atmospheric CO2 content. Math error. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate and publish margin of error value.
Spongy Iris wrote:
indicate not all CO2 added to the atmosphere has been absorbed.

No, it doesn't. You are making up numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.

No argument presented. Repetition. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. False authority fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-10-2020 05:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Parlor trick. You've been fooled again. CO2 does absorb infrared light. Big deal. The surface has to cool to emit that infrared light. CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool by interacting with the atmosphere.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot stop light. You cannot stop heat. You cannot slow or stop thermal energy. There is always heat. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

No argument presented. False authorities. Denial of science.


The argument I am presenting is increased density is the cause for increased heat.

You continue to make comments that are not applicable to the argument I made to try to deceive a sense of victory.

In regards to the density argument you said, CO2 is part of the atmosphere. It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.

But CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. For example It is a byproduct of breathing. When you breathe, the CO2 you exhale wasn't adding pressure to the atmosphere before you exhaled it. The carbon was contained in your body. But after you exhale, the CO2 is contained in the atmosphere. Thus the density in the atmosphere is increased ever so slightly each time you exhale (if plants, rocks, and seas can't absorb it all).

Measurements at Mauna Loa, and confirmed at Duncan61's yard, indicate not all CO2 added to the atmosphere has been absorbed.



Spongy, have you ever considered the heat for an El Nino comes from something in the sea floor?

El Nino is not heat nor is it thermal energy. It is a very slight shift in currents. Normal variation and somewhat cyclic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-10-2020 05:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:

Spongy, have you ever considered the heat for an El Nino comes from something in the sea floor?


Hmm...

This map of hydrothermal vents :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#/media/File%3ADistribution_of_hydrothermal_vent_fields.png

Seems to match this location described:

the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including the area off the Pacific coast of South America

Nope. It is not associated with a band of warm or cold water. It is a very slight shift in currents, as variable as the weather.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-10-2020 05:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I I loved this test as it proves my theory.
.The CO2 chamber was over 7% CO2 and achieved 1 degree
.The temperature in the tests did not keep increasing it stayed constant
.I have always maintained that CO2 can raise temperature but it is the amount 0.001 degree maybe and if the Earth is a degree warmer so what.The sea is not rising and nothing is going extinct.


Nope. This 'test' is a parlor trick. It only shows that CO2 can absorb infrared light. Big deal. We already knew this.

It cannot heat the Earth. The infrared light coming from the surface to heat CO2 COOLS the surface. It takes energy to emit light. It is just another way for the surface to be cooled by heating the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 23-10-2020 05:22
23-10-2020 08:03
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:

Spongy, have you ever considered the heat for an El Nino comes from something in the sea floor?


Hmm...

This map of hydrothermal vents :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#/media/File%3ADistribution_of_hydrothermal_vent_fields.png

Seems to match this location described:

the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including the area off the Pacific coast of South America



Just above Queensland, Australia are some very deep channels. They show up real well on GooglEarth.
23-10-2020 22:01
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.


This is most certainly a lie.

If it were true I might consider you the debate winner. Since it's most certainly false, your argument crumbles.
23-10-2020 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.


This is most certainly a lie.

If it were true I might consider you the debate winner. Since it's most certainly false, your argument crumbles.

So you think the atmosphere is in a closed container????


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-10-2020 23:28
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.


This is most certainly a lie.

If it were true I might consider you the debate winner. Since it's most certainly false, your argument crumbles.


Do you know that we live on the OUTSIDE of the big ball we call Earth?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
23-10-2020 23:50
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_desert_glass
24-10-2020 08:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested
24-10-2020 13:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


It takes a lot of energy to melt sand, to form glass. The desert glass is ancient, and covers a pretty large area of desert. Nobody knows how it was made, one of those weird shit mystery things. I think that desert, is the scorched earth image the global warming dudes use, to show what the planet will look like, by the end of the century, if we don't stop burning stuff now.

I'm not sure how desert glass is relevant to global warming, other than the fear mongering imagery. Obviously, if the planet warned to the point of melting desert sand, all life would have be done long before. There is desert glass all around the world though, just not covering such a large area. Lightning strikes to sand, create glass. Testing nuclear bombs create glass. Probably a few spacecraft have created some glass. I'm sure if they can make crop circles, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
24-10-2020 17:52
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


It takes a lot of energy to melt sand, to form glass. The desert glass is ancient, and covers a pretty large area of desert. Nobody knows how it was made, one of those weird shit mystery things. I think that desert, is the scorched earth image the global warming dudes use, to show what the planet will look like, by the end of the century, if we don't stop burning stuff now.

