The Asteroid That Wiped Out Dinosaurs Plunged Earth Into Catastrophic Winter (bbc.com) 103
The asteroid impact roughly 66 million years ago that wiped out three-quarters of plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs, dropped temperatures globally below freezing for several years. The new assessment, reported in the journal Geographic Research Letters, gives scientists a much clearer picture of the climate catastrophe following the event. BCC reports: The UK geophysicist was the co-lead investigator on the 2016 project to drill into what remains of the impactor's crater under the Gulf of Mexico. She and colleagues spent several weeks retrieving the rock samples that would allow them to reconstruct precisely how the Earth reacted to being punched by a high-velocity space object. Their study suggests the asteroid approached the surface from the north-east, striking what was then a shallow sea at an oblique angle of 60 degrees. Roughly 12km wide and moving at about 18km/s, the stony impactor instantly excavated and vaporized thousands of billions of tonnes of rock. This material included a lot of sulphur-containing minerals such as gypsum and anhydrite, but also carbonates which yielded carbon dioxide. The team's calculations estimate the quantities ejected upwards at high speed into the upper atmosphere included 325 gigatones of sulphur (give or take 130Gt) and perhaps 425Gt of carbon dioxide (plus or minus 160Gt). The CO2 would eventually have a longer-term warming effect, but the release of so much sulphur, combined with soot and dust, would have had an immediate and very severe cooling effect.
Climate change solved! (Score:5, Funny)
Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
Re:Climate change solved! (Score:5, Funny)
pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere
thus solving the problem once and for all!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
We all need to fart more often. This is the only time you will ever hear me say this.
Re: (Score:1)
We all need to fart more often. This is the only time you will ever hear me say this.
I wonder why we can't hear you say this after this time. What or which sound is going to drown out your words...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always burn it? ah, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the thread is centered around an episode of Futurama [theinfosphere.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly.
Why go to all that hassle when we can just wait around for an asteroid to hit and do all the work for free?
Mankind total CO2 emission (Score:3)
How many Gt of CO2 and S have we human released into the air, since the industry revolution?
As for CO2: according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], around 380 Gigatonnes of carbon in the 1901-2013 timespan. Or just under 1400 Gigatonnes of CO2. So this meteor strike would have put ~1/3 of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a single event, of what mankind has produced throughout its industrial age.
Note that the source [ornl.gov] referenced by Wikipedia only seems to have per-year totals (estimates, obviously). So I'm guessing that 380 GtC number was arrived at by adding up the annual figures.
Re: (Score:2)
The Royal Society in the UK did a report on geoengineering and concluded sulphate aerosols for example could be used to effect "a reduction of solar input by about 2%" to "balance the effect on global mean temperature of a doubling of CO2" for "total annual cost at 10s of billion dollars". Check out the Royal Society's report.
https://royalsociety.org/topic... [royalsociety.org]
Delivering between 1 and 5 MtS/yr to the stratosphere is feasible. The mass involved is less than a tenth of the current annual payload of the global air transportation, and commercial transport aircraft already reach the lower stratosphere. Methods of delivering the required mass to the stratosphere depend on the required delivery altitude, assuming that the highest required altitude would be that needed to access the lower tropical stratosphere, about 20 km, then the most cost-effective delivery method would probably be a custom built fl eet of aircraft, although rockets, aircraft/rocket combinations, artillery and balloons have all been suggested. Very rough cost estimates based on existing aircraft and artillery technology suggest that costs would be of the order of 3 to 30 $/kg putting the total annual cost at 10s of billion dollars (US National Academy of Science 1992; Keith 2000; Blackstock et al. 2009). The environmental impacts of the delivery system itself would of course also need to be carefully considered.
I reckon if global warming turns out to be bad, something like this will be done because it's easier to get the Chinese to chip in for it than it is t
Re: (Score:2)
I reckon if global warming turns out to be bad, something like this will be done
Yep. Those exact same climate scientists who currently know nothing about climate will be called upon to geoengineer things and save everybdy's asses when it starts to get real.
So it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
"total annual cost at 10s of billion dollars"
Well, a single $10B is only 0.7% of the DHHS's annual budget. Find a politician willing to cut Welfare or Medicare or WIC by 1% or so and the problem is solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Why blame the Chinese? Their per-capita emissions are considerably lower than most developed nations, and they're investing far more heavily in alternatives (especially solar) than pretty much anyone else. Partially because of traditional pollution problems, but nevertheless.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how capitalism works. If you have more money you "deserve" more stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
The head-in-sand argument always assumes that we have to start with gigatonnes of sulphur. Why can't we start with a much smaller amount and investigate the effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
The head-in-sand argument always assumes that we have to start with gigatonnes of sulphur. Why can't we start with a much smaller amount and investigate the effect?
