Greenland ice sheet hides huge 'impact crater'

Discussion in 'Science' started by cerberus, Nov 15, 2018.

  1. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,579
    Likes Received:
    4,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :shock: Wowser, I can't get my head around that; whatever could have caused it? An asteroid, maybe? [​IMG] Anyone got any other explanation, or is it just more fake news? Or no news, according to which way you want to look at it?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46181450
     
    Durandal likes this.
  2. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    31,278
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    31,278
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  4. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The article is quite clear on what scientists think may have caused it:

     
  5. robot

    robot Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The YouTube glossed over what happened to the ice that was there. How much of it boiled off? Did this have an impact on the weather? What about the dust that would have been ejected? Did that cause weather changes? The BBC article says it might have caused a blimp in the weather.
     
  6. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,579
    Likes Received:
    4,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What they think caused it? Do they believe it might have been caused by something else then? :roflol:
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  7. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My reading is that the "probably" relates to the timescales, not the method.
     
  8. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,579
    Likes Received:
    4,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your quote distinctly states causal, and is not time-related. Why the hell do you keep defending them ffs? Is it some weird kind of denial?
     
  9. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, I think you're read it wrongly

    ...can be read to say that there is doubt about the cause, the timing, or both.

    For example if I know that my postman is called Tony (in fact he is), if I were to say:

    I could be querying the time.
     
  10. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,579
    Likes Received:
    4,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Best bit of squirming I've seen for ages. :mrgreen:
     
  11. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I took 2 minutes out of my day to find the original paper:

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaar8173

    It's clear from the paper that:
    • The cause is in no doubt
    • The timing is in doubt
     
    DarkDaimon likes this.
  12. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But shock horror, it turns out I was right when I found the original paper (see post #11)
     
  13. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,579
    Likes Received:
    4,444
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, you're bound to be right now and again aincha? Law of averages init??
     
  14. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    31,278
    Likes Received:
    6,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, there is always, always room for doubt in a case like this. I think one of the big questions is what, exactly, impacted the site. Estimating its material and size when you don't even have access to the crater for direct study makes it very tough to be certain. I saw they were sampling deposits carried out from under the ice by a stream.
     
  15. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,728
    Likes Received:
    4,723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I whacked it into
    https://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEarth/index.html

    The effects are not global catastrophe, although it would be a bad day lol. Effects are considered to be less than the year without summer volcano.

    It's not really very big.

    Seafloor is also littered with impact craters which we can't confirm due to erosion. Craters don't last long under the sea.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
    DarkDaimon and tecoyah like this.
  16. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    12,623
    Likes Received:
    3,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Greenland's central depression reminds me of descriptions of

    Atlantis


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page