I'm not sure how desert glass is relevant to global warming, other than the fear mongering imagery. Obviously, if the planet warned to the point of melting desert sand, all life would have be done long before. There is desert glass all around the world though, just not covering such a large area. Lightning strikes to sand, create glass. Testing nuclear bombs create glass. Probably a few spacecraft have created some glass. I'm sure if they can make crop circles, they can pretty much do whatever they want.


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.

Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

This climate change alarmist is like Chicken Little telling you the sky is falling.
24-10-2020 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


It takes a lot of energy to melt sand, to form glass. The desert glass is ancient, and covers a pretty large area of desert. Nobody knows how it was made, one of those weird shit mystery things. I think that desert, is the scorched earth image the global warming dudes use, to show what the planet will look like, by the end of the century, if we don't stop burning stuff now.

I'm not sure how desert glass is relevant to global warming, other than the fear mongering imagery. Obviously, if the planet warned to the point of melting desert sand, all life would have be done long before. There is desert glass all around the world though, just not covering such a large area. Lightning strikes to sand, create glass. Testing nuclear bombs create glass. Probably a few spacecraft have created some glass. I'm sure if they can make crop circles, they can pretty much do whatever they want.


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows. Glass like this could possibly have been from an meteor (and later got scattered over the desert like the rest of the sand), lightning strike, or even man made. The age of the glass is unknown. There is no way to measure it. Radiometric dating places it about 29 million years ago, but radiometric dating on material like this is quite meaningless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.

Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This climate change alarmist is like Chicken Little telling you the sky is falling.

YOU JUST DESCRIBED the sky falling, dumbass!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-10-2020 03:55
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.


Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:


Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.
25-10-2020 06:32
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
The heat is on
Studies show the Libyan desert glass formed about 29 million years ago. The glass is nearly pure silica, which requires temperatures above 1,600℃ to form, and that is hotter than any igneous rock on Earth.


Optical light images of a thin slice of Libyan desert glass.
Aaron J Cavosie
But few mineral relics survived from whatever caused the melting. Within the glass are rare occurrences of high-temperature minerals, including a form of quartz called cristobalite.

There are also grains of the mineral zircon, although most have reacted to form a higher-temperature mineral called zirconia.

Ideas about how the glass formed include melting during meteorite impact, or melting caused by an airburst from an asteroid or other object burning up high in Earth's atmosphere.

Despite many studies, definitive proof about which origin is correct has been elusive, until now.

One problem is that no impact crater from any object hitting the ground in the area has been identified as the source of the glass. Another was the lack of evidence of damage from high-pressure shock waves caused by any impact.

Evidence of impact
Our research, published in the journal Geology, reports the first evidence of high-pressure damage, showing the glass formed during a meteorite impact.

Meteorite impacts and airbursts are both catastrophic events. Large meteorite impacts, such as the one that killed the dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, are rare.

But airbursts occur more frequently. An airburst over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 caused extensive property damage and injured people.


Boom!
The Chelyabinsk airburst deposited 0.5 megatons of energy into the sky. Despite the damage, that event did not cause melting or shock damage.

In contrast, Libyan desert glass is thought by some to have been caused by a 100-megaton airburst, an event 200 times larger than the Russian airburst.

The airburst idea arose from modelling atmospheric nuclear explosions. Like a nuclear bomb, a large airburst deposits energy into the atmosphere that can melt surface materials. And an airburst does not leave a crater.

The 'smoking gun'
The new "smoking gun" for understanding the origin of the Libyan desert glass is evidence of an unusual mineral called reidite. Reidite only forms during a meteorite impact, when atoms in the mineral zircon are forced into a tighter arrangement.

Such high-pressure minerals are a hallmark of a meteorite impact, and do not form during airbursts.

Zircon is a common mineral in granite, sandstone and other rock types. It is known from Earth, the Moon, Mars, and various meteorites. It is widely used for dating when rocks formed.

Zircon is also useful when searching for evidence of shock deformation caused by a meteorite impact. At low shock intensity, zircon deforms by bending of the crystal. It is like bending a plastic spoon to the point where it deforms but does not break.

As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms.

