To: BenLurkin
1870 feet in diameter...much bigger than the 66 foot diameter Chelyabinsk meteor over Russia back in 2013. No kidding!
Ratio of volumes (assuming spheres) and masses (and impact energy) is (1,870/66)^3 ~ 23,000.
How big do you need for extinction?
To: ProtectOurFreedom
the Chixilub impact landed in a gypsum deposit and liberated a huge quantity of sulfur compounds. but it was 6+ miles across.
if this one lands in a similar type spot we will have problems and if it lands in water the coasts are toast.
16 posted on
07/18/2019 4:25:00 PM PDT by
txnativegop
(The political left, Mankinds intellectual hemlock)
To: ProtectOurFreedom
How big do you need for extinction?
34 posted on
07/18/2019 4:54:54 PM PDT by
DoodleBob
(Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2)
To: ProtectOurFreedom
Dude, it’s passing 20x farther than the moon.
43 posted on
07/18/2019 5:18:29 PM PDT by
Justa
To: ProtectOurFreedom
If one this size hits land it will end civilization as we know it. If it hits ocean the tsunami would change the coastlines all around the ocean it hit and send enough water vapor into the atmosphere to raise global temps by a few degrees (a catastrophe). If it hits in either polar region the oceans rise would alter civilization significantly but not be an extinction event.
54 posted on
07/18/2019 5:56:12 PM PDT by
MHGinTN
(A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
To: ProtectOurFreedom
How big do you need for extinction? Chicxulub was about 10 km.
But that was a worst case, a shallow water strike over carbonaceous rock.
57 posted on
07/18/2019 6:02:26 PM PDT by
null and void
(The Democratic Party is back to loving workers but hating employers. A winning formula IÂ’m sure.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson