Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant Impact Crater Found In Australia

Posted by timothy on from the convict-labor-can-fill-it-back-in dept.

An anonymous reader writes "One of the largest meteorite impacts in the world has been discovered in the South Australian outback by geothermal researchers. It may explain one of the many extinction events in the past 600 million years, and may contain rare and exotic minerals. The crater is said to have been 'produced by an asteroid six to 12 km across' — which is really big!"

85 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Re:discovered? by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously not in the article.. not even one damn picture of it..

  2. But how much energy is that? by Zaphodox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay so they give widely varying estimates of the crater's size - assuming the centre value of 120 Km a +/- 60 Km ia one hell of a margin of error. I imagine that the energy released from such an impact is orders of magnitude greater than any nuke we could ever throw at each other. The article metions the release of CO2, but i thought that by definition asteroids were just lumps of rock. So where does the CO2 come from after the impact?

    1. Re:But how much energy is that? by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would guess the ground. When a meteor hits land, a lot of the ejected material is from the ground, not the meteor itself. Rocks apparently have a lot of oxygen and carbon locked up in them.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:But how much energy is that? by rve · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe it crashed into a limestone formation? Limestone (and other carbonate rock like marble and karst) are basically giant lumps of CO2.

    3. Re:But how much energy is that? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      The earths crust contains carbon, and this impact would have vaporized a lot of that. Also there would be molten bits of rock flung over the whole planet, causing a global firestorm from whatever vegetation was around at the time.

    4. Re:But how much energy is that? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Depends on what it hits. If it hits a bed of limestone, that could release a lot of CO2. That's supposed to have happened at Chicxulub (the impact on Mexico's Yucatan peninsula) which is thought to be at least a contributor to the extinction of the dinosaurs). Also 300 million years ago, there would have been a lot of forest to burn.

    5. Re:But how much energy is that? by careysub · · Score: 2, Informative

      Okay so they give widely varying estimates of the crater's size - assuming the centre value of 120 Km a +/- 60 Km ia one hell of a margin of error. I imagine that the energy released from such an impact is orders of magnitude greater than any nuke we could ever throw at each other. The article metions the release of CO2, but i thought that by definition asteroids were just lumps of rock. So where does the CO2 come from after the impact?

      It is about 100,000 megatons, at its peak the world nuclear arsenal had around 20,000 megatons.

      CO2 is released if the asteroid impacts a carbonate rock bed - it then releases the CO2 just like a giant cement kiln (which is a major source of human CO2 release BTW - about 5% of the global release).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:But how much energy is that? by zhong-guo-1 · · Score: 1

      Who are we?

    7. Re:But how much energy is that? by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 2, Informative

      jsut to correct your (minor) mistake, karst is not a type of rock, it is a type of topography used to refer to geological features made from (usually eroded) carbonate rock and include caves (including stalactites, stalagmites and other cave formations), aquiefers, dolines, sinkholes etc. Cockpit country in Jamaica is a good example of karst topography

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    8. Re:But how much energy is that? by Aquina · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but that does explain nothing at all. CO2 is not responsible for anything on earth -- no matter what most people say. The whole CO2-green-eco-crap has become an ideology - no, a religion!

  3. Re:discovered? by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously not in the article.. not even one damn picture of it..

    It is very difficult to photograph something that is 80-160 km across and buried under many layers of sediments... that may have something to do with the lack of pictures.
    TFA doesn't mention when the discovery was made, so it is hard to say how much time they've had to produce some images for the media.

    I can imagine that specialized satellites can scan the area for geological differences. But I imagine that Google Maps shows no sign of this crater at all.

  4. Re:discovered? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Informative

    Okay so they say in TFA that the crater has most likely eroded away, but they could have at least shown a map of the region with a yellow circle to indicate where they think it is.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Where? by DeathToBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    TFA doesn't mention a location. There is a roughly circular sort of feature in about the right place and about the right size centred here:

    http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=-28.614665,141.139984&spn=0.806518,1.234589&t=h&z=10

    You can see it better if you zoom out a couple of steps. It's not very well defined, and may just be wishful thinking on my part!

