Slashdot Mirror


Asteroid Strikes 'Increase Threefold Over Last 300 Million Years,' Survey Finds (theguardian.com)

According to a survey of asteroid craters at least 6.2 miles wide, the number of asteroids slamming into Earth has nearly tripled since the dinosaurs first roamed. "Researchers worked out the rate of asteroid strikes on the moon and the Earth and found that in the past 290 million years the number of collisions had increased dramatically," reports The Guardian. "Before that time, the planet suffered an asteroid strike about once every 3 million years, but since then the rate has risen to once nearly every 1 million years." From the report: The findings suggest that the dinosaurs may have been unfortunate in evolving 240 million years ago, just as the odds of being wiped out by a stray asteroid were ramping up. It was one of those impacts, on top of other factors, that did for the beasts 66 million years ago. Many scientists had assumed that asteroid strikes were a rare but constant threat in Earth's deep history, but the latest study challenges that belief.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers describe how they turned to the moon to examine the violent history of Earth. The Earth and moon are hit by asteroids with similar frequency, but impact craters on Earth are often erased or obscured by erosion and the shifting continents which churn up the crust. On the geologically inactive moon, impact craters are preserved almost indefinitely, making them easier to examine. Using images from Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, the scientists studied the "rockiness" of the debris surrounding craters on the moon. Rocks thrown up by asteroid impacts are steadily ground down by the constant rain of micrometeorites that pours down on the moon. This means the state of the rocks around a crater can be used to date it. The dates revealed that the moon, and by extension the Earth, has suffered more intense asteroid bombardment in the past 290 million years than at any time in the previous billion. On Earth there are hardly any impact craters older than 650 million years, most likely because they were eroded when the planet became encased in ice in an event known as Snowball Earth.

39 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. oort cloud by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems to me that the cloud of debris that surrounds our solar system (and likely most others as well) would be unstable as stars pass by each other.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:oort cloud by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, this is three times (three times as likely). Threefold is much greater. It is double, three times.

    2. Re:oort cloud by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      That does not explain the rate suddenly increasing 300 million years ago. If anything the rate of random disturbances should decrease steadily over time as rocks are pushed into the inner solar system removing them from the belt.

      Their working theory is a collision in the asteroid belt 300 million years ago which suddenly caused a large increase in the number of rocks available to impact. If true though then presumably the same sudden increase in rate should be visible on other planets too.

    3. Re:oort cloud by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      That does not explain the rate suddenly increasing 300 million years ago.

      Are you saying no stars passed by 300 million years ago?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:oort cloud by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's aliens, but...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:oort cloud by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      as rocks are pushed into the inner solar system removing them from the belt.
      And why would that be the case?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:oort cloud by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's no way to tell. Even a slowly moving star would be thousands of light years away from us after such a long time, and its trajectory would be impossible to trace back due to other flybys and the resulting chaos.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: oort cloud by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      I was going to say. Thank goodness we understand that we are in a completely different place in the universe since that time and that statostics have zero meaning in this context.

    8. Re:oort cloud by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The approach, passage and recession of a passing star takes tens of thousands of years, which will put a moderate degree of agitation into the Oort cloud. But that is happening almost continuously (there are 7 known near-approach stars in the next 100 kyr), so they blur into one another as a more-or-less constant background level of agitation in the Oort cloud and outer solar system.

      On a much longer timescale, this work is suggesting that there has been a persistent increase in cratering events in the Earth-Moon system.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:oort cloud by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      In the interval between 301 million years ago and 300 million years ago, about 70 stars would have passed close (10 ly) to the Solar system. A different 70 (+/- about 20) would have passed similarly close between 300 and 299 Myr ago.

      Which stars? They could literally be on the other side of the galaxy by now.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:oort cloud by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Their working theory is a collision in the asteroid belt 300 million years ago

      In this context, there is a lot of work supporting a brief (around 20 million years) period of increased micrometeorite delivery to Earth, which are recorded in "shelf carbonates" of the Ordovician series. Actually the record is getting good enough that people are arguing for several distinct pulses of micrometeorite delivery within that period. Of the less-altered micrometeorites analysed, they appear to be significantly less diverse than present day delivery, which is proposed to be the result of a significant collision in the asteroid belt, producing a lot of debris, some of which impacted the Earth.

      That event lasted in the order of 20 Myr ; a 300 million year event is ... well, not implausible, but it does strain my credibility. It needs some dynamics work, which is definitely above my pay grade.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Constant? by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do we *know* the rate of micrometeorite bombardment is constant and hasn't dropped in intensity by a third in recent (geological/selenological) times?

    --
    I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
    1. Re:Constant? by bcwright · · Score: 1

      I had the same thought - there's some reason to think that micrometeorites would get swept up by the gravity wells of the inner planets (Mercury through Mars) and would be gradually decreasing over time. Still, a factor of three in the incidence of micrometeorites would be rather a lot, but it might be possible. Certainly there would also be possibilities of perturbations of the outer solar system by passing stars that would disturb the orbits of objects in the Oort Cloud or farther-out asteroids, and it might be hard to distinguish the cases.

    2. Re:Constant? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      It's possible two (formerly) big asteroids collided fairly recently, creating a lot of debris.

  3. Re: Well, this is clearly because of Trump by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    That's a bit of a stretch, but trump is one of the major threats to human extinction.

