Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vast Asteroid Crater Found In Timor Sea

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the duck-and-cover dept.

Australia 121

An anonymous reader notes the discovery of a 35-million-year-old impact crater in the Timor Sea, northwest of Australia, which helped to usher in a period of significant global cooling. "The new findings, announced today and published in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, suggest that the impact could have contributed towards the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet... The minimum size of the dome, which 'represents elastic rebound doming of the Earth crust triggered by the impact' is 50 km across, but the full size of the crater could be significantly larger, [lead researcher Andrew Glikson] told Australian Geographic. 'It would be possibly 100 km.' From the probable diameter of the crater, Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km in size. This impact coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally. Several other craters have been documented from a similar time, including one off the WA coast measuring 120 km in diameter. Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Golden Girls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32292928)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.

Re:Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293318)

you're a pal and a cosmonaut

I like this lyric way better than the real one.

Re:Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293756)

Major Tom to Betty White...
Commencing countdown, engines are alight.

Formula for probability: (1, Troll)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32292988)

What's the formula for probability of an occurrence like this? I mean i can do probability in the form of - !6 1,2,3,4,5,6/1,2,3,4,5 i might have gotten that wrong, it's early.

Re:Formula for probability: (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293060)

Huh? What?

The probability of this like all past occurrences is 100%.

Re:Formula for probability: (2, Funny)

fhuglegads (1334505) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293108)

And the probability for all future events is 50/50.. they either will happen or they won't :)

Re:Formula for probability: (2, Funny)

BrightSpark (1578977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293214)

But not once we measure them. So we only find the 100% probability ones. The others have dead cats in them ;-p

Re:Formula for probability: (2)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293384)

I'm not sure any of you fully understand probability.

Re:Formula for probability: (4, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293448)

Probably not.

Re:Formula for probability: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293530)

That's honestly what made that exchange funny.

Re:Formula for probability: (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294214)

>I'm not sure any of you fully understand probability.
Probably

Re:Formula for probability: (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294772)

Art School dropout here; probably not.

Re:Formula for probability: (1)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295208)

I was thinking nPr = N!/(N-R)!

Re:Formula for probability: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32295622)

He's referring to Quantum Mechanics. Also, jokes.

Damn bugs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293024)

This impact coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally.

Obviously these asteroids were released from orbit by bug plasma. Invade Klendathu!

"created by an asteroid 100 km in size" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293036)

I think not.

when will people learn??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293038)

When will you nerds learn? The climate on this planet has never changed one bit, and anyone who suggests that it does (I'm looking at you Australian Earth "Scientists") is part of the grand conspiracy.

Possible reason (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293046)

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think so (2, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293050)

Something that large hitting the earth would evaporate most of the oceans and turn a large proportion of the earths surface molten. If it didn't kill off life entirely it would certainly kill off almost all multicellular organisms and reset the evolutionary clock so an impact like that could not have happened in the last 600 million years at least.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (3, Informative)

pedropolis (928836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293078)

"Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km" The crater left was up to 100km in diameter.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (4, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293116)

FTFS: "Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

From what I could quickly find, the Popigai Crater in Siberia is 100km in diameter, but that doesn't mean that whatever created it was 100km in size.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293684)

"Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km"

The crater left was up to 100km in diameter.

Of course this just goes to show that we should be spending more resources identifying, tracking, and technologies to deal with asteroids that have the potential to hit Earth. We are still largely dependent on amateur astronomers for the first two, which wouldn't be so bad except for the lack of viewing coverage and consistency, and while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested. A 5 km to 10 km impact would be a devastating disaster for any country, and depending on the exact circumstances would have very significant international consequences as well! Unlike a lot of natural disasters, it is theoretically possible to entirely prevent large asteroid impacts with equipment currently achievable through the scientific and technical prowess of multiple developed nations. Yet, knowing human nature it will probably take a impact of at least a 100 m dia. object near a major population center for this threat to actually register to most people...

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294320)

while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested

All we need a is a massive clone army. "Fathered" by Bruce Willis.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295488)

while we have some ideas for the latter few have been tested

All we need a is a massive clone army. "Fathered" by Bruce Willis.

Will Demi Moore be involved in the process?