If the rocks then get hot, zircon will recrystallise. This results in the formation of a network of new, tiny interlocking grains. Above 1,700℃ zircon ultimately breaks down to zirconia.

Libyan desert glass contains many zircon grains, all smaller than the width of a human hair. While most reacted to zirconia due to the heat, about 10% preserve evidence of former reidite. But the thing is, reidite is no longer present.

Reidite is not stable when hot, and reverts back to zircon above 1,200℃. It only gets preserved if shocked rocks do not melt. So it takes a specialised technique called electron backscatter diffraction to nut out whether reidite once existed in shocked zircons that got hot.

The key to finding evidence of former reidite lies in analysing the crystal orientations of the tiny interlocking grains in reverted zircon.

Similar to turning a Rubik's cube, the initial transformation to reidite occurs along specific directions in a zircon crystal. When reidite changes back to zircon, it leaves a fingerprint of its existence that can be detected through orientation analysis.

And we found the reidite fingerprint in samples of the Libyan desert glass. We examined zircon grains from seven samples and the critical crystal orientation evidence of former reidite was present in each sample.


A closer look at Libyan desert glass: The colors indicate the crystal orientations of tiny interlocking grains of recrystallised zircon. A recrystallized zircon with no history of reidite would be the same color.
Aaron J Cavosie, Author provided
A meteor impact
Reidite is rare and only reported from meteorite impact sites. It is found in material ejected from craters and in shocked rocks at craters.

Prior studies have found evidence of former reidite within zircon from impact melt, similar to how it was identified in Libyan desert glass.

A 100 megaton airburst should occur every 10,000 years. If this size event is supposed to have caused Libyan desert glass to form, the geological record does not support the idea. The reidite fingerprint points to a meteor impact as the only option.

Outstanding mysteries about Libyan desert glass still remain, such as the location of the source crater, its size, and determining if it has eroded away.
25-10-2020 18:35
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
duncan61 wrote:
The heat is on
Studies show the Libyan desert glass formed about 29 million years ago. The glass is nearly pure silica, which requires temperatures above 1,600℃ to form, and that is hotter than any igneous rock on Earth.


Optical light images of a thin slice of Libyan desert glass.
Aaron J Cavosie
But few mineral relics survived from whatever caused the melting. Within the glass are rare occurrences of high-temperature minerals, including a form of quartz called cristobalite.

There are also grains of the mineral zircon, although most have reacted to form a higher-temperature mineral called zirconia.

Ideas about how the glass formed include melting during meteorite impact, or melting caused by an airburst from an asteroid or other object burning up high in Earth's atmosphere.

Despite many studies, definitive proof about which origin is correct has been elusive, until now.

One problem is that no impact crater from any object hitting the ground in the area has been identified as the source of the glass. Another was the lack of evidence of damage from high-pressure shock waves caused by any impact.

Evidence of impact
Our research, published in the journal Geology, reports the first evidence of high-pressure damage, showing the glass formed during a meteorite impact.

Meteorite impacts and airbursts are both catastrophic events. Large meteorite impacts, such as the one that killed the dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, are rare.

But airbursts occur more frequently. An airburst over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 caused extensive property damage and injured people.


Boom!
The Chelyabinsk airburst deposited 0.5 megatons of energy into the sky. Despite the damage, that event did not cause melting or shock damage.

In contrast, Libyan desert glass is thought by some to have been caused by a 100-megaton airburst, an event 200 times larger than the Russian airburst.

The airburst idea arose from modelling atmospheric nuclear explosions. Like a nuclear bomb, a large airburst deposits energy into the atmosphere that can melt surface materials. And an airburst does not leave a crater.

The 'smoking gun'
The new "smoking gun" for understanding the origin of the Libyan desert glass is evidence of an unusual mineral called reidite. Reidite only forms during a meteorite impact, when atoms in the mineral zircon are forced into a tighter arrangement.

Such high-pressure minerals are a hallmark of a meteorite impact, and do not form during airbursts.

Zircon is a common mineral in granite, sandstone and other rock types. It is known from Earth, the Moon, Mars, and various meteorites. It is widely used for dating when rocks formed.

Zircon is also useful when searching for evidence of shock deformation caused by a meteorite impact. At low shock intensity, zircon deforms by bending of the crystal. It is like bending a plastic spoon to the point where it deforms but does not break.

As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms.

If the rocks then get hot, zircon will recrystallise. This results in the formation of a network of new, tiny interlocking grains. Above 1,700℃ zircon ultimately breaks down to zirconia.

