Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 10 2017, @03:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the Thunder-Lizard-met-its-match dept.

The Chicxulub impact event is credited with causing the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs around 66 million years ago. Now, a study in Nature suggests that dinosaurs could have survived if the asteroid had landed in an ocean or almost any bit of land that wasn't loaded with hydrocarbons:

[...] the extraterrestrial impact happened nearly anywhere else, like in the ocean or in the middle of most continents, some scientists now say it is possible dinosaurs could have survived annihilation. Only 13 percent of the Earth's surface harbored the ingredients necessary to turn the cosmic collision into this specific mass extinction event, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports [open, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14199-x] [DX]. "I think dinosaurs could still be alive today," if the asteroid had landed elsewhere, Kunio Kaiho, a paleontologist from Tohoku University in Japan and lead author on the study, said in an email.

Other researchers questioned their findings.

When the asteroid, which had a diameter about half the length of Manhattan, struck the coast of Mexico, it found a rich source of sulfur and hydrocarbons, or organic deposits like fossil fuels, according to the researchers. Scorching hot temperatures at the impact crater would have ignited the fuel. The combustion would have spewed soot and sulfur into the stratosphere in sufficient quantities to blot out the sun and change the climate, setting into motion the collapse of entire ecosystems and the extinction of three-quarters of all species on Earth.

[...] Eighty-seven percent of Earth's surface, places like most of present day India, China, the Amazon and Africa, would not have had high enough concentrations of hydrocarbons to seal the dinosaurs' fate. But if the asteroid had hit marine coastal areas thriving with algae, which would have included present day Siberia, the Middle East and the eastern coast of North America, the bang would have been about as devastating to the dinosaurs and life on Earth as the Chicxulub impact.

Humans should burn off all of the hydrocarbons and tar sands in the Earth's crust, so we can make our species more resistant to impactors.

Also at DW, The Atlantic, and Live Science.

Related: Asteroid Impact That Killed Off the Dinosaurs Quantified


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 10 2017, @06:14PM (9 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 10 2017, @06:14PM (#595247)

    It's unfortunately that the asteroid hit in that location. If it hadn't, dinosaurs probably would have survived, and evolved into an intelligent species that surely would have been better than these shitty humans. They'd probably have had interstellar travel by now too.

    Maybe there's a parallel universe where the asteroid missed the Earth.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @07:15PM (#595283)

    I certainly hope we can develop interstellar travel in a matter of a thousand years, not 60 million...

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 10 2017, @08:31PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 10 2017, @08:31PM (#595330)

      It's been 60M years since the dinos yielded to the mammals, and yet you want more time?
      I'll ask the Gods what the lead time is on the asteroid order, but I'm pretty sure the insects are gonna be pissed if you delay...

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 10 2017, @08:43PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 10 2017, @08:43PM (#595335) Journal

    and evolved into an intelligent species that surely would have been better than these shitty humans

    As I have noted [soylentnews.org], those shitty humans are starting to do pretty well for themselves.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 10 2017, @08:58PM (1 child)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 10 2017, @08:58PM (#595343)

      Interesting, but remember, every single prior civilization that humans have created has collapsed. It seems a bit optimistic to think that this one won't.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 11 2017, @03:15AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 11 2017, @03:15AM (#595470) Journal
        Several such civilizations have already collapsed in living memory such as the Ottoman Empire, the USSR, and the Qing dynasty. Didn't disrupt things that much. Collapse of larger systems is more what you're thinking.

        There, we have several examples such as the collapse or decline of several Eurasian civilizations in the 5th and 6th century AD (including the famous fall of the Western Roman Empire), the Late Bronze Age Collapse, or prehistoric human troubles such as the hypothesized near extinction of Cro Magnon man in 75,000 BC or the extinction of Homo Neanderthalus about 40,000 BC. The first two had the symptoms that traditionally are associated with modern depictions of social collapse such as high numbers and movement of dispossessed, destruction of most infrastructure, and permanent disruption of existing trade networks.

        My view is that we're not close to such a collapse. IMHO, such collapses require either a suitably large disaster or evolution of fragile societies. The fragility of modern societies is greatly exaggerated and one can deliberately instill disruptions to keep them that way (for example, economic disruptions via recessions and mass bankruptcies).
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:35AM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:35AM (#595418)

    Cold blooded intelligence is different - researchers are just starting to figure out methods of measuring it (hint: food isn't the motivator that it is for warm blooded creatures.)

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 11 2017, @07:47AM (2 children)

      by dry (223) on Saturday November 11 2017, @07:47AM (#595525) Journal

      There's lots of evidence that dinosaurs were warmblooded though it is not conclusive.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology_of_dinosaurs [wikipedia.org] has a discussion about the various evidence. The surviving dinosaurs are warmblooded as well.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 11 2017, @08:07PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 11 2017, @08:07PM (#595708)

        Birds yes, lizards no. I know birds are descendants of the dinosaurs (in a way, so are mammals), but I "see" much more resemblance between an Anole and a T-Rex than I do a Finch and a Brontosaurus.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 11 2017, @08:37PM

          by dry (223) on Saturday November 11 2017, @08:37PM (#595725) Journal

          Well Tyrannosaurus had feathers as well as the Avian Dinosaurs. The closest relative to Dinosaurs (besides birds) are actually the Crocodiles and relatives, who seem to have been warm blooded at one point, eg they have a 4 chambered heart unlike all other reptiles, but like birds.
          The ancestors of mammals, who did quite well for a time, split of from reptiles long before dinosaurs.