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

techhead79 (1517299) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296954)

Will Demi Moore be involved in the process?

no but there is a chance that Chuck Norris will be involved in the process. The idea is to combine the die hard quality of Bruce Willis and the selfless brute that blew up the asteroid with the awsome round kick power of Chuck Norris. yes, you should be fearful of the potential for a Chuck Noris/Bruce Willis clone hybrid thing. But if you want we can have Demi Moore suck the needed DND from the two applicants.

Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km (3, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293080)

Read the article. The crater is 10x the size of the rock.

Re:Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293226)

You might want to read the article again yourself:

Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size.

That's in the summary and also in the article - third paragraph from the end.

Re:Rock 5-10km, crater 50-100km (1)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296408)

The summary and the article are wrong. A 100 km asteroid impacting would pretty much sterilize the crust.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293100)

It was phrased badly by the idiot author. The crater was 100 km in diameter.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (3, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293102)

Reading is fundamental....

The minimum size of the dome, which 'represents elastic rebound doming of the Earth crust triggered by the impact' is 50 km across, but the full size of the crater could be significantly larger, [lead researcher Andrew Glikson] told Australian Geographic. 'It would be possibly 100 km.'

Andrew estimates that the asteroid which struck the Timor Sea was between 5 and 10 km in size.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1, Redundant)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293152)

Reading is fundamental....

Yes, reading IS fundamental. Now go back and reread the last sentence of the summary and tell me what it says.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293200)

Who in their right mind accepts a kdawson summary at face value?

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0, Redundant)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293182)

Reading is fundamental....

Indeed so.

TFS, last sentence:"Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

CC.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

Truth is life (1184975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293244)

Also,

Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size.

Er, what was that about reading comprehension, again?

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0, Redundant)

Cruise_WD (410599) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293248)

Reading is fundamental....

Indeed. Reading all the way to the bottom is equally useful:

"Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293400)

Reading is fundamental, you should try it.

Look at the last line of the 3rd paragraph.

The person you are replying to obviously read the article, but you where to busy trying to find someone to be snarky at to actual take the 35 seconds it would have taken to read the Article.

YOU are what is wrong with /.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295506)

Reading is fundamental, you should try it.

Look at the last line of the 3rd paragraph.

The person you are replying to obviously read the article, but you where to busy trying to find someone to be snarky at to actual take the 35 seconds it would have taken to read the Article.

YOU are what is wrong with /.

Or maybe he is /. - profound I know!

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293110)

I stuck my penis your dads butt, then I sucked him off and tickled his balls. Your mom wanted to play with my penis when I was doing then, but I said no.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293228)

besides what others posted here, you should also realize it would be possible to put a 100km asteroid (10x the size of the one in article) on a trajectory such that it would land on the earth with essentially zero kinetic energy. In other words, merely knowing the size of an asteroid or even its composition tells you nothing about relative velocity with the earth or angle of strike, all of which affect total impact energy.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293338)

"besides what others posted here, you should also realize it would be possible to put a 100km asteroid (10x the size of the one in article) on a trajectory such that it would land on the earth with essentially zero kinetic energy."

Utter rubbish. Even if it wasn't moving earths gravity would still accelerate it to a dangerous velocity before it hit us.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293374)

I bet there would still be a small bump felt due to gravitational pull. Just a small bump:).
But, good point!

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295520)

Are you sure about that? Because, this [ic.ac.uk] shows us as being pretty well hosed, even in perfect conditions: minimum velocity, angle, and density, maximum distance from impact. Maybe not sterilized, but still stone (and probably ice) aged or worse. A 100 km wide vaguely spherical object displaces a hell of a lot of fluid and rock, even at low impact velocities.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32297184)

Which part of that page you linked to says we would be sent back to the stone age? It seems to be describing a collision which would obviously devastate the area around the crater but with very minor global impact.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293236)

Something that large hitting the earth would evaporate most of the oceans and turn a large proportion of the earths surface molten. If it didn't kill off life entirely it would certainly kill off almost all multicellular organisms and reset the evolutionary clock so an impact like that could not have happened in the last 600 million years at least.

Oops. Got a decimal in the wrong place. "A 100 cm in diameter". It may not have wiped out all life on Earth but it did scare the hell out of some fish.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

MikePikeFL (303907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294968)

So you're the one who created that dip in the stock market, eh?

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293368)

Not it wouldn't. It would be bad, but not likely to kill off almost all multicellular organisms.