It's pretty easy to do this already, as sulfur aerosols belched out by volcanoes does have a cooling effect, followed by whatever energy retention occurs from the CO2 ejected at the same time.
For my money, we have to take whatever lumps that earth is going to give us at this point. It makes sense to restrict CO2 emissions, but SO2 release comes with it's own problems at most scales.
Re: (Score:2)
For my money, we have to take whatever lumps that earth is going to give us at this point. It makes sense to restrict CO2 emissions, but SO2 release comes with it's own problems at most scales.
Indeed. We've spent billions of dollars REMOVING sulfur from emission stacks. Remember acid rain?
Hell, if we want to do this, we can just get a bunch of Trump supporters to fire up their 'Rolling Coal' machines and run around.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think ... Tax Rebate Credits if your car "Rolls Coal".
Re: (Score:2)
For my money, we have to take whatever lumps that earth is going to give us at this point. It makes sense to restrict CO2 emissions, but SO2 release comes with it's own problems at most scales.
Indeed. We've spent billions of dollars REMOVING sulfur from emission stacks. Remember acid rain?
Hell, if we want to do this, we can just get a bunch of Trump supporters to fire up their 'Rolling Coal' machines and run around.
Oh hell yeah. I remember when after the steel mills shut down in Pisstburgh their air didn't get any cleaner. Then they found out it was the asses in Ohio with their SO2 and acid rain, just drifting over. It's much better now. Anyhow we really don't want to be sending that crap into the atmosphere. The coal emissions contain radioactive particles as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the effect will be lost in the noise unless you're using enough to actually start reversing global warming?
Much like global warming itself was lost in the noise for decades before the real-world observations got dramatic enough to conclusively prove that the mathematical models were correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
Of course, that is very temporary effect anyhow, as the sulfur aerosols will precipitate out as sulfuric acid rain. Yikes!
Re: (Score:2)
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!
I seem to recall the article I read about the associated geoengineering which placed the cost at ~$4-5 T , which is manageable for the US economy alone.
That's enticing for a few reasons:
* It's a "quick fix" where politicians ignore consequences, just like we do with all the other problems we create for ourselves.
* It's a hell of a lot cheaper than many of the predicted costs.
* The chemtrail crowd will be completely vindicated once aircraft start dumping tons of SO2 and metal aerosols into the atmosphere.
* T
OK, solution to global warming found, at last. (Score:4, Funny)
Problem Solved. Where do I collect my consultant fee?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Let us send some rockets to lasso a good size asteroid and make it hit earth.
Problem Solved. Where do I collect my consultant fee?
You can collect your fee upon completion of the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
And any Geologist. . . . (Score:1)
. . . could have told you that. Heck. the K/T Event has a distinct signature in any rock column, and its' characterization. . . in the 1980s. . . led to the TTAPS paper, better known as the "Nuclear Winter" paper. This is 35+ year-old "news". . .
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. Filed under "stuff we knew over 40 years ago", only now it happened "roughly 66 million years ago" instead of the usually stated "65 million years ago".
And people wonder why Trump doesn't have much interest in funding scientific research...
Re: (Score:2)
. . . could have told you that. Heck. the K/T Event has a distinct signature in any rock column, and its' characterization. . . in the 1980s. . . led to the TTAPS paper, better known as the "Nuclear Winter" paper. This is 35+ year-old "news". . .
I suppose that we have to figure that some may not have heard about it. Its like the endless turkey cooking tips that get repeated every year around Thanksgiving time.
But yeah, geologists and climatologists have used a lot of information stored in the earth such as how certain minerals form, radiodecay, Ice cores, and other indicators to form climate over time data with pretty fair confidence.
There are some mysteries of course, like "snowball earth" which is a hypothesis that the whole earth was cove
Re:And any Geologist. . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . could have told you that. Heck. the K/T Event has a distinct signature in any rock column, and its' characterization. . . in the 1980s. . . led to the TTAPS paper, better known as the "Nuclear Winter" paper. This is 35+ year-old "news". . .
As TFS says, "The new assessment gives scientists a much clearer picture of the climate catastrophe following the event."
I'm not sure what your point is? Everyone knows what happened. This is a piece of scientific research. It deepens our understanding of the event a little, adds more data-points, tightens some variables, gets corroborating evidence from a different (more direct) technique.
Coincidence (Score:2)
No shit. Were did they dig this up? (Score:2)
In a How & Why Wonder Book?
Seriously, the post-ELE meteoric winter is something I knew about as kid back in '79.
Just sayin'.
Scientists: Water is wet. News at 11. (Score:2)
There was this guy, way back, I think it was before WWII and he flew all by himself to somewhere like in Europe. Maybe it was even further like in France.
