Talk:Impact event

message: Great work on the merge Bryan! --mav
:Thanks. :) Bryan
----
Note the recently raised possibility that the Permian and Cretaceous impact objects causing extinction events may have been massive molten rocks ejected from the flood basalt events which occurred at the same times rather than asteroid impacts -- Derek Ross
:I'd need some pretty good external references before I'd consider that a plausible theory, personally. Basalt flood eruptions are relatively sedate for their size, not like explosive volcanos. And the impacts proposed for these events are huge; Chicxulub Crater is either 180 or 300 kilometers in diameter (jury's not entirely decided yet) and the Bedout is about 200 kilometers in diameter, both of which suggest impactors about 10 kilometers across. An explosion that would hurl a mass that big out of Earth's atmosphere would be about as energetic as the explosion that would result when it falls back in, and I don't think anyone's ever proposed a volcanic eruption anywhere near that violent. The basaltic flood eruptions were dramatic enough as it is without proposing continent-sized explosions accompanying them. Bryan 07:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous 2004-2006 comments

message: I would have to say that, scientifically this assumption is correct.  And can also be proven.
----
Ha! You senile liberals on the Wiki are a funny lot.
Partner, this absurd theory was debunked over the past two years. Despite all the lurid magazine covers, it was a rubbish idea and has been abandoned. The dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid impact. Very theatrical stuff, though - unfortunately not science.
It is also unfortunate that Alvarez and Gould attacked half the scientists in the country who criticized the notion, destroyed their careers and got them dropped from tenure for daring to oppose the screamin' Alvarez brothers. What a shame. (Anonymously contributed by Anonymous User:211.27.137.236 whose contribution can also be enjoyed at Talk:Stephen Jay Gould.)
----
There is no solid evidence of impacts leading to the four other major mass extinctions, though many scientists assume that they are at least related to impacts. No, this is not a scientific assumption. Even a quick read through Wikipedia entries on Extinction events will correct this impression. I haven't removed this text, however. --Wetman 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Correct 

message: This information is a bit out of date:
The late Eugene Shoemaker of the US Geological Survey came up with an estimate of the rate of Earth impacts, and suggested that an event about the size of the nuclear weapon that destroyed Hiroshima occurs about once a year.
[re: Tunguska] Shoemaker estimated that one of such magnitude occurs about once every 300 years.
See, for instance, Tunguska-type impacts less common than thought (no more than 50 metres in diameter).
The quotes below are from _The flux of small near-Earth objects colliding with the Earth_ Brown et al. Nature, Volume 420, Issue 6913, pp. 294-296. (2002)
"The Earth is struck by an object with the energy of Tunguska (assumed to be 10 MT) every 1,000 years."
"We estimate that the Earth is on average struck annually by an object of energy ~5 kton (with a possible range of 2-10 kton), and struck each month by an object with 0.3 kt of energy.  Every ten years, an object of energy ~50 kton impacts Earth."
--Mu301 14:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rate of earth impacts 

message: I completely re-wrote this section in an effort to make the media references more mainstream and more centered around the books and movies which are specifically about impacts (also more consistent with other Wikipedia articles).
One thing which is missing, though; I'm sure there are early sci-fi stories (in Astounding, etc.) about impact events, but I've not been able to find a specific citation.  Could someone who collects 30's and 40's science fiction help out with stories of historical note? (i.e. the "first" impact story) Jberkus 18:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact Events in Fiction 

message: Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: This makes for a good story, but I doubt it is really true:
:It is very likely that a great many more near misses occur but are never detected. In addition to the danger of a strike, the possibility of war at a time of international tension due to a near miss triggering attack early warning systems, or a strike, is very real.
How would one estimate near misses that are never detected?  Seems like a hard problem, and frankly I would be surprised if there are "many" near misses by hazardous asteroids (i.e. >100 m).  Also, as there has never been a war by asteroid, and the things have speeds and trajectories much different than missles, I honestly think it unlikely that modern surveillance would have a "very real" risk of mistaking an asteroid for an attack to the point of creating an international incident.  Please provide sources for both claims.  Dragons flight 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War, near misses, etc. 

