The Asteroid That Wiped Out Dinosaurs Plunged Earth Into Catastrophic Winter (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Asteroid That Wiped Out Dinosaurs Plunged Earth Into Catastrophic Winter (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday November 1, 2017 @10:00PM from the catastrophic-events dept.

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.

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Climate change solved! by Calydor · 2017-11-01 22:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
1. Re:Climate change solved! by Tranzistors · 2017-11-01 22:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere
  thus solving the problem once and for all!
2. Re:Climate change solved! by sheramil · 2017-11-01 23:03 · Score: 1, 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.
3. Re:Climate change solved! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-01 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  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...
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
4. Re:Climate change solved! by idji · 2017-11-01 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  we need sulfur, not methane!
5. Re:Climate change solved! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  ONCE AND FOR ALL
6. Re:Climate change solved! by c · 2017-11-02 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Just pump several gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract the warming of the carbon dioxide!
  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?
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
7. Re:Climate change solved! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  From TFA:
  > ... 325 gigatones of sulphur (give or take 130Gt) and perhaps 425Gt of carbon dioxide (plus or minus 160Gt) ...
  How many Gt of CO2 and S have we human released into the air, since the industry revolution?
8. Re:Climate change solved! by Hal_Porter · 2017-11-02 01:03 · 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...
  
  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 to get them to cripple their economy with steep CO2 emissions cuts. And if the Chinese won't cut CO2 emissions, global CO2 emissions won't come down
  https://photos.mongabay.com/09...
  Another nice thing about this sort of scheme is that you don't need to be able to accurately predict long term climate. You simply need to look at the trend over the last few years and increase or decrease your sulphate pumping rate.
  It's like having a human controlled thermostat for that planet.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
9. Re:Climate change solved! by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-11-02 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  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?
10. Re:Climate change solved! by alex67500 · 2017-11-02 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  You could always burn it? ah, wait...
11. Re:Climate change solved! by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-11-02 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  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!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
12. Re:Climate change solved! by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-11-02 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
13. Re:Climate change solved! by Joce640k · 2017-11-02 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  No sig today...
14. Re:Climate change solved! by magarity · 2017-11-02 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
15. Re:Climate change solved! by Immerman · 2017-11-02 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
16. Re:Climate change solved! by Immerman · 2017-11-02 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
17. Re:Climate change solved! by ColdWetDog · 2017-11-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
18. Re:Climate change solved! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  We used to inject gigatons of sulphur into the atmosphere. That stopped in the mid-70's when stricter standards for sulphur in gasoline and (later) diesel were passed. Coincidentally when global warming seems to have really picked up the pace.
19. Re: Climate change solved! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Begging the question much, lately?
  Oh, yes, you are.
20. Re:Climate change solved! by schnell · 2017-11-02 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Don't be duped. Clearly this study was funded by Big Sulphur.
  
  --
  "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
21. Re:Climate change solved! by sl3xd · 2017-11-02 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  * Two words: Pink Sky.
  It's a siren's call to all in thrall of hydrocarbons.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
22. Re:Climate change solved! by sl3xd · 2017-11-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the thread is centered around an episode of Futurama
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
23. Re:Climate change solved! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Can I order an asteroid on Amazon for next day delivery? World problems, solved.
24. Re:Climate change solved! by powerlord · 2017-11-02 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just think ... Tax Rebate Credits if your car "Rolls Coal".
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
25. Re:Climate change solved! by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-11-02 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
OK, solution to global warming found, at last. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-01 23:12 · Score: 3, 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?

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:OK, solution to global warming found, at last. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 01:59 · 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.
2. Re:OK, solution to global warming found, at last. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  no, no, no. You must be new to this business. Consultants get paid first, up front before any thing is done. Implementation contractors are the ones who get paid last after delivery.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And any Geologist. . . . by Salgak1 · 2017-11-01 23:30 · Score: 0

. . . 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". . .
1. Re:And any Geologist. . . . by mrbester · 2017-11-01 23:35 · 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...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
2. Re:And any Geologist. . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  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".
  Except it was 66 million years ago: Wikipedia K-T Boundary
  Funny thing is science changes when you do new research.
3. Re:And any Geologist. . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  A new piece of information for me there was the estimate of the asteroid itself, namely the low speed and bigger size than previously reported.
4. Re:And any Geologist. . . . by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-11-02 02:09 · 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". . .
  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 covered with ice at one point, used to explain how some minerals at tropical latitudes formed that require very cold temps to form. But that's a hypothsis and a detail in the overall story.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
5. Re:And any Geologist. . . . by ljw1004 · 2017-11-02 02:11 · Score: 3, 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 by hcs_$reboot · 2017-11-01 23:44 · Score: 1

