I was sarcastic about you thinking it is the globalist agenda but now it seems you have caught up with my sarcasm
What is the relationship with AGW scientists?
Fair enough, I assumed you were talking of this hypothesis because Abbott et al. are the sources of the different hypothesis of rainfall related flooding from the meteor events, including the Burckle one.
Most of the Nile watershed is not on the east African highlands so it should have been a very intense and very long downpour at these locations to produce an unusual high flooding in the lower Nile. It is a matter of precipitation height over the area.
The argument made by Abbott et al. is very simple and I found it even simplistic, with several problematic assumptions.
First of all, they assume that ALL of the energy from the impact is used to vaporize the water. This is overly exaggerating the effect.
Secondly, they estimated the energy from the impact using the "Earth impact effects program" online without specifying the values used. They got a value in joule 300 times higher
than people performing a simulation of the impact. So it is something to keep in mind they could have used a too high value.
Thirdly, they have calculated from this kinetical energy the volume of water vaporized and what precipitation height it would have been in result if this volume was evenly spread over an area. That's all. There is no consideration for atmospheric circulation, neither any precipitation gradient starting from the impact. In reality the energy is dissipated from the impact following square or cubic growth functions (basic geometry from an increasing volume and an increasing area of a hemisphere with the impact as the center). So a steep gradient would have been produced.
Fourthly, they assume that the heat is only used to rise the temperature of the water and to vaporize it. They didn't take in consideration that you can rise the temperature of the vapor and
to superheat it up to the critical point. Which would have resulted in less volume of vaporized water in total.
Fifthly, it ignores the fact that heating air is producing atmospheric convection and in regard to the location of the impact far below the equator it would have worked against a spread to the Northern Hemisphere (basic meteorology and geophysics).
Sixtly, the southern part of the Nile watershed is 4400 km away and the eastern part of the watershed is 5100 km away from the Burckle impact.
Sevently, Abbott et al. are saying: "The minimum circle radius is 4750 km and the maximum circle radius is 7250 km. The surface area covered by the region in between the two circles is 9.42 x 10^13 m2. This is about 18% of the surface area of the Earth.
If the rainout from the Burckle event was evenly distributed in between those two circles, the average rainout was about 50 cm. This is a lot of rain but it is not enough to constitute a catastrophe that would be remembered for hundreds of generations". So obviously they are not even considering any rainout before the first 4750 km. By adding this part, it goes down to 28 cm.
So even with their exaggerating model, it didn't produce a never seen rainfall.
Moreover, an incredible but short rainfall in the Upper Nile is not the best way to produce a strong flood in the Lower Nile 3000 km away. If the discharge is too strong at the beginning, much of the water is lost through floodplains and topographical depressions. The duration of a rainfall is also very important.
You are misunderstanding the critics.
"Bourgeois and Weiss decided to take a closer look at whether it would be possible for a mega-tsunami to have deposited the chevrons. Focusing on two cases — the Madagascar chevrons and a series of chevrons found in Australia — they modeled how mega-tsunamis would behave as they approach the coast and how they might transport sediment. In their models, the waves generated by a theoretical asteroid impact in the ocean spread out in a circular pattern until they reached shallower waters, where they refracted against the seafloor. The waves, bearing the sediment load that would ultimately form the chevrons, then became parallel to the shoreline — an orientation inconsistent with the chevrons’ actual orientation, the researchers reported in Geology.
The models of sediment transport also suggested another strike against the mega-tsunami hypothesis: The chevrons are made up of ripples and dunes, Bourgeois says — evidence of a certain kind of sediment transport called “bed load,” in which the grains bounce along the sediment bed until they finally come to rest. Less powerful water flows or winds would carry sediments as bed load, but a giant, powerful wave would be able to fully suspend sediment grains of many sizes, carrying them far across the shoreline until they are finally deposited — forming a sheet of sand, rather than dunes."
https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...unami-deposits