0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
any major consequences of really large objects striking the oceans?
major impact events all refer to landing on the continents
but rather all of the particulate matter kicked up into the atmosphere, causing an abrupt climate change (like a nuclear winter, enough dust in the atmosphere blocks the sun enough to significantly chill the globe)
What event happened where there was an impact
everything was covered in nickel?
Or maybe it was diamond flakes?
What event happened where there was an impact or volcano and everything was covered in nickel? Or maybe it was diamond flakes? Has anyone read about this?
Quote from: PaddyBany major consequences of really large objects striking the oceans?Tsunamis can carry the energy of an impact thousands of miles from the point of impact within a few hours of the impact. This is more rapid than the slower dispersal of dust through the atmosphere, but would not reach very far into the centre of continents.Quote from: PaddyBmajor impact events all refer to landing on the continentsI saw a theory that a large impact would leave a hole in the atmosphere - vacuum reaching the ground behind the descending meteorite. This would carry dust and rock from the impact out of the atmosphere into a suborbital trajectory, falling back into the atmosphere all over the planet for the next few hours.Calculations suggested that the entire surface of the planet could be subjected to temperatures similar to a pizza oven for hours after the impact, leading to immediate global sterilisation of the surface.Only plants and animals protected by a reasonably thick layer of soil or water would be able to survive these conditions, to emerge into a blighted and unrecognisable landscape.
...Given that there is more water covering the planet than solid earth there must have been many more impacts in the ocean than on land...
The dinosaurs would have slowed down due to the cold and can't defend against the quicker warm blooded mammals.
Say we had a hot asteroid event, followed by a cooling trend due to the dust. Logically this would impact the surviving plant eater animals first due to loss of plant food. As these animals slow down from hunger, the carnivores would have a field day due to so much easy food. As the caucuses of animals decay, now the scavengers would have a field day. Do we see a mass extinction with least disruption in the scavengers? In the oceans and lakes a similar thing would occur. The plant eaters will weaken and die. This means a field day for the carnivores. As things rot, then the cat fish, crabs and other scavengers would have a field day. The ocean scavengers would have the best chance for maintaining the most continuity. Is this observed based on using the selective advantage arguments of evolution. Another question that comes to my mind is why did animals like crocodiles, turtles, sharks, who were there with the dinosaurs, not go extinct? These prodigy of the dinosaur are not scavengers but tend to be carnivores.