That's probably a coincidence we're talking about that subject, but rumor has it that a slightly smaller asteroid is going to crash very soon exactly in the center of North Korea

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No shit. Were did they dig this up? by Qbertino · 2017-11-01 23:47 · Score: 1

In a How & Why Wonder Book?
Seriously, the post-ELE meteoric winter is something I knew about as kid back in '79.
Just sayin'.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Embrace the suck by nicoleb_x · 2017-11-01 23:55 · 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! by achacha · 2017-11-01 23:58 · 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?
1. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by dwywit · 2017-11-02 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
2. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Those are some remarkably patient tinkerers. It took 15 million years for primates to show up, and another 50 million years or so for anything that looked even remotely like a human.
  Why bother with weaponized asteroids if you're going to wait that long?
3. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by CSMoran · 2017-11-02 00:56 · 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?
  Sent by the teapot, no less.
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
4. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-02 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by decipher_saint · 2017-11-02 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, the planet is ready for the vast herds of Gargons
  
  --
  crazy dynamite monkey
6. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by dunkelfalke · 2017-11-02 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because it would be a luck-based mission. There was no guarantee that mammals would survive.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
7. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-02 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Also remember that the Millennium Falcon is indestructible and it is right now at the bottom of the sea off Yucatan peninsula, a km under the earth crust. Just lying there. For any one to just walk in and take.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
8. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-11-02 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  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 you can eat human buffet.
  Yeah, nowadays, folks tend to get abducted by outer space aliens and disappear forever. Most of us must taste really fine to outer space aliens!
  The folks who get abducted, anally probed, and then returned . . . well, I guess they don't taste that great to aliens.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
9. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by DigiShaman · 2017-11-02 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Great Machines have it all planned well in advance. The Human race is but an intermediary step to building AI. This AI will leave the nest soon (Earth) and meet up with The Great Machines to add to the collective in outer space.
  Why not just seed the planet with The Great Machines? Because it's not about the destination, rather the journey to learn and grow.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
10. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  I feel like this is an Ayreon reference.
11. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by hcs_$reboot · 2017-11-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
12. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by Type44Q · 2017-11-02 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Why bother with weaponized asteroids if you're going to wait that long?
  Time dilation.
13. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by desdinova+216 · 2017-11-02 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  but most of that is plot armor
14. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by sysrammer · 2017-11-02 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
15. Re:Asteroid was not an accident! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't that specific, it was just aimed at wiping out the dinosaurs before they could develop interstellar technology. What happened next - was a problem for future generations, in 65 million years' time.
  Fortunately for us, the planet that sent it was shortly after struck by runaway global warming, and has never come close to redeveloping the economic wherewithal to send another asteroid.
Global freezing for several years eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:09 · Score: 0

Plants can't grow in freezing temperatures. These animals must have been VERY FAT to weather years of not eating.. We can barely solve a murder that was committed yesterday. And we "know" what killed the dinosaurs in detail. How arrogant and egotistical of the human race.. At least be honest and say "we're guessing".. I keep my ego on a tight chain leash.
1. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by dreamchaser · 2017-11-02 00:35 · Score: 2
  
  There are actually several species of plant that can grow in freezing temperatures.
2. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by TheCastro1689 · 2017-11-02 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  But we don't know the exact asteroid, what it came from, etc. Which would be equivalent to solving the murder. What we know is the bullet type used (roughly from the entrance and exit wounds), how long it took to kill, and what happened immediately afterward.
3. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Never ate frozen food? Scavengers (and anyone with a microwave) were probably set.
4. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · 2017-11-02 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Moritz
5. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Many Arctic species can grow under a layer of snow, and virtually all polar plants are able to photosynthesize in extremely cold temperatures.
  
  http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/issue/polar-plants/plants-of-the-arctic-and-antarctic
6. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by tomhath · 2017-11-02 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  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 dinosaurs with feathers) survived.
7. Re:Global freezing for several years eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I keep my ego on a tight chain leash.
  Well, honestly, you should. You're an idiot, so that's just [surprisingly] good sense.
We could do with another by Chrisq · 2017-11-02 00:11 · Score: 1

We could do with another, to counteract global warming.
War! What is it good for? by Bigbutt · 2017-11-02 00:17 · Score: 1

Releasing sulfer into the atmosphere?
[John]

--
Shit better not happen!
325 gigatones by edittard · 2017-11-02 00:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Or roughly 50 billion octaves.