Did you know there was a guy he was an actor and he liked killed a President?
You can't keep your eyes open when you sneeze.
You can't touch your nose with your elbow, unless like you are in a car accident, like my friend becky. She's really messed up.
If you hit the earth w
Embrace the suck (Score:1)
The climate is going to change with or without human help so it would be better to figure out how to roll with it than to fight it.
Asteroid was not an accident! (Score:5, Interesting)
How do we know it wasn't a weaponized asteroid intended to clearing and terraforming this planet for the new human species to evolve and be monitored?
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, the pak won't be far behind.
Not to worry, tree-of-life virus won't grow here. The breeders won't go through second stage, they'll just evolve into humanoids and....
Sounds familiar.
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother with weaponized asteroids if you're going to wait that long?
Time dilation.
Re: (Score:3)
How do we know it wasn't a weaponized asteroid intended to clearing and terraforming this planet for the new human species to evolve and be monitored?
Sent by the teapot, no less.
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge, it was a space freighter that had been sabotaged by cyborgs.
Clearing the way for human evolution was merely a pleasant but unexpected consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, the planet is ready for the vast herds of Gargons
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would be a luck-based mission. There was no guarantee that mammals would survive.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know it wasn't a weaponized asteroid intended to clearing and terraforming this planet for the new human species to evolve and be monitored?
If the asteroids were potshot by the helium squeaky Nazis from the Dark Side of the Moon, the craters would have a "Made in Germany! (Kinda sorta)" Qualitätsstempel stamped on them.
On the other hand, dinosaurs, with all their pointy spines and body armor, were not very tasty for ancient aliens.
Humans are a more attractive dining option . . . most are just soft, lean meat . . . no fur or pointy spines. Obviously, the ancient aliens killed off the dinosaurs to replace them with a Las Vegas style all
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are a more attractive dining option . . . most are just soft, lean meat . . . no fur or pointy spines. Obviously, the ancient aliens killed off the dinosaurs to replace them with a Las Vegas style all you can eat human buffet.
Delicious and nutritious. Tastes just like chicken.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know it wasn't a weaponized asteroid intended to clearing and terraforming this planet for the new human species to evolve and be monitored?
because 65 million years is not enough to do all that.
Re: (Score:3)
There are actually several species of plant that can grow in freezing temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell with a quick google search, no vascular plant grows below 0C. And biomass growth below 5C is minimal. So this is not correct, unless you mean algae or something like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we "know" what killed the dinosaurs in detail
No, we don't. We think we know what the major causes were. We know that dinosaurs were on the decline before this event as warm blooded mammals became bigger and more plentiful, and that they were pretty much gone after the event.
Many bugs, plants, seeds and spores can remain frozen but alive for a long time; some animals too (e.g. frogs). There are a couple of reptile species still alive today that could be considered dinosaurs if we wanted to classify them as such. Plus birds (which are really just dinosa
We could do with another (Score:2)
War! What is it good for? (Score:2)
Releasing sulfer into the atmosphere?
[John]
325 gigatones (Score:5, Funny)
Or roughly 50 billion octaves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On octave is 12 semitones whatever the key isn't it? It's just that the sequence of whole/half intervals is different. TTSTTTS and all that.
Having exhausted my knowledge of music theory, I'll leave it at that.
Re:325 gigatones (Score:4, Funny)
That's almost as many keyboards as Jean Michel Jarre uses in his concerts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Catastrophe" is meaningless without teleology (some way the universe is "supposed to go"), and teleology is meaningless without theism.
A whole lot of species died. Other species didn't. Wouldn't matter which, then or now with "climate change". Per naturalistic evolution, case closed, no basis for a value judgment about it.
Well I think it's safe to say it was fucking catastrophic if you were a dinosaur.
Re: (Score:3)
catastrophe
ktastrf/
noun: catastrophe; plural noun: catastrophes
an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering; a disaster.
Nothing about where the universe is "supposed to go", just damage and suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. I'll sign you up as volunteering for the maximum suffering package then?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure we have enough impending catastrophes to give you all your chance on the front lines. I'd hate for anyone to miss out on such a wonderful opportunity to put your philosophy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is fundamentally unknowable, even science only attempts successive approximations. Philosophy is how you interpret what you think you know.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, that particular snark got old here on Slashdot about 6000 years ago.
Here you go. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Earth is only 6000 years old.
That's only the flat part. The rest has been proven to be older.
thousands of billions of tonnes (Score:1)
Wouldn't that be trillions of tonnes? I think they should have used 'thousands of thousands of thousands of thousands', I mean who could possibly comprehend a number as big as a trillion.
Re: (Score:2)
Not across the pond, mate.
Solution to Climate Change (Score:2)
66 million years... (Score:2)
That is 32,705 "Christianities"