Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Discovers Another Massive Crater Beneath the Ice In Greenland (technologyreview.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lost-and-found dept.

According to a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, NASA glaciologists found a crater thought to be more than 22 miles wide. "It is only 114 miles from the Hiawatha impact crater that was discovered in 2018," MIT Technology Review reports. "The identification of that first crater led NASA to dedicate additional resources for investigating the land under Greenland's ice." From the report: NASA glaciologists used topographical maps, satellite images, and radar scans to analyze the area. What they found was a flat, bowl-shaped depression in the bedrock. This was surrounded by an elevated edge and characteristic central peaks, which form on the crater floor after an impact. The crater has eroded significantly over time, causing the team to estimate it was created somewhere between a hundred thousand years and a hundred million years ago. That suggests it probably wasn't formed at the same time as the Hiawatha crater, which is younger. This would be the third pair of craters that sit close to one another that we've found on Earth. "We've surveyed the Earth in many different ways, from land, air, and space. It's exciting that discoveries like these are still possible," says Joe MacGregor, a glaciologist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

39 comments

  1. Tightening the estimate:? by war4peace · · Score: 2

    "it was created somewhere between a hundred thousand years and a hundred million years ago"

    That's a fairly vague estimate, and I understand at this time it's the best they can come up with, but I'n wondering if this estimate can be tightened with more observations and analysis.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re: Tightening the estimate:? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine. Maybe just keep reading the public journals. Or you could use your imagination and be wrong.

    2. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by azcoyote · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, I estimate that we'll be able to get a better estimate somewhere between one week and one millennium from now.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    3. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      It can probably be tightened by drilling into the crater and doing isotope analysis. That's probably not NASA's cup of tea, though.

    4. Re: Tightening the estimate:? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send NASA a letter with a self addressed stamped envelope stating very specifically what you are asking and why and maybe they will care and maybe there will be an answer and maybe not and maybe they will tell you. Or you could just waste your time posting about the article here

    5. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by vikingpower · · Score: 0

      Why is a quote from the dying St. Francis your signature ? (Just curious.)

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    6. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need to wait for climate change to melt all the ice that is covering it then they can go in and accurately measure the age.

    7. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Strange, that's the same estimate I use when the wife asks me when I'll do the laundry.

    8. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. when do you think we can get a better estimate on that planning ?

    9. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      it was created somewhere between a hundred thousand years and a hundred million years ago

      That's a fairly vague estimate, and I understand at this time it's the best they can come up with, but I'm wondering if this estimate can be tightened with more observations and analysis.

      New estimates say the crater was created on a Thursday.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re: Tightening the estimate:? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      This question is as stupid as the one you moan about in the article. To say that the crater was created in the past is literally as obvious as to say that the estimate FOR SURE 100 percent possible to tighten ( use of simply more observation and measure, ya know science ) the numbers so really I wonder what makes you wonder..

    11. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is your sig misspelled

      " Religous speak to God."

      (just curious)

    12. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      "it was created somewhere between a hundred thousand years and a hundred million years ago"

      That's a fairly vague estimate,

      Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The oldest surface rocks are 4.4x billion years old.

      This is like a 45 year old person saying that some newly discovered thing is somewhere between 8 hours and 1 year old. Not vague, especially when you realize it is an estimate taken at a glance that is only intended to help focus further examination.

      Or lets say you discover an abandoned building, and you find some activity inside. You know the building was constructed 45 years old. You're able to determine that the activity happened at least 8 hours ago, because there was no residual heat, and less than 1 year ago because some exposed mineral hadn't visibly oxidized. That's not vague at all. Vague would be, "well we found a soda bottle but we don't know how old it is because it is an old bottle design that is still sold as a novelty item, so probably years, but maybe this morning."

      and I understand

      Gotta call bullshit right there.

    13. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Silly Thursday didn't exist back then. I think you meant to say 'it Happened on Thor's-Day.'.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    14. Re:Tightening the estimate:? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "it was created somewhere between a hundred thousand years and a hundred million years ago"

      That's a fairly vague estimate, and I understand at this time it's the best they can come up with, but I'n wondering if this estimate can be tightened with more observations and analysis.

