• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

65-Million Year Old Mystery Resolved?

Forgive my ignorance on the subject:

The large marine reptiles...Did they crap out during this same time frame? If so, why?

One possible answer is that reptiles are all air-breathing, and if the oceans froze over, they suffocated.
 
Except that there's no evidence for a snowball Earth at the K/T boundary. I am also not aware of models where the Earth's cooling due to the impact reached the point of creating a snowball Earth, but I admit I may be outdated regarding this aspect.

Sure one could say a fast (say, one week to a few months) snowball Earth event would leave little if any records, but that would be quite a stretch.
 
Except that there's no evidence for a snowball Earth at the K/T boundary. I am also not aware of models where the Earth's cooling due to the impact reached the point of creating a snowball Earth, but I admit I may be outdated regarding this aspect.

Sure one could say a fast (say, one week to a few months) snowball Earth event would leave little if any records, but that would be quite a stretch.

I don't think anyone mentioned snowball earth which is a different theory, but an asteroid sufficiently large enough could create dust which could block out sunlight for several weeks or months. The rate of cooling that occurs each night would just keep going day after day until virtually no living thing could live on the surface, and all open water would freeze. It seems to fit with the types of life which managed to survive, that they could have found shelter either under ground or in deeper water.
 
Earth with all its oceans frozens is in essence a snowball Earth. Hoffman's snowball Earth, however, is supposed to have happened in the Proterozoic, lasted much longer than what you are proposing and is backed by evidence.

Would you happen to have anything more palatble other than your own opinion to back the idea that ash created and thrown in the atmosphere by that impact blocking sunlight for months was enough to freeze the surface of all oceans?

To cripple the oceans' food chain to the point of killing major predators you just have to substantially decrease phytoplankton. Decreasing sunlight, eventually with the extra aid of nasty chemicals created by the blast and later firestorms, scattered around the globe by wind and oceanic currents can do the trick.
 
Earth with all its oceans frozens is in essence a snowball Earth. Hoffman's snowball Earth, however, is supposed to have happened in the Proterozoic, lasted much longer than what you are proposing and is backed by evidence.

Would you happen to have anything more palatble other than your own opinion to back the idea that ash created and thrown in the atmosphere by that impact blocking sunlight for months was enough to freeze the surface of all oceans?

To cripple the oceans' food chain to the point of killing major predators you just have to substantially decrease phytoplankton. Decreasing sunlight, eventually with the extra aid of nasty chemicals created by the blast and later firestorms, scattered around the globe by wind and oceanic currents can do the trick.
Snowball earth is a fair enough name for a time of intense cold, but I generally associate that name with the official theory which deals with a period of millions of years, where the earth was essentially a frozen solid mass about a billion years ago or so. The only life which may have survived that event were the organisms living around the deep ocean vents; small ecosystems based on the bacteria which utilize sulfur for oxidation instead of oxygen.

I choose to call this one a "nuclear winter" type scenario because it resembles the equivalent of a few months of intense cold. The evidence I'm using to form my opinion include the layer of iridium found in the k-t layer which is characteristic of meteorites, and evidence of a global dust cloud. And the charred layer of vegetation which is evidence of a global fireball which probably incinerated most life living on the surface after the impact. This is another reason I think most of the survivors were hiding out underground.

A scientist working with the actual evidence would have a more informed opinion than myself, but they don't all tend to agree either, therefore it leads me to think my own opinion is worth throwing on the pile.
 
I'm still confused:

Why would the impact take out the marine dinos?
And why didn't it take out alligators and turtles?

A comet impact that significantly changed the Earth's ecology would affect the seas as well as the lands. I don't know about turtles, but alligators are spectacularly unfussy eaters, so would've been well placed to survive the upheaval.
 
A comet impact that significantly changed the Earth's ecology would affect the seas as well as the lands. I don't know about turtles, but alligators are spectacularly unfussy eaters, so would've been well placed to survive the upheaval.

The Wikipedia article on the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event outlines some very plausible suggestions for why some species survived and others didn't.
 
Gents. A few notes: 1.ALL dinosaurs had long, down-facing legs. ALL. You may question this, but it is, incredibly enough, true. You can check me on this very easily.

All reptiles were short-legged and their legs were OUT-FACING. Dinosaurs had long legs and those legs were DOWN-facing. Aside from some minor differences, long down-facing legs were the BIG DIFFERENCE. Why is this important?

The difference between dinosaurs and reptiles. Whether you believe the Growing Earth Theory, or the rather odd Pangea Theory, instead. 1. 200MYA, earth was sub=tropical from pole to pole. The Growing Earth Theory says, that this was because the crust was thin, and much of earth's heat came from the earth itself. Certainly we know the sun was dimmer at that time and provided less heat. Whatever you believe, the fact is, seasoning became more apparent and more profound over time. Earth was evolving from perennial to seasonal plants. It is reasonable to assume, in that case, that the dominant life forms migrated hemispherically, from the Northern hemisphere, to the Southern and then back again, since the land was connected, and there were no mountains to bloke any migration, seasonal or otherwise. This is supported by dinosaurs long legs, the abundance of fresh seasonal plants on opposite hemispheres, seasonally (more like today), the negative factor of the effects of a colder atmosphere on creatures that had no fur, slept with their bellies on the ground, laid eggs on the ground, and could not burrow or hibernate.

Evolution, made attempts to help out, by turning scales to feathers, and allowing some dinosaurs to evolve into birds. These would survive as the final actor would enter the play.