    So what you are calling for is human extinction? Cant have any threats to it?

    You sound like those Christians yearning for Armageddon.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  4. Or maybe... by jrumney · · Score: 2

    Evidence of 300 million year old asteroid craters is many times more likely to have been destroyed. Other scientific papers have pointed to a much more chaotic solar system earlier in its history, so the trend may in fact be in the opposite direction, just the evidence no longer exists.

    1. Re:Or maybe... by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      You don't think the rate of destruction of old craters might have been taken into account?

    2. Re:Or maybe... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In short, no. If we can find evidence of craters older than 300M years, then we can't take them into account. Pangaea was 335M years ago. It's no coincidence that the big craters we know of postdate that time. Evidence of older ones has been subducted. How do you think we would account for them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Or maybe... by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      The new thing this study did was use the moon as a proxy for Earth. The moon does not have weathering or plate tectonics so it's much easier to obtain data on older impacts and you can use the way the craters overlay each other to determine which are older and which are newer.

    4. Re:Or maybe... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      That tells us the relative ages of the craters on the moon, but not their ages...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Or maybe... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you should read the article.

      I read the article. It doesn't explain what I actually needed to know. See, there has been a lot of speculation as to how reliable our estimates of the ages of craters on the moon have actually been. What TFA doesn't mention is that these findings are the result of "using a new method to date craters on the moon". The Guardian simply didn't bother to explain how they actually figured this out. As usual on Slashdot, we get the worst possible link attached to the story.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Or maybe... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How do you think we would account for them?
      Well, we could dive for them, or not?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Or maybe... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Evidence of older [than 300 Myr] ones has been subducted. How do you think we would account for them?

      Errr, doh? So, in your immense knowledge you've never heard of the Sudbury structure - a Grenville age large astrobleme near the Canada-USA border, from about 950 Myr ago. Or the Stac Fada structure recently discovered in Scotland, dating from approximately 1.1 Gyr? Or the Vrefefort structure, one of the largest on the planet and about 2 Gyr ?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Or maybe... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      What they do is look at the moon, look at the rate of cratering there, and then look at the number of craters on Earth at a specific age, and then look at subduction rates which are part of the mechanism that removes evidence of craters. This gives them an estimate of the rate of cratering in the past. They are not actually as dumb as you imagine.

  5. Re:To solve the problem.. by scsirob · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, no, no. You have the culprit right, but the fix is clearly higher taxes. That's one of the three universal fixes:
    1. If it's stuck and has to move: WD-40
    2. If it moves and needs to be fixed: Ductape
    3. If it has the word 'climate' in it: Tax!

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  6. 6.2 miles? by sbjornda · · Score: 1
    6.2 miles? Strangely precise. Oh, you mean 10 kilometers?

    Who do you think is the reading audience here, that they would be so badly thrown off by using km? I think /. readers are smarter than that.

    --
    .nosig

    1. Re:6.2 miles? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, we don't understand either unit. Unless it's in the Universal Slashdot Units of Libraries of Congress, Olympic Swimming Pools, or Football fields - not a clue about the size.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:6.2 miles? by Livius · · Score: 1

      And it's not like it's hard to do both.

  7. How long have Saturn's rings been there? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Probably major collisions between moons produces an increase in asteroid impacts for millions of years afterwards, until gravity eventually clears out the debris.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  8. Re:We need higher taxes by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Trump has diverted all the funding to combating hemorrhoid growth... he's a little confused!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Threefold?? by Zobeid · · Score: 1

    I don't believe it. In my more than half century of life I've never heard of the -fold suffix being used in the way you describe, and quick search only turns up references (including a Wikipedia page) that equate it with "times". If you have any source for your assertion, I'd like to see that.

    1. Re: Threefold?? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The phrase originally was used to mean a reduction; take a piece of fabric and fold it in half, then fold it in half again, then fold it in half a 3rd time, and what you have is a "three fold reduction" which would be 1/8th of the original.

      How much "originally"? The OED cites "threefold" in the sense of "three times as X" all the way back to 1200. "Fourfold" in a similar sense it cites from year 1000. Furthermore, it doesn't cite your purported meaning at all!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re: Threefold?? by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

      I agree with the grandfather post, that was my understanding too. But I have checked a couple of online dictionaries and they agree with you. I'll point out though that the OED doesn't know everything, any more than you or me, and once a meaning is defined in a standard reference, that definition will tend to perpetuate.

  10. Re:Has anyone by careysub · · Score: 1

    Has anyone tied this, snowball earth and the great nonconformity together? the eons roughly match.

    Yes there was a news story about this three weeks ago.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  11. Re: Well, this is clearly because of Trump by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    You sound like those Christians yearning for Armageddon.

    They haven't learned their lesson from 1998? What good will a remake do?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. Re: Well, this is clearly because of Trump by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Sociopaths, we call them, and there seem to be a lot of them about recently. Of course, they are also idiots if they think a single politician can somehow destroy the most adaptive species every to arise. That also has a name, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  13. Asteroid Strikes by PPH · · Score: 1

    I didn't even know there was a union.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Re:Obviously Climate Change by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The CO2 buildup started when dinosaurs started driving SUVs and using coal-fired generators. It's an obvious case of dinogenic global warming.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  15. Because of climate change obviously. by fygment · · Score: 1

    What else could it be?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.