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Where? by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're looking for a roughly circular feature? I think this is a more likely spot personally:

      http://maps.google.com.au/maps?sll=-28.87835,141.047974&sspn=4.39095,8.453979&ll=-35.310258,149.125156&spn=0.015987,0.033023&t=h&z=16

    2. Re:Where? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Where? by Greg01851 · · Score: 1

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cooper+basin+australia&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&split=1&filter=0&rq=1&ev=p&t=h&sll=-31.147006,142.229004&sspn=3.112009,5.916138&hq=cooper+basin+australia&hnear=&ll=-31.147006,142.229004&spn=3.112009,5.916138&z=8 Circular shape here, about the right size...

    4. Re:Where? by Kyont · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it also, but as an old St. Kilda person, I was going for the MCG:

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Melbourne+Cricket+Ground,+Victoria,+Australia&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.388698,77.695313&ie=UTFhttp://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/27/0310246/Giant-Impact-Crater-Found-In-Australia?from=rss#8&hq=&hnear=Melbourne+Cricket+Ground,+Brunton+Ave,+East+Melbourne+Victoria+3002,+Australia&ll=-37.820006,144.983332&spn=0.005433,0.009484&t=h&z=17

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
    5. Re:Where? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Every time someone links to this cooper basin, it never seems to work...I still have yet to see it in the map. But anyways, yes, it is Cooper Basin that the article speaks of.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Where? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Here's a circular feature in southern central interior Australia, and all the street names around it come from minerals:
      http://maps.google.com.au/maps?sll=-28.87835,141.047974&sspn=4.39095,8.453979&ll=-35.310258,149.125156&spn=0.015987,0.033023&t=h&z=16

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:Where? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Gaaah.

      Screwed up the link.
      It's here: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=-31.955949,141.462311&num=1&t=h&sll=-35.310258,149.125156&sspn=0.015987,0.033023&ie=UTF8&ll=-31.955931,141.462573&spn=0.003973,0.006727&z=18

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  6. Google Maps by skywatcher2501 · · Score: 1

    In case someone has some spare time to look for the crater on Google Maps: map link Cooper Basin

  7. Meh, I've seen bigger... by volcanopele · · Score: 1

    Seriously, a 80-160 km crater is not giant. Big, okay, they don't form every day, but there are much bigger craters than that. Like Menrva on Titan.

    --
    The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    1. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've always wondered what damage we'd see if an asteroid that size is dropped from a height of 1km. Would there be devastation (apart from those directly in the firing line)?

    2. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously, a 80-160 km crater is not giant. Big, okay, they don't form every day, but there are much bigger craters than that. Like Menrva on Titan.

      Oh, sure, sure, but you really had to hike there before all the tourists discovered it and ruined the local culture.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a quick guess I'd say the destruction would be limited to a relatively small area of the planet. You'd have total devastation within a radius of maybe a few hundred kilometers, but the rest of the planet would be fine. You wouldn't have ash encircling the planet and blocking out the sun as with a Chicxulub-type impact (which is by far the most devastating effect of a large asteroid impact to life on a planet), although you may still get some smaller Eyjafjallajokull-size ash clouds.

      Now if it landed in the ocean you'd have serious mega-tsunamis that would wipe out of a lot of coastal areas all around the world, but again not devastating on a planetary scale.

      Just my somewhat-educated guess.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're talking about an energy that is many orders of magnitude lower. Maximum velocity before the rock hits ground or ocean is about 150 m/s. In comparison, asteroids from space would be coming in at around 35 km/s. That's more than three orders of magnitude faster. The energy released by the collision would be the square of velocity times mass, so you're looking at least at six orders of magnitude more energy released in a real asteroid collision than in a "oops, we dropped it!" impact.

    5. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, a 80-160 km crater is not giant. Big, okay, they don't form every day, but there are much bigger craters than that. Like Menrva on Titan.

      Nobody is saying this is the biggest crater ever created in the solar system.