Sections of the outer crust pulled apart, (in both theories). Massive trackways, that reducing numbers of dinosaurs used to make their hemispheric migrations, began to be A. Shattered and B. Mountains began to rise up along these pathways, driving dinosaurs up into the bitter cold, and forbidding them passage.

The birds, learned to fly higher and higher as the mountains rose, migrating like all of their ancestors to opposite hemispheres. Because the rifting and spreading of the continents could be overcome by flight, the birds survived.

The 25 to 35 foot crocadillians, and other sea dinosaur, whose food stores depended on migrating dinosaurs, wading, around and through, the shallow seas, that covered 2/3 of the continental plate. They died-out.

While all of this makes perfect sense, there is one added factor that happened at this time.

For those of you who care to, please consult the crustal age map. You will discover that 60MYA, or there abouts, Australia broke free of Antarctica. As a result, the Australian plate, driven upward, crushed, and broke into massive pieces the young oceanic plate between Australia, Indonesia and Asia. You can see these broken oceanic plate pieces easily on the crustal age map. This same break-up of oceanic plate gave purchase for the first and only compressive subduction of the earth. (Meaning, compressive subduction began on the earth around 60MYA. You can measure it on your crustal age map).

So you have reversal of Australia's direction, rifting and spreading all around Antarctica, shoving up on Australia, the shattering of oceanic plate off of Asia, and the first subduction on earth. I would have to say, that this is a massive upheaval, probably much more massive than anything in a billion years. I don't think it can be ignored as a contributing factor to the expiration of the dinosaurs. Far more, than a small meteor hit, half under water at the Gulf of Mexico.

Neal Adams
 
Neal
I support your growing earth theory, because it answers so many questions. I believe it fits well with the metric expansion of space theory which in itself, solves many anomalies.

I don't think the gradual breakup of the continents could have caused such a mass extinction in so short a time, therefore I favor a catastrophic event such as an asteroid impact, or what appears to be a series of large impacts around that time. The exploding planet hypothesis of the late Tom Van Flandern helps to explain why that could have happened.
 
I too remember when I first heard about this as a college student in the mid-80's. It was the most preposterous thing I had ever heard.
In the mid-eighties you thought the asteroid hypothesis was preposterous? I find that odd.


I never bought the infectious disease hypothesis. While it may have decreased the dino numbers prior to the asteroid, very few infectious diseases wipe out single species let alone multiple species. So I never understood why the asteroid hypothesis was doubted in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Neal & Landrew,

I will happily discuss the many problems with the expanding Earth idea, but not at this thread, for it woulf be hijacking. So, I suggest you two to open a new threa on this. I'll be abit busy and with poor www access due to field work on the next weeks, so my participation may be a bit restricted. I'm sure however, the other geos who post here will not fail to notice a thread on it.
 
In the mid-eighties you thought the asteroid hypothesis was preposterous? I find that odd.


I never bought the infectious disease hypothesis. While it may have decreased the dino numbers prior to the asteroid, very few infectious diseases wipe out single species let alone multiple species. So I never understood why the asteroid hypothesis was doubted in the first place.

I happened to be working (as a field hand) with a group of fairly prominent paleontologists in the summer of 1982, and the asteroid theory was gaining ground, although still being hotly debated. I think as more evidence came in later, it rose to acceptance probably faster than most other theories of that type.

The disease hypothesis doesn't ring true for me either. Infectious diseases have been around for as long as the organisms they infect, and they don't appear to wipe out entire species and genera, families and orders all at once. It's also bad for the parasite to kill it's host outright. Besides, the iridium layer is like the "smoking gun" of the asteroid theory.
 
Last edited:
There is evidence, however, of large impact events not associated with known mass extinctions (i.e. Manicouagan in Canada) which leads me to postulate one of two things:

1) The KT extinction had multiple factors working together with a comet impact being the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

2) Impacts have a trigger threshold when it comes to extinctions in that below a certain size the planets biosphere handles the event rather well but if it passes the threshold all bets are suddenly off.
 
Last edited:
There is evidence, however, of large impact events not associated with known mass extinctions (i.e. Manicouagan in Canada) which leads me to postulate one of two things:

1) The KT extinction had multiple factors working together with a comet impact being the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

2) Impacts have a trigger threshold when it comes to extinctions in that below a certain size the planets biosphere handles the event rather well but if it passes the threshold all bets are suddenly off.

Why, it might even be chaotic! :)
 
I don't know the type of rocks which were hit at Manicouagan, but IIRC some people proposed Chicxulub impact had its lethality increased because it hit limestone, releasing lots of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
I don't know the type of rocks which were hit at Manicouagan, but IIRC some people proposed Chicxulub impact had its lethality increased because it hit limestone, releasing lots of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not sure if you are right about that, but I can imagine what it hits could well influence what happens afterwards. For example if the impact had happened in deep water that would have caused a massive tidal waves and little else.
 
Not sure if you are right about that, but I can imagine what it hits could well influence what happens afterwards. For example if the impact had happened in deep water that would have caused a massive tidal waves and little else.
Well, I guess it would be more than just the tsunamis. A massive ammount of water vapour would be released in to the atmosphere. An impactor as big as that from the K/T boundary would most likely hit the oceanic floor after vaporizing and pushing away water. Chicxulub crater has a 180 km diameter, the impactor is supposed to have had a diameter of 10Km. Since average ocean depth is 3km to 4km... Lots of rocks from the oceanic crust would be ejected from the impact site, vaporized, melted and shattered.

As for the importance of release of gases from limestones, I guess its still being worked out. These folks
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153110703321632453
seem to think it was more important that these other folks think
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fd82a8476bb0edcaf9dab1ac3d65c278
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom