Comments on: New study finds giant impacts aren’t periodic

By: Philip Kotula

Philip Kotula — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:36:55 +0000

Where can I find a list of where and when the impact craters formed.

Thank You

Philip Kotula

By: Pienso, luego Dudo – Capítulo 17 « Círculo Escéptico Argentino

Pienso, luego Dudo – Capítulo 17 « Círculo Escéptico Argentino — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:44:28 +0000

[...] Mi amigo Phil Plait lo explica excelentemente [...]

By: Los impactos de asteroides no son periódicos | Puno Noticias Deportes Turismo Clasificados Directorio

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:16:16 +0000

[...] que la teoría de la extinción de los dinosaurios a causa de un meteorito fue comprobada, el hombre fantasea con el final definitivo para la raza humana. Muchos estudios en [...]

By: ginckgo

ginckgo — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:31:36 +0000

Geri #43: there are indications that the KT impact itself isn’t the whole story. Analysis of zooid sizes in bryozoans indicates that there were significant temperature spikes preceding the impact by 100,000′s years, which probably stressed many ecosystems. There are also 8 species of ammonite from two different genera known to occur above the Iridium layer in northern Europe; they have been confirmed not to be reworked and sit in layers about 200,000 above the Iridium layer.

By: Un nuevo estudio encuentra que los grandes impactos no son periódicos « Pasa la vida

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:39:31 +0000

[...] Artículo publicado por Phil Plait el 2 de agosto de 2011 en el blog Bad Astronomy [...]

By: Ciencia Kanija » Un nuevo estudio encuentra que los grandes impactos no son periódicos

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:16:21 +0000

[...] Artículo publicado por Phil Plait el 2 de agosto de 2011 en el blog Bad Astronomy [...]

By: fred edison

fred edison — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 03:31:53 +0000

#45
There’s evidence pondered which implies an insect blood-borne illness may have exacerbated the demise of any dinosaurs who managed to survive the effects of a gigantic asteroid impact. I saw this on a science program a long time ago and the details are foggy, but I think that’s the gist of it. It’s not necessarily a single punch that deals the death blow, but more likely a combination of punches that overwhelm and permanently knock out a species, of which our own species is not immune.

By: meirelle

meirelle — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:14:37 +0000

I remember reading about this Nemesis thing in a book once, and I was like, “What the crap is this dumbfu*kery?”

By: andy

andy — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:23:21 +0000

Regarding the supposed superiority of the lunar cratering record, how do the errors on the age estimates compare with those for terrestrial craters?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:40:37 +0000

The Moon has way more craters preserved than the Earth does. On average, it has our orbit around the Sun. At the moment, lunar craters can be aged using crater counts. LRO is providing data on tiny craters. There’s a Zooniverse project on it… There’s a bit of ground truth from Apollo. So, it looks like the Moon is a better place to do statistics.

By: Wzrd1

Wzrd1 — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:17:18 +0000

Messier, there have been a number of stars that passed our “neighborhood” since the solar system was formed, some DID dislodge Oort cloud material into the inner solar system and some did impact, to judge from the sparse evidence.
That said, I DO disparage the view that ONE impactor killed off the dinosaurs. If such an extreme, as has frequently been parroted had happened, kindly explain the survival of both the delicate frogs AND BIRDS?
Now, an eruption of the Deccan Traps, during or shortly after, a MULTIPLE, which is more probable, some tidal effect disrupting the main body thing going on, impact, that generates the infamous crater AND Shiva and possibly a few others, COULD explain how dinosaurs died off, much of plant life died off and frogs and birds survived.
No incinerator atmosphere, else birds are toasted nicely out of the universe. Frogs wouldn’t fare much better and FORGET coral. The acid rain would extinct THAT *REAL* quick.
No, the evidence backs the models of the animals in question and a handful more, ONE shock event would kill the lot in PREFERENCE to the larger dinosaurs. A collection of “bad days” over time WOULD account for the mass extinction, leaving delicate members here and there to survive into today.
Besides, I’ve YET to hear a decent explanation for the massive amounts of iridium in the KT boundary in India, as in a METER MORE than the REST of the globe.
Still, we DO need to study those rocks and rubble heaps and figure GOOD plans to relocate them into a better neighborhood, rather than our “streets”.

By: Messier Tidy Upper

Messier Tidy Upper — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 01:45:32 +0000

So, almost certainly no “Nemesis” faint companion star or gas giant regularly disturbing the Oort cloud of comets then?