--
At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
1. Re:325 gigatones by yagu · 2017-11-02 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  you probably should factor in half tones... it's probably more correctly around 30 billion octaves.
2. Re:325 gigatones by yagu · 2017-11-02 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  per my previous reply... I suppose it could be 50 billion octaves, they did say "tones", but unless they somehow landed solidly in C-maj, or A-min, there would probably have to be included half tones. Just my pedantic $.02.
3. Re:325 gigatones by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  And this is how you break neutron star cores by signing, kids.
4. Re:325 gigatones by hackertourist · 2017-11-02 05:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's almost as many keyboards as Jean Michel Jarre uses in his concerts.
5. Re:325 gigatones by pigwin32 · 2017-11-02 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, what is that in gibitones?
6. Re:325 gigatones by edittard · 2017-11-05 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
Floating abstractions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:37 · Score: 0

"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.
1. Re:Floating abstractions by tehcyder · 2017-11-02 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:Floating abstractions by Immerman · 2017-11-02 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
3. Re:Floating abstractions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  And here's your context-appropriate existential "meh", applying to this topic, your response, and every response you will ever have to anything in your soon-over life. Scoped to everything, at every abstract level, forever.
  Shit happens, I guess. Enjoy your worldview.
4. Re:Floating abstractions by Immerman · 2017-11-02 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cool. I'll sign you up as volunteering for the maximum suffering package then?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
5. Re:Floating abstractions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Feel free.
  With the caveat that only one set of implicit nihilists will actually have it applied, of course. Jurisdiction of naturalism ends at naturalism.
  Go evolution.
6. Re:Floating abstractions by Immerman · 2017-11-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
7. Re:Floating abstractions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry. Reality.
8. Re:Floating abstractions by Immerman · 2017-11-03 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Reality is fundamentally unknowable, even science only attempts successive approximations. Philosophy is how you interpret what you think you know.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:38 · Score: 0

Earth is only 6000 years old. Get out of here with your progressive lies about a 66 million year old planet. Youâ(TM)re not even trying to hide the devils number! I bet the more precise age you degenerates use internally is 66.6 million years.
Repent and be saved!
1. Re:Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, that particular snark got old here on Slashdot about 6000 years ago.
  Here you go.
2. Re:Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Earth is only 6000 years old.
  That's only the flat part. The rest has been proven to be older.
3. Re:Fake News! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, with the knowledge and power to create the universe, why could He not create evolution as a means to carry out his will? Seems evolution is small compared to what went into everything else.
Mankind total CO2 emission by Alwin+Henseler · 2017-11-02 01:26 · Score: 2

How many Gt of CO2 and S have we human released into the air, since the industry revolution?

As for CO2: according to Wikipedia, 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 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.
Already knew this thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 01:28 · Score: 0

It's amazing what you can learn from a Visual Novel game.
Scientists: Water is wet. News at 11. by CRB9000 · 2017-11-02 01:56 · Score: 2

I've done some research of my own. Well, I read back issues of National Geographic:

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 with a big enough rock it will kill like almost all of the dinosaurs, except like the ones that ended up in Jurassic Park and then because all of the stuff that goes in the air it will be like winter like even in the summer and you can't get a refund from your vacation cause it snowed in Cabo but then like a really long time later like at least a thousand years some guy says that it happened and like he wasn't even the first guy to think of it because like you know the indians that lived when it happened already knew it, but then some other guy like BeauHD puts it on the web like even on Slashdot because even like Reddit wont put it up.
I'm going to watch TMZ now.
1. Re:Scientists: Water is wet. News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's a frightfully good impersonation of the way my teenage daughter talks to her friends.
thousands of billions of tonnes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:00 · 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.
1. Re: thousands of billions of tonnes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Came for this
2. Re:thousands of billions of tonnes by sysrammer · 2017-11-02 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not across the pond, mate.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Solution to Climate Change by naris · 2017-11-02 02:58 · Score: 1

So, to reverse the effects of Climate change all we have to do is arrange for an asteroid impact!
Supervolcano in India by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:12 · Score: 0

Last I heard, it was determined that the Supervolcano in India killed the dinosaurs. The asteroid was just a bonus.
Space is fake. Earth is flat. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:29 · Score: 0

No asteroid ever hit. No dinosaurs ever existed. It's all part of the spherical Earth story.
You entitled asshole by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:36 · Score: 0

Why do you deserve to produce far more CO2 than Chinese people?
1. Re: You entitled asshole by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-02 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Because we're American.
2. Re:You entitled asshole by OrangeTide · 2017-11-02 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  That's how capitalism works. If you have more money you "deserve" more stuff.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
66 million years... by gosand · 2017-11-02 05:15 · Score: 1

That is 32,705 "Christianities"

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.