And evolution isn't a clock.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294054)

And evolution isn't a clock.

That's just a theory unless you can prove it! =P

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32296554)

Once you prove, it's not theory anymore.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294590)

Evolution is not a clock.

It's a series of screws.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (4, Insightful)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294744)

a 100km dense rock asteroid would sterilize the earth's surface. It would vaporize 343000 cubic miles of crust in less than a second.

Peak Overpressure: 6.89e+07 Pa = 689 bars = 9780 psi at 500km from impact. Actually at 500km from impact you'd be in the crater since it would be 520 miles in size. If it were possible to not be incinerated instantly, the pressure would probably cause you to explode as it dissipated. The wind would be 14900 mph

At 5000km from impact, you'd get hit with wind doing 978mph and get subjected to 54psi air pressure 4 hours after impact. This would kill you. Your body would be buried under 5.1 feet of ejecta

This is assuming a "Dense Rock" asteroid hitting the earth at a 45 degree angle, at 17000kph, which is the typical impact velocity. 11.8 RS earthquake would result over the entire earth. This is off the scale. It's nearly a quadrillion tons of seismic energy. It would split the earth. You would be launched high enough into the air to kill you from the impact when you came back down, if the acceleration didn't kill you. A nickel/iron one would be much worse.

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=500&distanceUnits=1&diam=100&diameterUnits=2&pdens=&pdens_select=3000&vel=17&velocityUnits=1&theta=45&wdepth=&wdepthUnits=1&tdens=2500 [ic.ac.uk]

The earth would most likely be an asteroid belt right now from this size of an impact at 45 degrees. It would survive an oblique impact, but the earth would get another moon and it would be an extinction event. The orbit would certainly be affected and the tides would change.

Yea it would be very messy and kill just about all multicellular animals. People would become extinct. There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295586)

There would be nowhere to hide on the earth's surface.

Or in other words: What surface? ^^

Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (3, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294146)

The last sentence of that summary has _got_ to be a wording mistake. The impact CRATER in Siberia is 100km across. The impactor was (I just looked it up), "either an eight-kilometer diameter chrondrite asteroid, or a five-kilometer diameter stony asteroid." Indeed, an asteroid 100km across hitting the surface would leave something just a tad bit more noticeable than anything we've got so far, heh. And yes it would do really bad things to life on the planet; you're right on that count.

Not just size matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32294952)

It's not just asteroid size, or even mass, that determines its destructive force or crater size. A quick analogy: you can probably survive getting hit on the head by a normally thrown basketball but not by a cannonball.

This all happened before we had Bruce Willis. (1)

gimmebeer (1648629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293088)

We're safe now.

an asteroid 100 km in size. (3, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293124)

I think they are off by an order of magnitude there.

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (1)

ZaphDingbat (451843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293322)

Does it help you to know that you misread the summary?

The *crater* could be 100 km across. The *asteroid* could be "between 5 and 10 km in size."

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (1)

Message (303377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293382)

"Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size."

Does it help you to know that you misread the summary?

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (2, Insightful)

ZaphDingbat (451843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293420)

Guilty as charged.

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293548)

You also don't know how to spell Hermann Zapf's name.

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32294820)

Okay, let's clear this up to the extent that is possible.

Correctly represented: the structure identified in the Timor Sea (the Mt. Ashmore dome [informaworld.com] ) is 50km across, but it represents only the eroded central uplift of a complex crater [wikipedia.org] , so the original crater diameter could have been 100km. The impactor for such a crater is roughly 10x as small (the 5 to 10km mentioned).

Incorrectly represented: the structure being referred to in Siberia is probably the Popigai crater [wikipedia.org] , which is about 100km in diameter. This is incorrectly identified as the size of the impactor in both the summary and the article it cites.

Remaining puzzle: I don't know of any 120km-diameter impact crater "off the WA coast" of about the same age (i.e. ~Late Eocene). The Earth Impact Database [www.unb.ca] certainly doesn't show one, and the list of impact craters >100km is very short [www.unb.ca] . In fact, it is unlikely for such a crater to exist off the coast of Washington because the continent quickly changes to deep ocean crust due to the subduction zone parallel to the coast, I'm not sure the crust there is even Eocene in age (it's pretty young due to the adjacent Juan de Fuca ridge), and hardly any impact craters are known from ocean crust anyway (the only ones known are quite small, and didn't really form an "impact crater" because of the deep ocean water). It's possible that this "crater off Washington" was confused with the large (85km) Late Eocene impact structure that exists off the East Coast of the USA in Chesapeake Bay [wikipedia.org] and is not far from Washington, D.C..