message: I have added the attention tag, particularly re the section on mass extinctions, but some concerns are of more general relevance. Most fundamentally, the article needs to directly cite assertions made in the text- including a (small) number of references at the bottom without direct links is not enough. Some of the key points made (ie the discovery of the Chicxulub crater) are at best only partially correct, and a general expansion is very much in order. The selection of material currently seems to be a little bit patchy and incomplete; it is not even approaching a holistic treatment of the subject. The article does currently read a bit like a school essay project (although to be fair I would probably give it a C+, or even a B!). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of doomsday scenarios]]

message: Hi. What about this site I found, which has an asteroid impact simulator, and other simulators. I know it seems a bit immature with all the "marvin the martian" stuff. Otherwise, dispite its innacuracies, it still is the only site I found providing simulations on impacts elsewhere in the solar system. It also has simulators about orbits and stars and such. Should this and other links be included? I don't think it would be spam. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: These three already have articles and should probably be mentioned here:
* Cando event
* Vitim event
* Eastern Mediterranean Event
-- nae'blis 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to include every impact event? There are more than 120, not counting the meteorites and airbursts that happen once a month or so. The article is in danger of turning into a list. Pretty soon it might be appropriate to discuss which ones are significant enough to mention specifically and discuss generalities instead of listing the rest. Geogene (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional impact events worth noting 

message: A highly simplified calculation can be made using the web-based programRobert Marcus, H. Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins. Computing Effects of an Impact on Earth by Collins et al.Collins, Gareth S. et al. Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating the regional environmental consequences of a meteoroid impact on Earth Meteoritics & Planetary Science 40, Nr 6, 817–840 (2005) "The curvature of the Earth is also ignored.". This table assumes a density of 3.4 g/cm3, entry angle of 45 degrees and an entry velocity of 15 metres per second (can be from 11 to over 40 km/s):
Name               	Diameter	Energy lost 	Airburst altitude    	Airburst energy	Impact energy	Crater diameter	How often?
Great 1972 Fireball	3       	1.3 kiloton 	39 km                	0.4 kiloton    	none         	none           	8 months
2004 FU162         	6       	10 kiloton  	33 km                	3.8 kiloton    	none         	none           	3.3 years
2004 FH            	30      	1.3 megaton 	13 km                	0.9 megaton    	none         	none           	135.1 years
1996 JA1           	300     	1300 megaton	48 km begins breaking	no airburst    	1200 megaton 	4.67 km        	28000 years
-84user (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if impact effects 

message: Would it be appropriate to include my hypothesis entitled The Impact And Exit Event on this page? It can be 'googled', so if anyone could take a look and let me know I'd appreciate it. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.157.48 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure many editors will thank you for asking first.  The short answer is "no, not yet".  A self-published web site or book is a "primary source" - it comes from the originator.  Until there are reliable sources, secondary sources independent of the originator, then any hypothesis would be considered original research and is therefore not (yet) acceptable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Depending how long it takes to get reliable sources, you may need to be patient on the scale of years before Wikipedia is ready for a currently-self-published hypothesis.  For now, make the most of your own web site and any ongoing effort you can use to further develop your research.  I can provide a relevant example - I have not posted/submitted/etc on Wikipedia some research of my own about a possible remnants of a mostly-eroded impact crater at Nevada's Black Rock Desert, because it is still original research under Wikipedia's rules.  Discover Magazine had a blurb about the research in an article about various research projects by amateur scientists the Dec 2008 issue.  But that isn't a result - it just says the research is happening.  Until the research progresses to a definitive result and that result is published in a reliable source, it won't go into Wikipedia.  And even then, in my case I should provide it to other editors via a talk page because it would be a conflict of interest to add my own research myself.  To me this isn't a problem - I'm not trying to promote this project any more than letting potential participants know about it.  We have more than enough circumstantial evidence now to know we just need to keep looking. Ikluft (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note that as of edit the original research has been inserted without citation. Since in the absence of citation the original objection to its inclusion is still valid, I am removing it. 174.114.6.39 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit was automatically reverted. Somebody else can see to this if they wish. 174.114.6.39 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that section again - it helps to give a clear edit summary to justify the removal of material or you will likely have your edit reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis -> Original Research 

message: Is it necessary for the second sentence in an article on a scientific subject to mention that the topic has been used in SF? What does that have to do with geology? Astronomy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Fiction?

message: I removed the part about the German schoolkid that claims to have been hit by a "pea-sized" meteorite travling at "thousand of kilometers an hour" that grazed his hand, causing a scar, then hit the ground behind him, creating a crater four feet across. Oh, and his friends heard a sonic boom.
It was sourced to the Telegraph, but I deleted it on the grounds that it is physically impossible, for reasons that should be obvious.Geogene (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the details may have been muddled by the reporting, Ansgar Korte, director of Germany's Walter Hohmann Observatory, confirmed chemically that the rock which hit him really was from outer space.   Dragons flight (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed and removed. Vsmith (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I again removed the reference to a German school kid being hit by a pea-size meteorite. This was discuss at length on the Meteorite-list -- Meteorite Discussion Forum and the consensus was this reported incident was an obvious hoax.Paul H. (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoolkid Hoax