      100k years is not even wrong as an estimate in 100 million years.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. Massive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't a crater the exact opposite of 'massive'? It is defined by an absence of material. 'Big', 'huge', 'vast', or 'enormous' would all have been better for the title.

    1. Re: Massive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure baby. Uunnnggghhhh...tilted! Hurry, I cannot tilt very long.

    2. Re: Massive? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      Ah the logic of the common people.. Crater: bowl shaped cavity. Opposite: bump ( outward mound ). Ya know, like sinus - cosinus. Small: little. Opposite: massive. So clearly, massive is not the opposite of crater. You see when a meteorite impacts, the actual material that was there beforehand will not go " missing " but rather get compacted and flown outwards. Some material may vaporise but the impact shock mostly compacts soil.

    3. Re: Massive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cdreimer left /. after 20+ years and posted 100+ videos in 2018. His trolls are still butthurt about this.

      The thing to do for him: post more videos :)

    4. Re:Massive? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      More commonly called a "massif" though.

  3. Not good by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    They found one in 2018 and now another one in 2019. At this rate the entire Earth will be a complete crater by 2030.

    1. Re:Not good by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh good, maybe that will give the cockroaches some slim chance of survival. /s

  4. The Younger Dryas explained? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A large impactor in Greenland would melt the whole icecap immediately but temporarily. Could this be the origin of anomalous warming events like the Younger Dryas?

    1. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seems unlikely. The Earth's climate stayed at the same optimal temperature throughout history, until after the Industrial Revolution.

    2. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this be on the scale of a large forest fire as far as thermal energy? I think those normally cool off in a matter of weeks but certainly have no expertise in that.

    3. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is the likely explanation for Meltwater Pulse 1a. Meltwater Pulse 1b was more likely caused by a coronal mass ejection which also left the 'black mat' layer everywhere from weeks of continual lightning.

      Between the two humanity went through two massive cataclysms which likely explain some of the commonality among primitive mythologies and the worldwide symbolism of sky gods lines up nicely with the high energy discharge patterns predicted by plasma models of CME aurora.

      The second is probably why Gobekli Teki was buried. The two together probably caused such such tectonic isostatic rebound as to sink the Azores Plateau at the weak point of the mid-Atlantic Ridge.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re: The Younger Dryas explained? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      Omg when u think back in time please dont forget to imagine the relevant location and climate of any continent you are envisaging in whatever period. 100 million years ago Antarctica was less together and pretty tropical

    5. Re: The Younger Dryas explained? by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      Just no.

    6. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by meglon · · Score: 2

      Call your doctor and ask for stronger meds.... the ones he gave you last time aren't working.Seriously, what is it with this cluster of psuedo-science bullshitters on /. that they have to try to co-opt every single posting on science that they can manage to warp in their minds? Do you guys simply have no fucking life at all?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    7. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by joh · · Score: 2

      For the benefit of the non-trolls here an informative and fun graph of the climate in the last 20000 years:

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      Make sure to scroll down to the very bottom (the present).

    8. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the benefit of the non-trolls here an informative and fun graph of the climate in the last 20000 years:

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      Make sure to scroll down to the very bottom (the present).

      "These are the types of changes they're talking about" No, they're explicitly talking about changes over millions of years. The ice age 20,000 years ago wasn't the starting point. It's been way hotter than now, and temperatures have swung wildly before too. Randall was very picky-choosy in this xkcd.

    9. Re:The Younger Dryas explained? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large impactor in Greenland would melt the whole icecap immediately but temporarily. Could this be the origin of anomalous warming events like the Younger Dryas?

      You don't understand the scale of these things. The largest impactor listed this table is 1 km in diameter and hits with 46300 megaton (1.93719e+20 joules). Greenland has 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice. To melt that would take 9.506175e+23 joules. Given that the heat transfer would not be anywhere near 100% efficient, you're off by at least 4 orders of magnitude.

  5. Wow... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Why is God so pissed off at Greenland?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Wow... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      He didn't like the movie Prometheus.

    2. Re: Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't take kindly to liars, supposedly...

      Green Land? Hah!