Coincidentally both the Popigai impact and Chesapeake Bay impacts are mentioned in the abstract of the paper [informaworld.com] , so it's very likely a mix-up about the two Washingtons that explains the third one. We can't really blame the submitter for the mix-up. They just quoted the errors in the other article.

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (1)

Radish03 (248960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296238)

When I first read it, I interpreted WA as Western Australia, given the source of the article.

Re:an asteroid 100 km in size. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293522)

Yes, because we all know asteroids larger than 10km do not exist.

total disbelief (1, Offtopic)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293174)

Here we are on slashdot .. an American site (as I keep being told) and the summary is correctly using metric units without translating them to Imperial miles for the consumption of the locals [/sarcasm]

What the hell is going on, and who replaced slashdot with this site?

Re:total disbelief (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293412)

I don't have any concept of how large it is unless it's expressed in football fields. Or, perhaps, Volkswagen Beetles placed end to end.

Re:total disbelief (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294420)

I thought it was "Libraries of Congress" as the universal slashdot omni-unit measure?

Re:total disbelief (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293690)

There are easy (rough approximations of) conversions between three metrics -- miles to kilometers, yards to meters, and quarts to liters. A liter is just over a quart, so four liters is just over a gallon. A yard is just short of a meter, so a meter is approximately one yard (three feet). A kilometer is .6 mile, so with a rough number like "aproximately 100 km" it's easy to figure it's about sixty miles. No need to print both metrics with these easy ones.

We Americans think in imperial while the rest of the world thinks in metric, so it makes sense to give both measurements for the other units of measurement anywhere Americans and the rest of the world will be reading; rather than having thousands of people laboriously convert harder conversions, just do it once and publish that. Because the other ones aren't so easy e.g., -- inches to CM, degrees C to degrees F, soccor to football, or humor to humour.

Re:total disbelief (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294254)

4 inches is approximately 10 cm. What's so hard about that?

Re:total disbelief (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294844)

10 cm will sound a lot better to US ladies.

Re:total disbelief (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294322)

... or humor to humour.

Like many Americans, extraneous letters have traumatized me at a young age(killed my parents and then raped their corpses while I was forced to watch). It is not about the difficulty in conversion but that the sight of them inspires terror. I spent a good hour screaming and sobbing uncontrollably after just reading your post. I'm sure many of my fellow Americans were similarly affected. Please refrain from posting such terrorism or I shall be forced to report you to the Department of Homeland Security.

fyi (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293866)

an asteroid 5-10 km in diameter is roughly 40-160 cubic library of congresses

Re:total disbelief (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294120)

I think American's understand Kilometer's just fine because it fits into their worldview of everything European being a little bit smaller (South can read 'wussier') than the American version ;)

Re:total disbelief (1)

Darth Hamsy (1432187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294156)

Perhaps you'd prefer lengths in Smoots, or cubits? But seriously, you're free to continue using 19th Centrury units if you want, just don't expect everyone else to put effort into enabling you.

Re:total disbelief (2, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294360)

Perhaps you'd prefer lengths in Smoots, or cubits? But seriously, you're free to continue using 19th Centrury units if you want, just don't expect everyone else to put effort into enabling you.

Actually .. I use 18th century units like km, m, cm and mm

Global Warming solution (3, Funny)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293194)

So how long before dropping a rock in the ocean is offered as a technological solution to Global Warming ?

Re:Global Warming solution (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293392)

Let's start with dropping a big rock on top of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon rig and see how that goes. If we discover that big rocks are excellent problem-solvers, we can think about scaling our way up to your idea.

Re:Global Warming solution (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296294)

I find that rocks work best as problem solvers if you drop them on whoever pointed out the problem.

Re:Global Warming solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293434)

Depends on how much water vapor you can get in the air...

Re:Global Warming solution (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293892)

You know, dropping a big rock on US _might_ solve the Global Warming problems.

Great idea, really!