      But, they are saying that anything which creates a crater of that size on Earth is going to make one hell of a mess. From TFA:

      "Nothing within a few hundred kilometres of the blast would have survived, but more importantly the climate of the entire Earth would have been changed. It would have filled the atmosphere with so much dust that sunlight would be obscured, possibly for several years, killing a large amount of plant life on which animals obviously rely, thereby causing a global kill event - although perhaps not on the scale of the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs.

      "If such an impact occurred now, the majority of the human population would be wiped out, through the consequent reduction in our ability to grow crops," he added.

      In this case, "big" is relative. And, me, I'd call this pretty damned big in terms of what it actually signifies.

      You can niggle over the fact that Titan has a bigger crater if you like. Me, I wouldn't want to be around when something like this happened. Have you gotten so jaded with this stuff as to lose track of what it actually means?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by dachshund · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You wouldn't have ash encircling the planet and blocking out the sun as with a Chicxulub-type impact (which is by far the most devastating effect of a large asteroid impact to life on a planet), although you may still get some smaller Eyjafjallajokull-size ash clouds. Now if it landed in the ocean you'd have serious mega-tsunamis that would wipe out of a lot of coastal areas all around the world, but again not devastating on a planetary scale.

      Well, don't take it as fact, but the geologist who discovered this said (from the TFA):

      "Nothing within a few hundred kilometres of the blast would have survived, but more importantly the climate of the entire Earth would have been changed. It would have filled the atmosphere with so much dust that sunlight would be obscured, possibly for several years, killing a large amount of plant life on which animals obviously rely, thereby causing a global kill event - although perhaps not on the scale of the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs."

      Also, there was a recent study that suggested an asteroid impact in the ocean could cause massive devastation of the ozone layer, with all sorts of nasty effects for plant life. That was for a 1km asteroid. Still theoretical, but interesting to note.

    7. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by jefe7777 · · Score: 1

      we could lay you down, and fire a bullet at your head from about a 1000 meters up. or we could drop the bullet on your head from a distance of 10 meters. one will hurt. the other, you won't feel a thing...

    8. Re:Meh, I've seen bigger... by volcanopele · · Score: 1
      Sorry, this was a bit of an inside joke. I am a planetary geologist, so yes, it is pretty interesting when we can add another large impact basin to the ones we can study right here on Earth.

      The joke comes from the first time I went on a field trip to Meteor Crater east of Flagstaff, Arizona. Because I've done some work on the eroded impact craters of Titan, all I said was "Meh, I've seen bigger" because all the crater on Titan are bigger than the mile-wide Barringer crater.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
  8. A lot to discover.. by sosaited · · Score: 1

    This makes you wonder how many possible asteroid impacts happened in the Ocean.

    1. Re:A lot to discover.. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Some people reckon the entire Pacific Ocean basic and the moon were a result of asteroid impact.. the moon is actually a bunch of material ejected from the earth when the asteroid(s) hit.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:A lot to discover.. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Not an asteroid. A Mars sized planetoid.

    3. Re:A lot to discover.. by MorderVonAllem · · Score: 1

      No, it's clearly a doomsday planet that was stopped in it's tracks by the fifth element.

    4. Re:A lot to discover.. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Probably a lot. Canada has 12 confirmed 20km+ impacts craters including the second largest in the world(250km). And even with the amount of land you're talking about here, there's probably another 4 to 8 dozen that haven't been discovered that are easy to identify. And probably another 10-30 dozen on top of that, which are only faint after the last glaciation period.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:A lot to discover.. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Some people reckon the entire Pacific Ocean basic and the moon were a result of asteroid impact

      Many, many years ago, that idea was proposed on some extremely tenuous grounds. There's a faint bell tinkling in my head that it was actually one of Darwin's sons, and the timing is vaguely right for it to have been a response to discovering the high average depth of the Pacific from the Challenger expedition. The idea has never had any strong support from data, and since the turn of the last century (i.e. 1900) it has been a pretty dead idea.

      the moon is actually a bunch of material ejected from the earth when the asteroid(s) hit.