Libyan desert glass contains many zircon grains, all smaller than the width of a human hair. While most reacted to zirconia due to the heat, about 10% preserve evidence of former reidite. But the thing is, reidite is no longer present.

Reidite is not stable when hot, and reverts back to zircon above 1,200℃. It only gets preserved if shocked rocks do not melt. So it takes a specialised technique called electron backscatter diffraction to nut out whether reidite once existed in shocked zircons that got hot.

The key to finding evidence of former reidite lies in analysing the crystal orientations of the tiny interlocking grains in reverted zircon.

Similar to turning a Rubik's cube, the initial transformation to reidite occurs along specific directions in a zircon crystal. When reidite changes back to zircon, it leaves a fingerprint of its existence that can be detected through orientation analysis.

And we found the reidite fingerprint in samples of the Libyan desert glass. We examined zircon grains from seven samples and the critical crystal orientation evidence of former reidite was present in each sample.


A closer look at Libyan desert glass: The colors indicate the crystal orientations of tiny interlocking grains of recrystallised zircon. A recrystallized zircon with no history of reidite would be the same color.
Aaron J Cavosie, Author provided
A meteor impact
Reidite is rare and only reported from meteorite impact sites. It is found in material ejected from craters and in shocked rocks at craters.

Prior studies have found evidence of former reidite within zircon from impact melt, similar to how it was identified in Libyan desert glass.

A 100 megaton airburst should occur every 10,000 years. If this size event is supposed to have caused Libyan desert glass to form, the geological record does not support the idea. The reidite fingerprint points to a meteor impact as the only option.

Outstanding mysteries about Libyan desert glass still remain, such as the location of the source crater, its size, and determining if it has eroded away.


Over 1000 tonnes of shattered pure glass spread over a 130 km to 50 km oval shape. No impact craters founds. No meteorite rocks found.

Just because there is reidite signature in the glass doesn't mean the only option is meteorite impact.

As your linked article says, "As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms"

The extreme pressure part supports my theory that a hole was blown in the "sky/heaven/firmament/container" like a dry ice bomb. Dry ice bombs explode because of extreme pressure. Thanks for the info.
25-10-2020 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.


Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:


Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.

So?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-10-2020 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
duncan61 wrote:
The heat is on
Studies show the Libyan desert glass formed about 29 million years ago. The glass is nearly pure silica, which requires temperatures above 1,600℃ to form, and that is hotter than any igneous rock on Earth.


Optical light images of a thin slice of Libyan desert glass.
Aaron J Cavosie
But few mineral relics survived from whatever caused the melting. Within the glass are rare occurrences of high-temperature minerals, including a form of quartz called cristobalite.

There are also grains of the mineral zircon, although most have reacted to form a higher-temperature mineral called zirconia.

Ideas about how the glass formed include melting during meteorite impact, or melting caused by an airburst from an asteroid or other object burning up high in Earth's atmosphere.

Despite many studies, definitive proof about which origin is correct has been elusive, until now.

One problem is that no impact crater from any object hitting the ground in the area has been identified as the source of the glass. Another was the lack of evidence of damage from high-pressure shock waves caused by any impact.

Evidence of impact
Our research, published in the journal Geology, reports the first evidence of high-pressure damage, showing the glass formed during a meteorite impact.

Meteorite impacts and airbursts are both catastrophic events. Large meteorite impacts, such as the one that killed the dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, are rare.

But airbursts occur more frequently. An airburst over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 caused extensive property damage and injured people.


Boom!
The Chelyabinsk airburst deposited 0.5 megatons of energy into the sky. Despite the damage, that event did not cause melting or shock damage.

In contrast, Libyan desert glass is thought by some to have been caused by a 100-megaton airburst, an event 200 times larger than the Russian airburst.

The airburst idea arose from modelling atmospheric nuclear explosions. Like a nuclear bomb, a large airburst deposits energy into the atmosphere that can melt surface materials. And an airburst does not leave a crater.

The 'smoking gun'
The new "smoking gun" for understanding the origin of the Libyan desert glass is evidence of an unusual mineral called reidite. Reidite only forms during a meteorite impact, when atoms in the mineral zircon are forced into a tighter arrangement.

Such high-pressure minerals are a hallmark of a meteorite impact, and do not form during airbursts.