message: Apparently something hit Jupiter last Sunday night, CNN, SpaceWeather.com, New Scientist, and Skypub.com (Sky & Telescope magazine's site) are reporting a single, massive black spot (like those after SL9) that is bright in thermal infrared and contains a spectroscopic signature of ammonia, a gas normally found in deeper layers of Jupiter's atmosphere. It was first seen Sunday by an Australian amateur, now confirmed by JPL. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/21/jupiter.nasa.meteor.scar/index.html
Apparently SL9 is an example of a recurring phenomenon. There's an old magazine (S&T or Astronomy) article somewhere about black spots appearing on Jupiter before. Geogene (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact event on Jupiter last Sunday

message: FYI - see the CFR renaming discussion. 76 categories with "craters" in their names, all part of the :Category:Craters hierarchy, have been proposed to be renamed to use "impact craters" in their names.  All the higher-level categories in the hierarchy have text instructions that they are for impact craters, not craters of volcanic or explosives origins.  The renaming is intended to make their purposes more obvious and lead to less confusion.  Ikluft (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - proposed renaming for [[:Category:Craters]] hierarchy of 76 impact crater-related categories 

message: The caption for :File:Impact event.jpg, the file used at the start of the article, currently reads:
Artist's impression of a major impact event. The collision between Earth and an asteroid a few kilometers in diameter may release as much energy as several million nuclear weapons detonating, one after another.
Would it not be more accurate to say: "as much energy as several million nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously" or "as much energy as the simultaneous detonation of several million nuclear weapons"?
Also, the comparison with the energy released by "several million nuclear weapons" seems to be quite non-specific. The explosive yield of a nuclear weapon can range from 0.01–0.02 kt (see Davy Crockett (nuclear device)) to 50 kt (see Tsar Bomba), which is 5,000 times greater. Could a different comparison be used, or perhaps even a different point emphasized?
Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one objected, I changed the caption (diff) to use "simultaneously" instead of "one after another". -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for File:Impact event.jpg 

message: Tonight I plan to use conversion templates, putting metric system first and change US to U.S. Bettymnz4 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will do some work on this article 

message: The folks at Purdue University have put together a really outstanding asteroid simulator.  May be worth adding to the article somehow, external links or otherwise.  I'll leave that to the authors who better know this page.  Here's the link: [ImpactEarth Asteroid Impact Simulator].  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroid impact simulator

message: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.223.27.80 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ 

message: "The only reported fatality from meteorite impacts is an Egyptian dog that was killed in 1911 by the Nakhla meteorite, although this report is disputed. The meteorites that struck this area were identified in the 1980s as Martian in origin."
Only scientifically confirmed, perhaps; not the only reported. See Rain of Iron and Ice -- it strongly contests the 'no human fatalities' thing. Vultur (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The only reported..

message: Guys,i think we should add this into the article. Here's the info:
Interpretation of the observations made in 1883 in Zacatecas (Mexico): A fragmented Comet that nearly hits the Earth -- Dino-Mario (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fragmented comet that nearly hits Earth 

message: The current definition in the lead states: 
:An impact event is the collision of a large meteorite, asteroid, comet, or other celestial object with the Earth or another planet. 
The problem I see with this is that it is too narrow for the scope of the article.  
Reasoning is that the following things mentioned in the article do not fit the current definition:
# Comets plunging into the Sun are not "impact event"s as the Sun is clearly not a planet
# The Giant Impact Hypothesis was not an "impact event" as according to the theory the Earth was not at that time a planet (ie. it was a either a protoplanet or dwarf planet as it shared its orbit with the protoplanet Theia and therefore had not cleared its neighbourhood)
# P/2010 A2 with a smaller asteroid (this is clearly not an "impact event" as neither are planets)
# Major impact events occur on other objects.  Rheasilvia, like the Giant Impact theories for example represents an "impact event" on a non-planetary object as does the South Pole–Aitken basin and the Big Spat theory of the lunar highland formation.
I propose that the reference to "another planet" be replaced with "another large celestial object".
It could possibly say "another celestial object" to include asteroid impacts, although this could probably broaden the scope too much.
Discuss ... --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Definition used in Lead Paragraph 

message: Can this be right? 22:26, 14 January 2013‎ 24.62.244.94 (talk)‎ . . (46,815 bytes) (-4,501)‎. An IP editor removed a whole section of the article? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I have reverted the edits. -- Kheider (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird IP edit 

message: I propose creating a section to deal with the history of impact events with Earth and a section dealing with impact events elsewhere. Currently the article suffers from schizophrenia jumping around the Solar System and beyond, whereas the majority of the content is written in the context of Earth. I understand that impacts with Earth are the priority due to the threats they pose to life on our planet, but the subject should be considered holistically, from the context of their bearing on the history (and future) on planetary systems as a whole. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article into sections about impact events involving Earth and other bodies 