      That is a gross oversimplification and distortion of the modern "Giant Impact" hypothesis, which has about as much relation to Darwin's idea (I'll associate him with it, but only on the strength of one braincell.) as, errr, not a lot.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. Obligatory by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You call that a meteorite? THIS is a meteorite!"

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:Obligatory by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      You call that a tax bill? That's not a tax bill. THIS is a tax bill!

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  10. Obviously... by jhesse · · Score: 2

    This must be where The Lost City of Pnakotus was located!

    --

    --
    "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
    1. Re:Obviously... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I figured it was the end of the Materia era, and someone just cast Meteo way too well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Obviously... by muphin · · Score: 1

      until it got hit by a big ass rock

      --
      It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
  11. Re:discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > they could have at least shown a map of the region with a yellow circle to indicate where they think it is.

    They said the geothermal researcher who discovered this crater was working in the Cooper Basin, South Australia.

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

    This is where it is:

    http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/CooperbasinAust/images/2-cooper-basin.jpg

    The geothermal energy project in that area of the world is near the town of Innaminka.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innamincka,_South_Australia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Innamincka_location_map_in_South_Australia.PNG

    The geothermal energy project is there because the earth's crust at that location is unusually thin.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/hot-rock-power-the-way-ahead/2007/04/11/1175971183212.html
    http://www.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidean/issues/9461/news9469.html

    The earth's thin crust in that area may actually have something to do with the impact crater.

    This is a quite remote part of the world. Desert. There is almost nothing there.

    It is not really surprising that this impact crater has not been discovered up until now.

  12. boom? by louic · · Score: 1

    Are they sure the crater is that old? I just read something about a problem with nuclear warheads.

    1. Re:boom? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Even in South Australia I am sure somebody would have noticed a large chunk of the worlds fission bombs going off. That said, Disaster Area are touring again so something is bound to go off.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:boom? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Nah, fusion bombs would be far more noticeable.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  13. Original Source by martyb · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's an article on the University of Queensland's web site (where the researchers hail from).

    The land surface that the asteroid hit is now buried under layers of sedimentary rock and Dr Uysal thinks the original crater most likely eroded away.

    "Dr Uysal and Dr Glikson will present their findings at the Australian Geothermal Energy Conference in Adelaide, 16-19 November 2010."

    To read more about their research, see their conference paper (pdf). (This may not be specifically on the impact, but on their geothermal research, instead.)

    In short, not the biggest, oldest, newest, or any other superlative. Still, given the estimated size of the impact, I'd expect it to have had a major impact on the Earth's weather for quite a while.

  14. Minerals so exotic... by bundaegi · · Score: 1

    they're not even in the periodic table!

    --
    bundaegi is good for you
  15. Re:discovered? by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That impact crater is dwarfed by some other structures on earth: The Bushveld complex in South Africa is several hundred kilometers across, but it is so old (> 2 billion years = half the age of the earth) that it is not clear how it formed. Either a gigantic volcano, or a gigantic metor impact could have caused it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  16. What would an impact look like? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    On TV you see lots of computer sims but none look realistic to me. Would there be a light covering the sky so bright you couldn't see it or would it traverse the atmosphere so quick it wouldn't have time to heat up and you really would see this huge space rock impact. And what would the explosion look like? WOuld it be a fireball initially or would you simply see billions of tons or rock being launched into orbit?

    1. Re:What would an impact look like? by pi865 · · Score: 1

      Can't find the link, but read a 'more rigorous' prediction which mentioned a) pre-impact toasting of the planet, and b) immense pre-impact winds that would toss anyone and anything so high into the air they'd be dead on return. The article included distances though and might have been based on a hypothetical 10km body. Doesn't seem likely that most people would witness impact in a true extinction event, an absolute version of which seems more and more impossible/unlikely the more one learns about both reality and previous events.

    2. Re:What would an impact look like? by digitig · · Score: 1

      It should go faster than a smaller meteorite would because air resistance would have less decelerating effect (air resistance goes with the square of the size, mass with the cube so acceleration goes with 1/size), but the increased air resistance would mean more heating, which would be in proportion to the increased surface area (both go with the square of the size). Overall, I reckon it would light up like any other meteorite.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:What would an impact look like? by careysub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On TV you see lots of computer sims but none look realistic to me. Would there be a light covering the sky so bright you couldn't see it or would it traverse the atmosphere so quick it wouldn't have time to heat up and you really would see this huge space rock impact. And what would the explosion look like? WOuld it be a fireball initially or would you simply see billions of tons or rock being launched into orbit?