Zircon is a common mineral in granite, sandstone and other rock types. It is known from Earth, the Moon, Mars, and various meteorites. It is widely used for dating when rocks formed.

Zircon is also useful when searching for evidence of shock deformation caused by a meteorite impact. At low shock intensity, zircon deforms by bending of the crystal. It is like bending a plastic spoon to the point where it deforms but does not break.

As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms.

If the rocks then get hot, zircon will recrystallise. This results in the formation of a network of new, tiny interlocking grains. Above 1,700℃ zircon ultimately breaks down to zirconia.

Libyan desert glass contains many zircon grains, all smaller than the width of a human hair. While most reacted to zirconia due to the heat, about 10% preserve evidence of former reidite. But the thing is, reidite is no longer present.

Reidite is not stable when hot, and reverts back to zircon above 1,200℃. It only gets preserved if shocked rocks do not melt. So it takes a specialised technique called electron backscatter diffraction to nut out whether reidite once existed in shocked zircons that got hot.

The key to finding evidence of former reidite lies in analysing the crystal orientations of the tiny interlocking grains in reverted zircon.

Similar to turning a Rubik's cube, the initial transformation to reidite occurs along specific directions in a zircon crystal. When reidite changes back to zircon, it leaves a fingerprint of its existence that can be detected through orientation analysis.

And we found the reidite fingerprint in samples of the Libyan desert glass. We examined zircon grains from seven samples and the critical crystal orientation evidence of former reidite was present in each sample.


A closer look at Libyan desert glass: The colors indicate the crystal orientations of tiny interlocking grains of recrystallised zircon. A recrystallized zircon with no history of reidite would be the same color.
Aaron J Cavosie, Author provided
A meteor impact
Reidite is rare and only reported from meteorite impact sites. It is found in material ejected from craters and in shocked rocks at craters.

Prior studies have found evidence of former reidite within zircon from impact melt, similar to how it was identified in Libyan desert glass.

A 100 megaton airburst should occur every 10,000 years. If this size event is supposed to have caused Libyan desert glass to form, the geological record does not support the idea. The reidite fingerprint points to a meteor impact as the only option.

Outstanding mysteries about Libyan desert glass still remain, such as the location of the source crater, its size, and determining if it has eroded away.


The age of the glass is unknown. The 29 million figure is a random number. Radiometric dating is just guessing with this kind of measurement.

If the glass is the result of meteorite, the crater is probably long gone, and what remained was covered by the constantly shifting sands. Whole cities have disappeared under these sands leaving no trace.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-10-2020 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The heat is on
Studies show the Libyan desert glass formed about 29 million years ago. The glass is nearly pure silica, which requires temperatures above 1,600℃ to form, and that is hotter than any igneous rock on Earth.


Optical light images of a thin slice of Libyan desert glass.
Aaron J Cavosie
But few mineral relics survived from whatever caused the melting. Within the glass are rare occurrences of high-temperature minerals, including a form of quartz called cristobalite.

There are also grains of the mineral zircon, although most have reacted to form a higher-temperature mineral called zirconia.

Ideas about how the glass formed include melting during meteorite impact, or melting caused by an airburst from an asteroid or other object burning up high in Earth's atmosphere.

Despite many studies, definitive proof about which origin is correct has been elusive, until now.

One problem is that no impact crater from any object hitting the ground in the area has been identified as the source of the glass. Another was the lack of evidence of damage from high-pressure shock waves caused by any impact.

Evidence of impact
Our research, published in the journal Geology, reports the first evidence of high-pressure damage, showing the glass formed during a meteorite impact.

Meteorite impacts and airbursts are both catastrophic events. Large meteorite impacts, such as the one that killed the dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, are rare.

But airbursts occur more frequently. An airburst over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 caused extensive property damage and injured people.


Boom!
The Chelyabinsk airburst deposited 0.5 megatons of energy into the sky. Despite the damage, that event did not cause melting or shock damage.

In contrast, Libyan desert glass is thought by some to have been caused by a 100-megaton airburst, an event 200 times larger than the Russian airburst.

The airburst idea arose from modelling atmospheric nuclear explosions. Like a nuclear bomb, a large airburst deposits energy into the atmosphere that can melt surface materials. And an airburst does not leave a crater.

The 'smoking gun'
The new "smoking gun" for understanding the origin of the Libyan desert glass is evidence of an unusual mineral called reidite. Reidite only forms during a meteorite impact, when atoms in the mineral zircon are forced into a tighter arrangement.