message: Add Campo del Cielo (Heavenly Field), that got pelted by a major meteor shower some 4,000 years ago.—Pawyilee (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Campo is a pre-historic meteorite fall of no geological or cultural significance.  Geogene (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose - I have to agree with Geogene here, that doesn't really count as a notable impact event. Mikenorton (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Campo impact occurred in the Holocene, and at roughly the same time as the one in Australia, to which you have not yet objected. It was certainly "historic" to inhabitants of both regions, who made note of it in their origin legends. It was also "historic" when Spaniards investigated it as a source of iron, and a current event which brought me to this article, when police arrested smugglers trying to steal same. −Pawyilee (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But which I might object to if asked about it. But to Henbury's credit, it did form some modest craters. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina’s Chaco province 4,000 years ago 

message: "Modern era" is the definition of Holocene; we should change that sub-section to 20th Century. Since  "Early Earth impacts" is similarly tautological. we should change that to Earth Impacts, with subsections Pleistocene, Early Holocene, 20th Century and 21st Century. Also need to insert section hatnote that generates "This section is incomplete; you can help by adding to it." Clicking on "Edit" should then reveal an otherwise hidden editorial note recommending  how future editors should go about it.  −Pawyilee (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree up to the point about encouraging further additions, I feel that this should not contain a complete list of every impact event...that would soon consume the article. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by other articles of this sort e.g. earthquake and landslide, there will become a need to create a list article, list of impact events like lists of earthquakes and list of landslides. Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a separate list article would be appropriate. The article here should only list some major events as examples, and not attempt to list all known events, which would make the article too long.  Reify-tech (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an extremely slow Internet connection, likely to to heat, so when while it was cool  yesterday, I made the changes I thought most essential. I do agree with the proposal to create an event list. —Pawyilee (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern era 

message: This section opens with the best-known event, but after that is a missmash. My laptop CPU is over 70C, so I have to quit for now. −Pawyilee (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th Century impacts 

message: There's a few list article of interest to impact events. There's List of meteor air bursts, List of impact craters on Earth (20 km diameter cutoff), List of craters on Mars: A-G, List of lunar meteorites, List_of_Martian_meteorites....so far there doesn't seem to be a list of large meteorites. Using a cutoff of something like 1 ton total known weight this would be feasible. Geogene (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact event lists

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730135923/http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/canup_Moon_Nature_01.pdf to http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/canup_Moon_Nature_01.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150501003224/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/mars-dynamo-death/ to http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/mars-dynamo-death/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141008080600/http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/handaxe-and-tektites-bose-china to https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/handaxe-and-tektites-bose-china
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090831183851/http://imca.repetti.net:80/metinfo/metstruck.html to http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150512055255/http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/meteorite/ to http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/meteorite/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141020110541/http://www.space-frontier.org/PROJECTS/ASTEROIDS/aclarke_address_may26-98.html to http://www.space-frontier.org/PROJECTS/ASTEROIDS/aclarke_address_may26-98.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Coesite is found in deep mantle rocks having equivalent lattice deformation and planar deformation as material produced from known impacts (in certain cases ancient impacts may have contributed to its presence, but such an event is not necessary), through atomic blasts, and - it is almost certain - from fulgurites. Experimental and theoretical parameters have been modeled, and currently, many fulgurite samples are being analyzed to search for the presence of this non-unique HPHT SiO2 polymorph, along with stishovite and seifertite.Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 10:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the only disputed aspect of the article? Geogene (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by removing wording that excludes fulgurites, added new citation to paper mentioning shocked quartz in fulgurites but also says that coesite is normally associated with impact events. The point: sources support that most coesite is associated with impact events. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed theoretical limitation on terrestrial coesite petrogenetic mechanism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Impact event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20110222085928/http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/qq5un1810k7605h5/fulltext.pdf to http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/qq5un1810k7605h5/fulltext.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, nice article! The draft of Asteroid impact prediction has just been moved to the main article space. One of the reviewers (Jim.henderson) asked for an Asteroid impact prediction sub-section to be added below the Holocene section in this article, which I have now done. Please feel free to improve the text and/or associated article, which is only ranked C class at the moment. In particular the main article is lacking a history section describing the early days of impact prediction when kilometre class asteroids were the only objects of interest.Rafflesgluft (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid impact prediction 

message: Question: is there a Wikipedia article about the asteroid collision described in this article, which is supposed to have taken place 466 million years ago? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not a dedicated article, because it's new science. There's a small mention of the Ordovician fossil meteorites at Meteorite#Fossil_meteorites and there's an article for Ordovician–Silurian_extinction_events. Geogene (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/1440856303509770242 -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread on Gomorrah