      A very useful source of information is the Asteroid Impact Effects on-line program: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

      Taking their upper size estimate (12 km) and average impact parameters (17 km/sec, 45 degree angle of entry) this would light up brilliantly at around 120 km altitude and get brighter all the way down its 10 second transit to the Earth. However you would probably not want to be anywhere you could actually see its entry. At a distance of 1250 km you would just see it light up on entry on the horizon, and thereafter the glow would be indirect until impact. THEN - part of the fireball which appear ~5 times larger and brighter than the Sun would rise above the horizon and irradiate you for about half an hour. This would be quite uncomfortable - a first degree thermal burn would develop after several seconds, but you get roasted for a hundred times longer than that, or until the fine ejecta thrown into space comes down and starts blocking your light after 10 minutes of so. And an hour after the impact a 12 psi blast wave with tornado-speed 335 mph winds would hit. This would likely be fatal.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:What would an impact look like? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      On TV you see lots of computer sims but none look realistic to me.

      This is only of academic interest.

      Would there be a light covering the sky so bright you couldn't see it or would it traverse the atmosphere so quick it wouldn't have time to heat up and you really would see this huge space rock impact. And what would the explosion look like? WOuld it be a fireball initially or would you simply see billions of tons or rock being launched into orbit?

      If you're observing the touchdown of a multiple-kilometre body (asteroid, banana, comet, dog ; it doesn't matter) on the Earth, from the Earth's surface, and you see the fireball, then you're dead to a close approximation in position and within a couple of hours precision in time. Geologically, these are unimportantly small differences, though they might make some personal difference to you, for a short time.

      If you're observing from near-Earth orbit when you see the fireball, then you may have enough time to scavenge your craft's air into storage tanks, seal up your personal suit, and apply as much delta-vee as you can. If you've got a resource-recycling space colony to go to, you might be able to survive until the human population of the planet is able to replenish your supplies ; otherwise you need to land now, or make your colony permanently self-sustaining.

      Seriously: you really, really don't want to see any non-trivial asteroid touch down.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. Re:discovered? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Innamincka_location_map_in_South_Australia.PNG

    Does Innamincka mean "Belong to Mick"?

  18. May not be from a meteor? by spammeister · · Score: 1

    Maybe the impact crater is just the final resting place of Paul Hogan's acting career. Carbon dating would probably reveal around 2001.

    --
    I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
  19. Chicxulub is FURIOUS! by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Chicxulub crater from the eastern tip of Mexico is totally infuriated and angry by this news.
    Chicxulub states "I am the ORIGINAL extinction crater, and DON'T YOU FORGET IT!"

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Chicxulub is FURIOUS! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The impact crater in Sudbury is not amused at your piddly size.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Chicxulub is FURIOUS! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ... nor your pathetically recent age. (Sudbury could quite reasonably have been responsible for the extinction of half the species of life on the Earth at the time, given that species diversity seems to have been less in those times.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. What about the great lakes by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Every time I see the map, it seems like if you follow the western perimeter of lake michigan around to the entry to the georgian bay and down the east side of lake huron, through London Ontario, and the southeast.... This is known to be a rock ridge, but it sure looks like a giant circle to me. They say its' from the glacier, but it sure looks round :-)

  21. Beer atom? by NCG_Mike · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's where the beer atom was split?

    1. Re:Beer atom? by Vernes · · Score: 1

      Young Einstein wants his reference back.... mate.

  22. Re:discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I just see a face

  23. more shrimp please mate by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

    croikey! that'd been won helluvah barbie!

  24. Especially limestone by wiredog · · Score: 3, Informative

    Limestone is calcium carbonate, which releases tons of CO2 when burned.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
    1. Re:Especially limestone by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Limestone is calcium carbonate, which releases tons of CO2 when burned.