Such high-pressure minerals are a hallmark of a meteorite impact, and do not form during airbursts.

Zircon is a common mineral in granite, sandstone and other rock types. It is known from Earth, the Moon, Mars, and various meteorites. It is widely used for dating when rocks formed.

Zircon is also useful when searching for evidence of shock deformation caused by a meteorite impact. At low shock intensity, zircon deforms by bending of the crystal. It is like bending a plastic spoon to the point where it deforms but does not break.

As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms.

If the rocks then get hot, zircon will recrystallise. This results in the formation of a network of new, tiny interlocking grains. Above 1,700℃ zircon ultimately breaks down to zirconia.

Libyan desert glass contains many zircon grains, all smaller than the width of a human hair. While most reacted to zirconia due to the heat, about 10% preserve evidence of former reidite. But the thing is, reidite is no longer present.

Reidite is not stable when hot, and reverts back to zircon above 1,200℃. It only gets preserved if shocked rocks do not melt. So it takes a specialised technique called electron backscatter diffraction to nut out whether reidite once existed in shocked zircons that got hot.

The key to finding evidence of former reidite lies in analysing the crystal orientations of the tiny interlocking grains in reverted zircon.

Similar to turning a Rubik's cube, the initial transformation to reidite occurs along specific directions in a zircon crystal. When reidite changes back to zircon, it leaves a fingerprint of its existence that can be detected through orientation analysis.

And we found the reidite fingerprint in samples of the Libyan desert glass. We examined zircon grains from seven samples and the critical crystal orientation evidence of former reidite was present in each sample.


A closer look at Libyan desert glass: The colors indicate the crystal orientations of tiny interlocking grains of recrystallised zircon. A recrystallized zircon with no history of reidite would be the same color.
Aaron J Cavosie, Author provided
A meteor impact
Reidite is rare and only reported from meteorite impact sites. It is found in material ejected from craters and in shocked rocks at craters.

Prior studies have found evidence of former reidite within zircon from impact melt, similar to how it was identified in Libyan desert glass.

A 100 megaton airburst should occur every 10,000 years. If this size event is supposed to have caused Libyan desert glass to form, the geological record does not support the idea. The reidite fingerprint points to a meteor impact as the only option.

Outstanding mysteries about Libyan desert glass still remain, such as the location of the source crater, its size, and determining if it has eroded away.


Over 1000 tonnes of shattered pure glass spread over a 130 km to 50 km oval shape. No impact craters founds. No meteorite rocks found.

Just because there is reidite signature in the glass doesn't mean the only option is meteorite impact.

True. The glass could be the result of lightning, or even man made. We just don't know.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As your linked article says, "As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms"

The extreme pressure part supports my theory that a hole was blown in the "sky/heaven/firmament/container" like a dry ice bomb. Dry ice bombs explode because of extreme pressure. Thanks for the info.

There is no hole in the sky. Dry ice is not a bomb.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-10-2020 20:07
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
Isn't 29 millions, sort of a long time? Why does it just have to be a single event, or only one possible explanation? Humans were still squatting in caves 10 thousand years ago.

The sands of the Savannah desert shift, and move a great deal. There was quite a bit of it in the upper atmosphere this summer. Had a dampening effect on the tropical storms, not to mentions some pretty cool sunsets. Sandstone is pretty weak, and crumbly. Could there have been once a large, sort of mountain of the stuff, that got melted, but not busted up that much. Few million years later, get smacked good, by a chunk of space rock? Or the un-melted sandstone, simply eroded, the glass, eventually shattered. Gravity still only works one way, down. Heavier chunks are going to roll further downhill. Lighter pieces would get blown around with the sand.

At the end of the day, it's still just guessing. And people will keep looking, because somebody is willing to pay for it. They'll keep guessing, as long as there is research money, and they can come up with a better guess. But, what does it really matter? Lot of freak things on the planet, that happened millions of years ago, and unlikely to be repeated. Even if they are, is there really anything we could do to stop it? What does how desert glass formed, millions of years ago, effect anything? We already know how to make glass, been doing it for a long time.

Messing with giant space rocks, is a bad idea. They circle around the solar system, like a lot of space crap, and seldom stray from their path, and mess with anything else. We move any of them, we don't know what new path they might end up on, or what they might bump into. We might move one enough, that it doesn't come close to us, but it's likely to slam into something else, altering it's path. Eventually, we have the same problem, big chunk heading in our direction. Plus, we get a bunch of smaller chunks flying around.

