Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 5 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the earth-shattering-kabooms dept.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a period about 55 million years ago where the climate warmed more than 5 degrees Celsius over a period of 20 thousand years as a result of a surge of 2,000 gigatons of carbon released into the atmosphere. The PETM is associated with an enormous deep-sea mass extinction and with diversification of life on sea and land. The cause of the PETM has been a mystery.

At the recent annual meeting of the Geological Society of America a group of researchers presented research suggesting a large comet impact stirred up the carbon that led to the PETM. The crux of their argument, which was just published in Science , is the discovery of dark, glassy spheres, known as microtektites, found in New Jersey core samples. Microtektites are created and dispersed during high-speed impacts. Additionally, just above the microtektite layer is a charcoal layer with signs of charred plants that would come from widespread wildfires ignited by the impact.

This discovery has been flying around the community for a while and has generated a lot of excitement. Ellen Thomas, a geologist at Wesleyan University believes they have found microtektites. and if they can date them to the start of the PETM, she will consider it real evidence of an impact. “If they have not dated them,” she says, “I think they may well be contamination.”

Others, like Gerald Dickens, an oceanographer at Rice University in Houston, are not at all convinced: “They have completely misinterpreted the data and missed the correct, and more cool, story.” He argues that the microtektites and charcoal were distributed throughout the sediment layer, but microbial activity at the top of the layer degraded the material making it disappear. Since the remaining material is only at the bottom of the sediment, this results in the appearance of a boundary that looks important, but really isn't.

The scientists are cautious about how a small impact might fit in that chain of climate events—not all extraterrestrial strikes are the same. The PETM strike may have been a world-changing event like the dinosaur killer just 10 million years earlier. Or, it could have been like the object that struck and excavated the Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago: locally devastating, but globally survivable.


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, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:24AM (#414762)

    ALL OF THEM

    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @03:40AM (#414767)

      Grab em by the Pussy, then eviscerate them.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:02AM (#414770)

        Rip off their cocks and shove their own cocks up their asses.

  • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:44AM

    by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:44AM (#414777) Journal

    So, they think an impact may have occurred around the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. That's plausible, although the article rightly points out some reasons for caution. Now, how do we go from a minor impact to a massive release of carbon? I don't see the mechanism here.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:13AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:13AM (#414791) Journal
      Two things to note. First a layer of microtektites, if it really exists indicates a not minor impact. The impact has both hit the Earth's surface and spread around a bunch of ejecta over a geographically significant area. Second, a direct hit on limestone might do it. That is proposed as part of the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs since the Chicxulub impact on the Yucatan Peninsula hit a thick layer of limestone. There is some limestone around New Jersey (though I couldn't tell from the geology maps just how much). Limestone has about 44% CO2 by mass when decomposed into CO2 and lime (CaO) and a minimum density of around 1600 kg per cubic meter. If we assume a somewhat greater density of 2 metric tons per cubic meter, and 2 teratons of CO2 released, that would imply somewhere around 2300 cubic kilometers of limestone decomposed. It's doable with the right geology in the area of impact and a somewhat smaller impact than Chicxulub, but one has to wonder why we haven't found the impact crater yet, especially with all the epxloratory drilling that has gone on for the past half century.

      My wild assed guess is the area of maximal ignorance which probably still has limestone in it. That would be the continental shelf off of the Mid-Atlantic states. Perhaps where the Hudson River empties into the Atlantic (assuming that the impact was near where they found the tektites).
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @04:48AM (#414779)

    I've got this one!

    the climate warmed more than 5 degrees Celsius over a period of 20 thousand years as a result of a surge of 2,000 gigatons of carbon released into the atmosphere.

    See, climate change is natural! Humans couldn't possibly release as much carbon as natural events!

    The PETM is associated with an enormous deep-sea mass extinction

    Hmm, that sounds bad.

    (Not quoting the comma since it shouldn't be there. The part after the and can't be a complete sentence on its own. The PETM is associated with an enormous deep-sea mass extinction. The PETM is associated with diversification of life on sea and land. Hopefully Muphry's law doesn't strike me down.)

    and diversification of life on sea and land.

    There we are! See! Global warming is good!

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:36AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:36AM (#414786) Journal
      How can one make saying the truth sound so retarded? Sarcasm.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:49PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday October 16 2016, @10:49PM (#415002) Journal

        What do you mean, "sound"? And why are you calling it "truth"? Tarbaby, bro! Tarbaby!

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:08PM

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @12:08PM (#414841) Journal

      (Not quoting the comma since it shouldn't be there. The part after the and can't be a complete sentence on its own. The PETM is associated with an enormous deep-sea mass extinction. The PETM is associated with diversification of life on sea and land. Hopefully Muphry's law doesn't strike me down.)

      I've updated the story; thanks for pointing this out! (BTW, Muphry notices "i've got this one" and smiles. =)

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:43PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @01:43PM (#414850) Journal
      What's supposed to be wrong with that comma BTW? Here's the current sentence in its full glory:

      The PETM is associated with an enormous deep-sea mass extinction and with diversification of life on sea and land.

      Notice that you have two "ands" in it. The comma in question is appropriate because it tells you that the second "and" groups "sea" and "land" rather than "an enormous deep-sea mass extinction", "with diversification of life on sea", and "land". The comma should be there. Sorry. "A and B and C" is different from "A, and B and C".

      The part after the and can't be a complete sentence on its own.

      First, I've heard of this supposed rule. Given that I routinely make sentences of very incomplete sentence fragments (such as I did above), I'm really not feeling it.

      • (Score: 2) by hubie on Sunday October 16 2016, @08:55PM

        by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 16 2016, @08:55PM (#414943) Journal

        Thanks for the comma support. I had it in there because I was joining two opposing ideas: a) the deep-sea extinction, and b) the sudden diversification of life in the sea and on land. Without the comma it sounds confusing that there was an extinction event in the sea, but that there was a diversification of life in the sea. I suppose I could have broken it up into two sentences, but as it was just background info setting up the story, I didn't want to put too much text at the expense of telling everyone what the real point of the story was.

        That being said, I'm only just a simple country physicist and I have not had my writings subject to the rigorous criticism as my friends in the humanities have endured.

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:40AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @06:40AM (#414800)

    Vote for a renewal of life forms of earth!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @05:11PM (#414899)

    “They have completely misinterpreted the data and missed the correct, and more cool, story.”

    Im not sure coolness is an appropriate metric here. Is that where we are headed? Scientific theories are to be judged on how cool they sound?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @08:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 16 2016, @08:57PM (#414945)

      He says first the story is correct, but also points out that it is also more cool. You can have the first without the second, but it is just that they go together in this case (in his opinion).