      Unless you only burn a few kilograms. Then it releases kilograms of CO2.

      *gulps more coffee*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  25. Re:discovered? by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    A squareish circle. Is it also a largeish small one, maybe also blackish white? :)

  26. Re:discovered? by delinear · · Score: 1

    Looks kind of like the Scream mask face. Maybe this whole crater thing is just going to turn out to be a promo stunt for the new movie.

  27. Not uncommon by confused+one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For what it's worth, these craters are probably not as uncommon as people think. I'm sitting inside one right now.

    1. Re:Not uncommon by Push+Latency · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always wondered if the odd, round-shaped area in the "Northeast Kingdom" of Vermont was one, though I've never mentioned it to anyone until now. I used to wallpaper my room with topographic and relief maps as a kid, and that has always rather stuck out whenever I look at a relief map of VT.

      http://www.vermont-map.org/vermont.jpg

    2. Re:Not uncommon by sootman · · Score: 1

      "sitting inside one"--nice. Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

      As a Delta Air Lines jet was flying over Arizona on a clear day, the copilot was providing his passengers with a running commentary about landmarks over the PA system.

      "Coming up on the right, you can see the Meteor Crater, which is a major tourist attraction in northern Arizona. It was formed when a lump of nickel and iron, roughly 150 feet in diameter and weighing 300,000 tons struck the earth at about 40,000 miles an hour, scattering white-hot debris for miles in every direction. The hole measures nearly a mile across and is 570 feet deep."

      From the cabin, a blonde passenger was heard to exclaim, "Wow! It just missed the highway!"

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    3. Re:Not uncommon by Smask · · Score: 1

      Result of volcanic activity and erosion.

  28. Re:"Really big" by Raenex · · Score: 1

    I agree with the parent comment.

    Slashdot editors, please remove the pandering last sentences we see too often in these summaries. You don't need to ask obvious, leading questions. You don't need to make obvious, emotional statements. Just state the facts in the summary.

  29. Does anyone know... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...if The Creation Museum has an exhibit on this yet?

    1. Re:Does anyone know... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ...if The Creation Museum has an exhibit on this yet?

      Are they interested in things that weren't mentioned in Ussher? "If it's not in Ussher, it's too recent for us" being their philosophy. So they're welcome to everything else that does get mentioned in Ussher's work, without of course the benefits of modern science to alleviate them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  30. biblical proportions by muckracer · · Score: 1

    > The impact would have been impressive, producing "catastrophic effects - including a fireball, major earthquakes,
    > atmospheric clouding, CO2 release, tsunami effects, [and] the extinction of species"

    Thank GOD the world's only six-thousand years old. Just imagine!.... :-P

  31. Another hoax! by Myion · · Score: 1

    Just like this one http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/1348257/Possible-Meteorite-Leaves-a-Crater-In-Latvia

  32. Few comments by SilverEyes · · Score: 1

    Only 76 comments... this story must be not having much of... an impact!

    YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    --
    Interesting.
  33. Re:discovered? by SilverEyes · · Score: 1

    Maybe he means a Squircle?

    --
    Interesting.
  34. Re:discovered? by LordNimon · · Score: 1

    They could have included an aerial picture of the area, or at least a map, showing where it is buried.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  35. Re:discovered? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    Maybe he means a Squircle?

    I can't believe you just said that.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  36. Re:discovered? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    The earth's thin crust in that area may actually have something to do with the impact crater.

    Or possibly the impact has caused the crust to be thin in this area. Such a large impact certainly would have had an effect on the entire thickness of the crust in that area.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  37. Nine times out of ten by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Not going to ask, I have to call my ex while I am still laughing.
    And feeling vaguely vindicated.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  38. Re:Here's a picture by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Bah some people have no sense of humour :)

  39. Re:discovered? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    Sorry, so sorry. I'm way too lazy to copy and paste, please learn how to insert a link: Learning HTML

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  40. Rare and Exotic Mineral by Shrub74 · · Score: 1

    I hope it left an unknown element. We could call it Australium.