@ 13. Keith Bowden :

Hey now, do not dismiss the dinosaurs ‘ selfless heroics in saving our mammalian ancestors from the impact 63 million years ago.

Or Adric’s tragically doomed attempt :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthshock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNdc7E_0r6U

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adric

to save the dinosaurs from the Cybermen!

By: Geri Monsen

Geri Monsen — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:56:13 +0000

Wayne #22: Don Prothero just rehashes old long discredited arguments. Bad statistics on dating of fossils that don’t take into account how error bars on fossil dating will cause a sudden extinction event to look like the extinction occurred over a period of time. He uses the same arguments that were discussed 20-30 years ago and packages them to sound as if they were brand new.

By: frankenstein monster

frankenstein monster — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:12:26 +0000

We have a space program, so the choice is ours.

For how long ? And also don’t forget that we invented not only spaceflight, but also denialism. And I would not bet on, that, when the time comes, we will launch an asteroid deflecting mission, and not an asteroid impact denialism propaganda campaign of astronomic proportions. I certainly hope that the former will be the case, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:11:22 +0000

Why on earth would we not do something about it?!

Because there’d be a big disinformation machine telling us…

…it wasn’t really going to hit us, or it would break up before it hit
…if it did hit us, it would be a good thing because it would bring new mineral resources
…trying to do something about it would cost jobs and destroy the economy
…meteorites have hit earth in the past
…it is all a big plot to bring about a one-world socialist government
…it is a ploy so government can expand their powers and take away your guns
…God is in heaven and in control and he won’t allow the world to be destroyed

or should I say, sigghhhhhh.

By: Jeroen Versteeg

Jeroen Versteeg — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:38:10 +0000

Ah, that seems to be one big nail in the coffin for Richard Muller’s Nemesis theory then?
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28hypothetical_star%29#Claimed_periodicity_of_mass_extinctions and http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/lbl-nem.htm)

By: Pup

Pup — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:09:26 +0000

Okay, I read this in Google Reader and it basically cut off after “That is, do they happen with some repeating period? If so, …” and followed with an ad for Battlestar Galactica… I was concerned. xD

By: FC

FC — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:34:47 +0000

If Professor Farnsworth had said it, there would be a giant meteor hurling toward the Earth as soon as he finished his sentence.

By: 2012 Watch: ‘Death Star’ debunked « Supplying data on technologies issues

Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:09:55 +0000

[...] for 9:05 p.m. ET: Over at the Bad Astronomy blog, Phil Plait clearly explains the impact (heh, heh) of Bayesian analysis on the cratering question: [...]

By: Don

Don — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:09:01 +0000

@26
To quote #1 “How can an impact be so large it is only detected from space? Do you mean it is more easily (or first) detected from space? It seems like it’s always easier to detect things on Earth from Earth, than from space.”

Quoting #26
“Dr. Dreadful, you can detect the shape of North America by standing on it. You just have to stand on it in a bunch of different places, and do some geometry.”

Yes, standing in a LOT of places. It would be easier to look once from the ISS than to walk around the whole of North America to find it’s shape (if you ignore the work it takes to MAKE the ISS ).

So no, it is not ALWAYS easier. Sort of.

By: bassmanpete

bassmanpete — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:53:34 +0000

Since the planet is mostly covered in water with only about 30% dry land, it would suggest that more than twice as many impacts have occurred in the oceans. These no doubt generated humungous tsunamis and left no craters. Have these impacts been factored in?

By: Mephane

Mephane — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:28:01 +0000

Though the missing parenthesis has been mentioned already, I think this links is appropriate here (and might nudge even more people towards xkcd, heh):

http://xkcd.com/859/

(Also read the mouseover texts, sometimes they contain the actual punchline)

By: Pouria

Pouria — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:35:37 +0000

@14 Sean Hogge: Thanks!

By: Michel

Michel — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 06:06:44 +0000

Hey Phil, I got a question if you don’t mind. I am a grad student in particle physics and I got to deal with this whole Frequentist vs. Bayesian statistics debate occasionally, when it comes to limit settings or statistical significance estimation. I am wondering if you could tell me a bit more about how the Bayesian approach in this case is less biased than the Frequentist approach (which I assume, is what you mean when you talk about standard statistics.). I think this would help me understand a lot what’s currently going in my own field with the hunt for the Higgs and all that.

By: Philip Kahn

Philip Kahn — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 04:09:40 +0000

I’ll chime in with the correctionary crowd — dinosaurs are far from extinct. They kinda beat the pants off mammals even today, doubling our diversity.