Celestia Forums

Ive been looking for a dead earth map for one of my scenarios for a while now, but couldnt find it, so I messed about in paintshop with an Earth map, and I got this;


Its not that detailed (and innacurate I know ) but I thought i'd put it here since it doesnt look too bad in Celestia;



So, what d'ya think?

-Neethis

there probably wouldn't be that many water clouds

lol I know, I coudlnt be bothered to apply a thin clouds texture
Besides, who said they are clouds of water...

EDIT/ Ive just thought, if the planet got really hot, then there would in fact be MORE water clouds...

I did lots of texturing around that issue about 2 years ago.

Here is an example:




Bye Fridger

Fridger,

why don't you release your textures ? On your web site, at least !?

Looks cool, but the thing that bugs me is that the pale "continental shelf" areas should actually be the same colour as the continent itself. On a "dead" earth there'd be no reason for them to be lighter, especially if any residual atmosphere is still present to mix the sediments in the newly exposed lowlands.

In some places the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of now-exposed ocean trenches could be noticeably different to the pressure at the datum too.

Cham wrote:Fridger,

why don't you release your textures ? On your web site, at least !?

One day, I'll find the time for that, too

Bye Fridger

I once tried to do a similar thing with an earth texture to imitate a "dying earth" dream I had, but it was much more difficult than I realized.

EDIT: but I did invert an earth clouds cloudmap to try to make it look like it was the victim of a nasty nuclear war:

As for the continental shelves, hint: SALT.

d.m.f.

ya know.....this "dead earth" image reminds me of what our planet will soon look like if people ou there don't regain common sense and preserve resources. In fact, it looks jus how I imagined a dead earth to be. Nice work on it by the way!

Dear folks:

Your dead Earth could very well resemble Earth after being hit by the K-T Boundary Asteroid Impact. The only thing missing would be some new volcanic activity around the Yucatan impact site (the impact cracked the crust and generated lots of eruptions).

This could make a great new Educational Activity, where we take folks back in time to witness the impact, watch the Earth catch fire then turn dark with dust and debris (including a small temporary ring), and see the green continents turn brown and black. Of course, the continents did not look as they do today. They were in different places and some land areas were shallow seas. We would obviously need to have a before and after texture.

If you have an interest, I would be willing to develop this potentially new and exciting activity, in partnership with you and anyone else who would like to get involved. JESTR, for example, has done wonders with his collisions in the Primitive Earth Activity, so creating the Yucatan asteroid impact might be something he would like to try.

WHAT DO YOU SAY???

fRANK

That sounds like a nice idea. I like the new activity things, and a meteor impact would be awesome if it can look as good as the ones on the Discovery channel. Debris and all.

Sorry guys, but imha, earth wasn't like that after the KT impact. If oceans were vaporized by this impact, nothing larger than bacteriae would have survived...

Dear Chacal:

You are correct in considering the oceans at the site of impact (a shallow section of the Gulf of Mexico near what is now the Yukatan). However, by no means were most of the oceans vaporized. Most of them were completely untouched and were not even heated. The death of 70% of life on Earth, including many creatures in the oceans, was caused primarily by a major drop in sunlight (asteroid winter), followed immediately by a deep freeze, followed by a runaway greenhouse effect caused by enormous amounts of CO2 and methane being put into the atmosphere from the burning of global forests.

It is a complicated story that I don't want to elaborate here, but respectfully, the only area of ocean vaporized by the impact was a 10 - 20 mile section directly at impact site.

Regards,

Frank

fsgregs wrote:Dear Chacal:

You are correct in considering the oceans at the site of impact (a shallow section of the Gulf of Mexico near what is now the Yukatan). However, by no means were most of the oceans vaporized. Most of them were completely untouched and were not even heated. The death of 70% of life on Earth, including many creatures in the oceans, was caused primarily by a major drop in sunlight (asteroid winter), followed immediately by a deep freeze, followed by a runaway greenhouse effect caused by enormous amounts of CO2 and methane being put into the atmosphere from the burning of global forests.

It is a complicated story that I don't want to elaborate here, but respectfully, the only area of ocean vaporized by the impact was a 10 - 20 mile section directly at impact site.

Regards,

Frank

Frank,

who proved this detailed sequence of events from a strict scientific point of view?

Bye Fridger

Fridger:

Hi. The sequence of events is indeed complicated. Some articles I've read and some documentaries I've seen outline the events following the impact as one of immediate volcanic eruption at site of impact, steam explosions of titanic proportions, molten vaporized rock being ejected to heights exceeding 100 km, smoke, ash, continental forest fires set by burning debris, etc. That led to an asteroid winter, with some scenarios placing the sky at near dark for six months or longer, causing massive global cooling and climate change which led to massive plant death, which led to animal starvation, etc. Recently, I encountered a new twist, in which the burning of so much forest placed so much CO2 and methane in the atmosphere that it led to a subsequent high greenhouse effect, causing a large shift in climate in the other direction.

I'm sure my source of articles is not the level of yours. I basically learn a lot of my science from the popular science press, to include such magazines as Discover, Scientific American and occasionally, "Nature", plus a host of documentaries aired on PBS stations in the U.S. I also extensively read articles on science websites to include those of NASA, the Near Earth Program, Space.com, Astronomy.com, JPL.gov, etc.