Re:Global Warming solution (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294506)

Are YOU implying that it is YOU that is causing the Global Warming? I request that you kindly stop doing it, or people might start throwing rocks on you!

Re:Global Warming solution (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294602)

Ah yes, let's skip number 1 and jump right to number 2.

Re:Global Warming solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293942)

Dropping a rock on the heads of some specific people would probably be a far more effective solution to the majority of our problems. If a large enough object happened to fall from the sky to a point directly between NY and the beltway, the majority of the country would probably be far better off. Start with a fresh capitol and economic center, in say... Kansas.

Re:Global Warming solution (2, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294110)

Actually, this is evidence that the Earth is *supposed* to be much warmer than it is, but has been artificially cooled by invasive influences, such as asteroid strikes.

(Which may not be an entirely facetious comment, now that I think about it.)

Re:Global Warming solution (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296818)

If it can make a 180 km wide crater [wikipedia.org] I bet it would solve Global Warming quite well.

Uh... (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293266)

Okay, first without pictures this story is kinda meh. And a still shot from the movie "Armageddon" doesn't count. And why didn't we find this with Google Earth!? I'm suspicious! :p

Same difference... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293294)

"coincided with a time of heavy asteroid bombardment globally"

So, if many other asteroids were impacting, then the effect of this particular one would have been negligible.

the great gig in the sky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293440)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw

Al Gore Is Freeking Out (1)

Rallias Ubernerd (1760460) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293470)

Global Climate Change caused by a force OTHER THAN MAN KIND!!! Holy crud. I bet he didn't see that comming

Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32293518)

It was Global Warming that caused the Asteroid to crash into the Earth.

Chicxulub (4, Interesting)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293616)

There's another huge impact crater around Chicxulub, Mexico. [wikipedia.org]

180km in diameter. Terrifying stuff, it makes a nuclear explosion look like a wet firework.

Let's hope we're ready for the next rock that comes our way. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Chicxulub (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32297056)

There's at least 9 >20km strikes here in Canada, more are guessed somewhere around 50. Plus they're still trying to figure out if a large chunk of the Hudsons bay happened to be formed by a strike as well. Very interesting stuff.

Explore Baby Explore! (2, Funny)

douglasfl (1816810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32293656)

ahh the benefits of deep sea oil drilling and exploration!!! what could go wrong?

Coordinates (1)

Logic (4864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294362)

What, no Google Maps link? :)

Re:Coordinates (3, Informative)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295142)

I already checked it....there's nothing to see, really; no outline of the crater is visible. If you really want to check it out though, the cords are Lat: 2117'50.00"N and Long: 8935'40.00"W

For those wondering what it would be like . . . (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32294678)

to be standing 1000km away when an 8km asteroid hits the Timor Sea in an are with a depth of 1000m here is a neat link:
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=1000&distanceUnits=1&diam=8&diameterUnits=2&pdens=3500&pdens_select=0&vel=20&velocityUnits=1&theta=65&tdens=1000&wdepth=1000&wdepthUnits=1

If you want to play with the inputs, here is the source site:
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

Re:For those wondering what it would be like . . . (1)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295436)

Pretty interesting site a 16m object (iron) using the default parameters would cause windows to shatter (due to airburst) up to 10km away from entry point. A 20m object would seem to cause some pretty bad ass damage to surounding areas even though the object never even reaches the ground (due to airburst).

Everything died in the Eocene? (1)

ETEQ (519425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32294808)

"Another impact structure in Siberia was created by an asteroid 100 km in size" That would've caused an extinction as bad if not worse than the end-K event (the one that killed the dinosaurs) - I think they mean the *crater* is 100 km in size - presumably they're referring to Popigai crater, which is dated to the Eocene, but the *crater* is 100 km, not the asteroid. 100 km is a *big* asteroid.

Just more of the same (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32294974)

So once again we see that global warming caused by Humans is a farce and really nothing more than a political strategy to tax me for the air I breath. Check.

Already knew that one. Still nice to have more evidence though.

I assume Australia (0, Troll)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32295372)

will quickly ban any mention of this crater for being too reminiscent of goatse.

Timor! (2, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32296890)

And the Lords of the Underworld!
Darkness fills my heart with pain!
When the girls start to sleep with girls,
Beelzebub will rise again!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>