On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:19:37 -0700, Don Bruder <dakidd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Depends on the "landing zones", I'd say.
>
>Drop 'em on land and things are likely gonna get *REAL* ugly in a big
>hurry, for a long time, and over a wide area due to the dust/debris
>clouds. A "Nuclear Winter" scenario, without the "Nuclear", I'd expect.
>
>Drop 'em on the icecaps, and I suspect that the oceans might rise a bit,
>but probably little more than that.
>
>Drop 'em in the oceans, and coastal lowlands get washed away by massive
>tsunamis, but inland/higher elevation areas areas see little (if
>anything) more than a short-term increase in precipitation.
?? I'd read something or other a long time ago that pretty much reversed
your
risk areas here - if they fall on land, the affected area glows for a
while
from the heat, and some dust arises, mushroom-cloud-like. The heat is
mostly
contained at the impact site - rocks aren't very thermally conductive -
and
radiates away into space slowly. If they fall on the sea? They _eva****ate_
a
large volume around them ... and THAT goes straight into the atmosphere,
and
in addition to the tsunamis you have hurricanes of live steam in every
direction, and the Earth clouds over for the next several years. Once
things
clear the plants are dead, and any remaining animals are doomed...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not the pot that grows the
flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone
to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET
VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/
- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all
CAPS! --K.
|
