Re: K-T impact theory

[Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>]

At 06:38 PM 5/30/97 -0700, Jonathon Woolf wrote:
>Mr. Miller's claim is not extreme.  It is typical of the ideas being
>pushed by pro-impact people.

Based on what I have seen attributed to him here, I doubt it.

Very few, as far as I know, actually suggest that NA was *totally* scoured
of all life.  At most 99.9% of the life in NA was killed.

Furthermore, he seems to be maintaining the "blast winter" scenario in its
fullest form.  This is now seriously doubted by most workers.  Apparently
the effects of such blasts do *not* scale linearly with blast size - they
apparently saturate the capacity of the system past a certain point.  In
other words, these things don't get a whole lot worse than the cooling
caused recent volcanic explosions (two or three times as bad is probably
about the limit).

And note, a reduction in growing season that is disastrous for humans would
have far less impact on a natural ecosystem, as our agricultural methods
meet food demands *far* in excess of the natural carrying capacity, so the
absolute magnitude of the shortfall is greater when human agriculture is
disturbed than when a natural system is disturbed - even if the
*proportional* loss is the same.  (gee that's a long sentence).

Again, look at the *real*, complex, patchy effects of the Mt. St. Hellen's
blast to see how this really works - not the narrow view of the effects you
have been presented.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com