Map via Gizmodo Australia University of Kansas |
Before and since the question of what caused the Younger Dryas episode has remained largely unanswered. Since the end of the last Ice Age (~3 - 2.5 million YAG) climatologists have concluded that the Earth has experienced approximately 25 brief cooling periods or cycles, referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events. One argument of critics against any impact triggering theory is that they consider the Younger Dryas as nothing more than another one of the D-O cycles. This is in spite of the fact that known and accepted data singles out the Younger Drays as the most significant climate period in recent history, up to our own time. The Younger Dryas returned climate to almost ice age norms, with average global temps dropping 8áµ’C. The extreme of the Younger Dryas from climatological norms implies that there is more to the story than just another D-O cyclonic event.
The Ice Layers over the suspected impact crater. Graphic: C. Bikel/Science via science.sciencemag.org |
So what did their 3 years of subsequent research yield?
The Cape York fragments include "Agpalilik" (Inuit for "the man") a 20 ton piece of iron meteorite on display in the courtyard of the National Museum of Natural History in Copenhagen. The American Natural History Museum states their "Ahnighto" fragment, which is 34 tons, and also part of the Cape York impact, struck Earth approximately 10,000 YAG. Their display information goes on to state that the piece was either a break away part of a larger object or part of a collection of multiple objects impacting simultaneously.
"Ahnighto" fragment via ANHM website. |
From the above data, the logical theory suggests that a significant object between 1/2 and 1 mile across impacted Greenland within the last 100,00 years releasing 700megatons of energy and creating the Hiawatha crater. (1,4)
"The impact would have been a spectacle for anyone within 500 kilometers. A white fireball four times larger and three times brighter than the Sun would have streaked across the sky. If the object struck an ice sheet, it would have tunneled through to the bedrock, vaporizing water and stone alike in a flash. The resulting explosion packed the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear warheads, and even an observer hundreds of kilometers away would have experienced a buffeting shock wave, a monstrous thunder-clap, and hurricane-force winds. Later, rock debris might have rained down on North America and Europe, and the released steam, a greenhouse gas, could have locally warmed Greenland, melting even more ice." (4)
Due to the nature of glacial ice the logical conclusion would be that the impact would have to date closer to 12,000 YAG than to the 3million year mark. "The crater is exceptionally well-preserved, and that is surprising, because glacier ice is an incredibly efficient erosive agent that would have quickly removed traces of the impact," Kurt H Kjær (1)
In addition, in an attempt to disprove the YD Impact Theory, mentioned in the first paragraph, which is connected to the new research out of the University of Copenhagen, that this article focuses on, there was a study of ice core samples in 2013 that did not succeed. This study actually gives indirect supporting evidence to the new research being an impact crater. The 2013 study revealed a similar platinum spike as the crater samples. That being said, 'significant' multiple samples have been lacking.(4)
Paris fits inside the crater. NASA imaging via Australian Broadcasting Corporation |
Retired geophysicist, Allen West, explains that an ice sheet impact could result in significant (immediate) climate issues. These could include increased rainfall due to vaporization and change in ocean temps due to disturbance discharge in the forms of ice cleavage and runoff.(3) In addition, Dr. Mathieu Morlighem (UC-Irvine) explains that impact craters could be hidden under current ice sheets. This possibility would make locating and dating challenging, not to mention that the erosive actions of glacial movement would erase their presence before their discoveries as well.(2)
The new research has many critics, such as Ludovic Ferriere (Natural History Museum in Vienna) who told National Geographic, it could just be a natural depression and he would want ultimate proof in the form of crater floor sediment samples.(1) Similarly, J. Severinghaus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cites lack of supporting evidence in other ice core samples dating to 100,000YAG for doubting the research conclusions stating, "You really ought to see something."(4) However, just because you do not see something you think you ought to see, does not mean that it does not exist.
Then J. Melosh, Purdue Univeristy, doubts that if the crater is an impact event, that it could be from the 12,000~100,000YAG time range based solely on a statistical belief that large impacts ONLY occur every few millions of years. Melosh goes on to imply that Science's reporting on this is reckless, "You're aware you're going to set off a firestorm?"(4)
66million YAG an object hit Earth creating the 200km Chicxulub crater; then 35.5million YAG another object struck the Chesapeake Bay area leaving a 85km scar; now there is evidence suggesting that between 100,000 and 12,000YAG a smaller, but still significant object struck Greenland giving us the 31km Hiawatha crater. Based on these stated examples and taking into account the hypothesis that as the Universe has aged the chaos regarding debris impact risks has lessened, the possibility of the accuracy of the Hiawatha impact theory increases to probability.
Once again we see the same problem occurring; when someone makes up their mind that something completely is or isn't it is virtually impossible to change their opinion, not matter the truth. This trait is especially detrimental to science! The reality is that some even when provided with a preponderance of evidence, in some cases the very evidence that they demanded needed as proof, they will still deny the logical conclusion and demand even more proof. Fulfilling their demands is of course futile as their demands will only become absurd. The tragedy is when these obtuse individuals hold positions of respect and authority (ex. tenure) on such level as to suppress new information from being openly and intelligently discussed and analyzed and judged on its own factual merit alone.
If the Hiawatha impact crater can be accepted by the science community, it would be one of the 25 largest impacts known.(1)
References:
1.
@jasondaley608,
F. and Daley, J. (2018). Massive
Impact Crater Found Under Greenland's Ice.
[online] Smithsonian. Available at:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/massive-impact-crater-found-under-greenlands-ice-180970829/
[Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
2.
Amos,
J. (2018). Greenland
ice hides huge 'impact crater'.
[online] BBC News. Available at:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46181450 [Accessed 16
Nov. 2018].
3.
Groves,
A. (2018). Impact
crater beneath Greenland could help explain Ice Age.
[online] Astronomy.com. Available at:
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/massive-impact-crater-beneath-greenland-could-explain-ice-age-climate-swing
[Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
4.
Voosen,
P. (2018). Massive
crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in
the time of humans.
[online] Science | AAAS. Available at:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans
[Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
5.
YouTube.
(2018). Younger
Dryas Impact Crater Discovered in Greenland? | Ancient Architects.
[online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvkD-sQe-nc
[Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
6.
Kjær,
K., Larsen, N., Binder, T., Bjørk, A., Eisen, O., Fahnestock, M.,
Funder, S., Garde, A., Haack, H., Helm, V., Houmark-Nielsen, M.,
Kjeldsen, K., Khan, S., Machguth, H., McDonald, I., Morlighem, M.,
Mouginot, J., Paden, J., Waight, T., Weikusat, C., Willerslev, E. and
MacGregor, J. (2018). A
large impact crater beneath Hiawatha Glacier in northwest Greenland.
[online] Science Advances. Available at:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaar8173/tab-pdf
[Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
7.
Johnson,
B., Silber, E., Bjonnes, E., Kjaer, K., Wiggins, S., MacGregor, J.
and Larsen, N. (2018). Formation
of terrestrial craters on thick ice sheets.
[online] AGU - AGU Fall Meeting 2018. Available at:
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/448365 [Accessed
18 Nov. 2018].
8.
Lpi.usra.edu.
(1963). The
Meteoritical Bulletin No 28..
[online] Available at: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/docs/mb28.pdf
[Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
9.
En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Cape
York meteorite.
[online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_meteorite [Accessed 18 Nov.
2018].
Comments
Post a Comment