Global warming is going to fry all life on the planet in 80-90 years anyway, if covid doesn't wipe us out first. We have a lot more pressing issues to deal with, other than freak events of millions of years ago, or trying to 'fix' problems, that really don't exist. Life is hard work, and we don't have the capacity to fix everything we fear. Millions of people die every year, many didn't have a choice, special the babies aborted... Like everything else, we need to work hard to survive. We don't control everything, but we can make use of what we can, to adapt and survive, what ever gets thrown at us. A lot of people are lazy, and constantly looking for ways to survive, without having to do any work. They want to fix everything, to better suit there laziness.
26-10-2020 06:34
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
It sounds something like the 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia, Russia. https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion

It's interesting that it's not circular. Could it have had a low trajectory? That would change it's blast radius.
@spongy, don't have access to my computer so can't show 2 images of an El Mono. The top picture should give you an idea what I'm on about. And unless I'm mistaken, they say that chanting wind patterns are the cause.
https://www.google.com/search?q=3d+el+nino+image&client=tablet-android-lenovo-rev2&prmd=ivn&sxsrf=ALeKk01QYABRUSMNN7P1vuK0qELPHvXv8A:1603686685011&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifncO5ttHsAhWZLs0KHZ5vCkgQ_AUoAXoECB4QAQ&biw=800&bih=1280&dpr=1.5#imgrc=sXoXzgci1Xp17M

The cause: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/science/7844223/el-nino-causes-effects-pacific-2019/#:~:text=El%20Nino%20is%20essentially%20caused,direction%20or%20becoming%20less%20intense.&text=In%20contrast%20El%20Nino%20can,heavy%20rainfall%20in%20other%20areas.
Edited on 26-10-2020 06:56
27-10-2020 04:47
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
James___ wrote:
It sounds something like the 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia, Russia. https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion

It's interesting that it's not circular. Could it have had a low trajectory? That would change it's blast radius.


In regards to the Chelyabinsk meteor, it doesn't look to me like it hit the atmosphere at speeds of 25,000 to 160,000 miles per hour! The reason they say meteors burn up when entering the atmosphere is the increase in pressure from hitting the air at such extremely high speeds that are out of this world fast.

What do you think, looking at the footage? How fast is that meteor travelling?

https://youtu.be/90Omh7_I8vI

They say the meteor exploded somewhere in the range of 12 to 15 miles above land. I might conclude, looking at the footage, it started to crumbled around 15 miles high, and blew up around 12 miles high.

In regards to the other event mentioned...

Just a hunch, could the Tunguska blast be like an ammonium nitrate explosion???

"After 1958, expeditions to the Tunguska region also noted genetic changes in the plants at the fall point
since 1908. There was accelerated growth both in new trees and in those damaged by the explosion. In
some cases, a fungus infection had spread over the dead wood, then been covered by the wild new
growth. Examination of growth rings on living trees showed that around the period of the blast there
was a noticeable increase in cell production; the rings were both wider and more pronounced. Those
before 1908 varied from .04 to 2 millimeters in width, while after the blast they became as wide as 5 to
10 millimeters. Trees which germinated after the explosion would normally have grown to about 23 to
26 feet in height by 1958; instead, they towered between 55 and 72 feet high. Some of those which
survived the blast were now almost four times their expected girth.
Zolotov's 1959 expedition drew attention to these anomalies, and Florensky's 1961 party made detailed
examinations. The latter's report stated that "the features of accelerated tree growth established in
1958 have been confirmed by a great volume of data and are peculiar to the central region of the impact
area. In view of the fact that the causes of the phenomena are not clear, work along this line should be
continued." Later the report said, "Although literature sources indicate that the aftereffects of ordinary
forest fires and forest uprooting with which we are familiar from European silviculture should not last
longer than 15 to 20 years, they persist, occasionally without noticeable abatement, for a period of 40 to
50 years in the area of the meteorite fall. V. I. Nekrasov [participant in 1961 expedition] has expressed
doubt as to the possibility of explaining this phenomenon in terms of purely ecological factors." Thinking
that meteoric dust may have fertilized the area so as to encourage growth, the 1961 party planted test
areas of grain to see if it grew better than in traditional soil. It did not, proving that whatever affected
the trees at the fall point did so only at the instant of the blast and for a short time thereafter."
...
"Once a reaction is sparked, ammonium nitrate explodes violently. The explosive force occurs when solid ammonium nitrate decomposes very rapidly into two gases, nitrous oxide and water vapor."
...
Not to say that is exactly what it was, but just to give an example of a huge explosion that could flatten trees, produce a shock wave, wouldn't leave much evidence, and would encourage plant growth, to speculate.
Edited on 27-10-2020 04:51
27-10-2020 09:32
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?
Edited on 27-10-2020 09:50
07-11-2020 13:34
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html
07-11-2020 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What blast? You guys are just speculating.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-11-2020 20:18
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?
09-11-2020 00:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Spongy Iris wrote:There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Of course. Meteors prefer well-rounded numbers and fortunately an alien race accidentally left a radar speed gauge behind that was able to clock the meteor before its battery died and stored the value for us to find after we had finally evolved.

