A personal experience for climate change deniers

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.

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.

James___ wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But CO2 is being added to the atmosphere.

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.

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).

Spongy Iris wrote:
Measurements at Mauna Loa,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and confirmed at Duncan61's yard,

Spongy Iris wrote:
indicate not all CO2 added to the atmosphere has been absorbed.

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?

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

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.

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

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]
It is not in a closed container. You can't increase pressure that way.

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested

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.

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This climate change alarmist is like Chicken Little telling you the sky is falling.

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.