Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday October 30 2019, @06:24PM   Printer-friendly

Something crashed into Earth and helped wipe out mammoths and other animals 13,000 years ago, study says

Around 13,000 years ago, giant animals such as mastodons, mammoths, saber-toothed cats and ground sloths disappeared from the Earth. Scientists have found evidence in sediment cores to support a controversial theory that an asteroid or a comet slammed into Earth and helped lead to this extinction of ice age animals and cooling of the globe.

It's called the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and was first suggested in 2007. The hypothesis included the idea that an extraterrestrial body impacted Earth 12,800 years ago. This led to an extreme cooling of the environment, which in turn helped cause more than 35 species of large animals to go extinct.

At the same time, human populations declined. The impact also has been suggested as the cause of large, raging wildfires that created enough smoke to block the sun and created an "impact winter," in which cold weather lasts longer than expected after Earth is impacted.

[...] Today, evidence of such an impact can be found in platinum spikes. Platinum can be found in asteroids, comets and meteorites. Researchers found them in sediment cores collected from White Pond in Elgin, South Carolina.

Sediment Cores from White Pond, South Carolina, contain a Platinum Anomaly, Pyrogenic Carbon Peak, and Coprophilous Spore Decline at 12.8 ka (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51552-8) (DX)


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:24AM (11 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:24AM (#913996) Journal

    The micronova obviously generated iron-rich microspherules

    Let's not be idiots here. You have no evidence for micronova capable of driving large mammals to extinction, much less micronova that spew iron-rich microspherules. But we have plenty of evidence that meteorite impacts spew microspherules. Occams razor.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:29AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:29AM (#913999)

    Why would a micronova not generate more iron than platinum? Even that you brought that up shows you didn't think about this at all. Of course there was more iron, and that is what the evidence shows. Now explain how a meteor strike on Earth managed to melt the surface of the moon. Oh, I guess you deny that evidence for no apparent reason.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:30PM (9 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:30PM (#914088) Journal

      Why would a micronova not generate more iron than platinum?

      We're beyond that. You haven't shown that there are micronovas much less micronovas that spew iron-rich spherules.

      Now explain how a meteor strike on Earth managed to melt the surface of the moon.

      There's more than one asteroid in the Solar System. The Moon, just like Earth, gets whacked by meteorites and such all the time. Those, even when minute, melt a part of the surface of the Moon (and did quite a job on the surface of the Moon 4.5 to 3 billion years ago). They also explain, unlike the micronova model, why there's a thick layer of regolith [wikipedia.org] rather than a thick layer of glass on the surface of the Moon.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:23PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:23PM (#914115)

        So, basically all you can do is totally ignore the new information I provided to you and keep parroting what you read in a textbook. Exactly like I originally said.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:43PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:43PM (#914125) Journal
          You have not provided information. I've run across these sorts of game before. For example, what's in those links that have been provided and for which you can't even provide a brief summary? You just signaled that it's a waste of my time.

          and keep parroting

          Truth is an absolute defense against such bullshit. Show the evidence or stop wasting my time.

          Also, it's worth noting that textbooks are scientific literature from which one can quote. What makes them wrong and your sources right? Evidence distinguishes not the sciencey-ness of your citations.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:01PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:01PM (#914193)

            . I've run across these sorts of game before.

            The "game" where someone quotes a scientific journal article that describes some evidence and you come up with excuses to ignore it? That is the only game I see here.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:11PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:11PM (#914198) Journal

              The "game" where someone quotes a scientific journal article that describes some evidence and you come up with excuses to ignore it?

              Where was the evidence in those quotes? I noticed for example a quote claiming that "glazing" (not melting of the surface of the Moon!) could be explained by a huge surge in solar influx for a few seconds. It could also be explained by billions of years of exposure to sunlight. Earth rocks can pick up a glaze with far shorter exposure than that!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:50PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:50PM (#914131) Journal
          Also, notice what I said about regolith. Your micronova model doesn't explain old information. That's evidence that rejects your model.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:04PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:04PM (#914196)

            Wtf are you talking about? The micronova model is perfectly consistent with regolith and every other observation about the moon. In fact, dating the micronova event assumes a constant rate of micrometeorite impacts.

            Read the papers instead of making up a series of strawmen to argue with.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:17PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:17PM (#914200) Journal

              The micronova model is perfectly consistent with regolith

              No, it's not. Even a single micronova capable of what you claim would have created a glassy crust on top of that regolith. It didn't. Thousands of recurring micronova over billions of years would have created a thicker glassy layer.

              • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @11:37PM (#914384)

                Sorry khallow, but you are too stuck in your ways to even allow yourself the opportunity to read the scientific literature at the risk you will absorb new ideas. All you had to do is read those papers for the answer to your question, you couldn't manage to do it. Good luck.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 01 2019, @12:06AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 01 2019, @12:06AM (#914391) Journal

                  to read the scientific literature

                  So what? You've already decided "textbooks" are ruled out despite being scientific literature. Why aren't you ruling out your citations on the same grounds? One has to distinguish somehow. What is the evidence supporting your claims?