Before I would write the Activity, I would of course, research the entire impact to refresh my understanding of it, but there you have it.

Frank

One main item to keep in mind concerning the KT Impact is that the asteroid strike was most likely NOT the sole cause of extinction. The planet was already undergoing many other major changes at this time, including the draining of the continental seas due to ongoing continental drift, the replacing of certain ecologies with others (eg, many forested areas were becoming much less vegetated, and were becoming dominated by angiosperms), and of course the major (and I mean major!) volcanic activity of the Deccan Traps in what would become India.

Though there remains some debate on this point, it does appear that the Dinosaurs were already decreasing in numbers by the late Cretaceous, likely caused by these changes. When the asteroid struck, it struck at absolutely the worst time. I'd bet that the Dinosaurs would have survived (much as they did during the much earlier Triassic mass extinction, which eliminated most of their competition from the early mammals and mammal-like reptiles), had it not been for that final blow. And had the asteroid hit and none of these other changes were in the making, then they still would have probably survived. But all of the factors together was simply too much to sustain the planetary ecology.

Impacts are a sexy device for mass extinctions, and where there is a mass extinction scientists are often tempted now to put the blame on an impact. But it should be rememebred that there have been mass extinctions with no associated major impact (including the worst extinction ever, the Permian Extinction), and there have been major impacts with no associated mass extinctions.

...John...

fsgregs wrote:Fridger:

Hi. The sequence of events is indeed complicated. Some articles I've read and some documentaries I've seen outline the events following the impact as one of immediate volcanic eruption at site of impact, steam explosions of titanic proportions, molten vaporized rock being ejected to heights exceeding 100 km, smoke, ash, continental forest fires set by burning debris, etc. That led to an asteroid winter, with some scenarios placing the sky at near dark for six months or longer, causing massive global cooling and climate change which led to massive plant death, which led to animal starvation, etc. Recently, I encountered a new twist, in which the burning of so much forest placed so much CO2 and methane in the atmosphere that it led to a subsequent high greenhouse effect, causing a large shift in climate in the other direction.

I'm sure my source of articles is not the level of yours. I basically learn a lot of my science from the popular science press, to include such magazines as Discover, Scientific American and occasionally, "Nature", plus a host of documentaries aired on PBS stations in the U.S. I also extensively read articles on science websites to include those of NASA, the Near Earth Program, Space.com, Astronomy.com, JPL.gov, etc.

Before I would write the Activity, I would of course, research the entire impact to refresh my understanding of it, but there you have it.

Frank

Frank,

thanks for your honest explanations. Please, get me right, I like scientific speculations a lot myself. Speculation is an important element in scientific analysis and often creates new fruitful ways of looking at a problem or an event.

It is paramount, however, to leave no doubts whatsoever at any moment, that one is talking about speculation rather than facts in this case! Your previous sequence of arguments

fsgregs wrote:However, by no means were most of the oceans vaporized. Most of them were completely untouched and were not even heated. The death of 70% of life on Earth, including many creatures in the oceans, was caused primarily by a major drop in sunlight (asteroid winter), followed immediately by a deep freeze, followed by a runaway greenhouse effect caused by enormous amounts of CO2 and methane being put into the atmosphere from the burning of global forests.

sounded rather as if all this was "textbook level", i.e. completely established. That's why I intervened...

I can only repeat myself in emphasizing once more that authors of popular science magazins and TV shows are first of all judged by their ability of attracting a large crowd of people with their stories. Scientific correctness i.e. a clean separation of facts and fiction is usually of secondary importance!

Bye Fridger

t00fri wrote:I can only repeat myself in emphasizing once more that authors of popular science magazins and TV shows are first of all judged by their ability of attracting a large crowd of people with their stories. Scientific correctness i.e. a clean separation of facts and fiction is usually of secondary importance!

Bye Fridger

The makers of the movie "Armageddon" would likely agree with you. The publishers and writers of Astronomy and Discover magazines on the other hand would probably be rather insulted.

Just because something is geared towards the "common folk" doesn't mean it is, by default, incorrect.

...John...

Dollan wrote:

t00fri wrote:I can only repeat myself in emphasizing once more that authors of popular science magazins and TV shows are first of all judged by their ability of attracting a large crowd of people with their stories. Scientific correctness i.e. a clean separation of facts and fiction is usually of secondary importance!

Bye Fridger

The makers of the movie "Armageddon" would likely agree with you. The publishers and writers of Astronomy and Discover magazines on the other hand would probably be rather insulted.

Just because something is geared towards the "common folk" doesn't mean it is, by default, incorrect.

...John...

Absolutely the wrong point you are getting at!

It has nothing at all to do with the "common folk" or similar nonsense. It has only to do with money making, eventually! Magazines have to sell well, TV shows are measured by the number of people watching, NOT by the quality of the show. You and I know that. Correct science often reads much more boring to laymen than "phantasy science"...

As a senior scientist, I can judge first hand what is printed in popular science magazines or broadcast in TV. Over and over again...That's all.

Many science writers have never completed a thorough scientific training and often understand only vaguely what they are writing about. Just believe me, I had plenty of /direct/ contacts with writers from leading popular science magazines, since there have been many articles about my laboratory and also several feature articles about my wife and myself in the course of time...

Bye Fridger