We almost were left to simply make wild speculations about the past. Whew!

Spongy Iris wrote: Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

Yeah, those are the steady stream of space aliens we get now that they opened up the new stops on the Metro.

Spongy Iris wrote: But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

You are spot on. The meteor certainly exploded above the earth and not by impact with the earth because all meteors after 1986 are armed with proximity detonators and they are set to 1 to 3 miles above the earth. Good catch.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-11-2020 04:42
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.

Edited on 09-11-2020 04:50
09-11-2020 05:15
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.


Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!


Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.
09-11-2020 05:30
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.


Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!


Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.



With a hydrogen or nuclear detonation, it's material reaches a critical mass. This is where the detonation device causes the atoms in the device to collide with each other. Then fission starts to occur and it's over in milliseconds. And even with how thin the atmosphere is, it's ability to create resistance, ie., heat up a meteorite can have the same effect.
If a meteorite releases neutrons from what it's composed of, then a chain reaction can happen. At the same time both nickel and iron have a flash point.
With nickel, it's 2,651°F/1,455°C and with iron it's 2,800°F/1,538°C.
The contrail observed might have been out gassing by the meteorite.
Attached image:

10-11-2020 21:36
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.


Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:


Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.

So?


The glass is not the same composition as Saharan desert sand or Nubian sandstone upon which it rests.
10-11-2020 21:53
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(271)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:

True. The glass could be the result of lightning, or even man made. We just don't know.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
As your linked article says, "As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms"

The extreme pressure part supports my theory that a hole was blown in the "sky/heaven/firmament/container" like a dry ice bomb. Dry ice bombs explode because of extreme pressure. Thanks for the info.

There is no hole in the sky. Dry ice is not a bomb.


Why would you consider this 1000 tonnes of glass to have been the result of lightning?

You don't mean so many lightning bolts hit the desert sand and turned the sand to glass do you?

Perhaps are you considering it was upper atmospheric lightning that was responsible for shattering a hole in the thick yellow wall of protective glass all around the world?

That would be an interesting theory to consider...

But I still think the reidite signature indicates a high pressure type of explosion, the kind which happens if you mix dry ice and water into a glass bottle, and seal the glass bottle. The bottle will explode. People call that a "dry ice bomb."
11-11-2020 03:49
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.


Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:


Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.

So?


The glass is not the same composition as Saharan desert sand or Nubian sandstone upon which it rests.



Diamonds are made in a laboratory from coal. Just heat and pressurize. It doesn't always work but the success rate is enough to earn a profit. They have identifying codes etched into them, I think with a laser. This is how they can be told apart from diamonds that are mined.
With the glass in the north of Africa, when the meteorite detonated, it would've released huge amounts of heat along with a concussive blast that would have generated a lot of pressure. The glass in the desert probably isn't as hard as a diamond.
11-11-2020 03:54
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2702)
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.
11-11-2020 04:07
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.



This link is to PBS in Orlando. While the show covers different topics, it does include glass blowing. I think PBS in Kentucky (could've been a local TV station promoting Kentucky) did a lengthy segment on artisans (glass blowers) in Louisville. You should be able to watch this on over the air broadcast on your TV.
https://www.pbs.org/video/vaudeville-stars-a-glass-blower-mn-largest-candy-store-ihpmr9/

It's also known that some meteorites leave glass while others leave fragments which can be worth enough money.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate A personal experience for climate change deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them13317-02-2020 07:16
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Personal environmental monitor/logger/tracker1819-12-2018 20:32
Practical experience v Theory2711-12-2018 00:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact