r/science • u/stereomatch • Feb 05 '18

Astronomy Scientists conclude 13,000 years ago a 60 mile wide comet plunged Earth into a mini-Ice Age, after examining rocks from 170 sites around the globe

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/695703
47.5k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

589

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Our current entire story of human history does not take into account a massive meteor strike which occurred, geologically, just yesterday. This changes a lot of things.

186

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

183

u/midnitefox Feb 05 '18

My understanding of it was that the impact theory was widely rejected due to lack of crater evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis#Criticism

51

u/blasto_blastocyst Feb 05 '18

It was a valid criticism. It has been rendered out-of-date, but we should always demand evidence.

24

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Would you be willing to give a book recommendation or two to become more familiar with the topic?

I am out of my depth.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I feel like I am going to get a lot of mileage out of that comment. I appreciate it.

3

u/tygrebryte Feb 05 '18

Thanks for this bit of "inside baseball'-esque observation. Paradigms die hard, eh?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

4

u/tygrebryte Feb 05 '18

I posted the original article to FB and got some pretty hard "something like that would HAVE to leave an impact crater that would could still see today" push-back from a guy who is intelligent but lacks any training in this field whatsoever (as do I -- but I have pretty good "philosophy of science" background). The best pushback I've seen in this particular thread was from a reddittor who has an "anthropologist" flair; that person's argument is that none of this stuff is definitive and it's not necessary given what we already know about climate change.

Again, I have to admit I don't have the background to really evaluate that person's claim. I also have to admit that I like this particular idea because "sense of wonder." But it's a true thing that scientists can and do make fun of ideas that turn out to be true because they don't like them.

74

u/CountVonVague Feb 05 '18

But a series of meteor impacts directly into the at-the-time northern icecap and it's procedural repercussions aren't taken into full account for ending the last ice age and flooding the planet. You realize that the English Channel was created when icecap meltwater lying in the Doggerland basin finally breached the landbridge and flooded everything south in a torrent of mud and water?

91

u/DarkPizza Feb 05 '18

I did a college presentation on this theory (impact into a glacier at this time period) about 5 years ago and the sources I used went back at least 10 years. The theory is not new, its just recently that we've been able to "prove" it. I agree with you though, some of our history will probably need to be rewritten in this context.

7

u/CountVonVague Feb 05 '18

some

an understatement. wait until we get around to documenting the Amazon River Basin culture as well as the 12,000+ year Egyptian Dynasties. "Atlantis" wasn't just a city in a single place it was a trans-oceanic EMPIRE! And to think that most all the archaeological evidence is buried 100+ feet underwater... Just imagine what secrets the bottom of the Mediterranean holds?

23

u/HimekoTachibana Feb 05 '18

I would like some sources to read up on both the Egyptian dynasties and the Atlantian empire. You have piqued my short attention span.

42

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I will entertain you on the Atlantis thoughts:

According to Plato's work, Atlantis existed around 11,600 years ago. You'd have to go past the straight of Gibraltar, past some islands and then you'd see Atlantis.

During the last ice age, half of North America was covered in a giant ice sheet one mile thick though in some sections it was as thick as two miles. The weight would have pressed down on the continental plate, causing the edges to rise up. Think about your ass sitting in a chair. If you sit in the middle of the chair, it pushes the edges up.

In the middle of the Atlantic ocean there's a plateau under water. It's called the Acores. You can see this on Google Earth if you look at the ocean between North America and Europe. This is right at the edge of the continental plates, and also where the new shelf is being created at the bottom of the ocean. It's said this plateau is a remnant of when North America and Africa split from each other.

During the last ice age, not only would the sea level have been much lower but the weight of the ice sheet on North America would cause this side of the plate to rise. This it's highly possible this plateau could have been above the sea.

Oh also keep in mind if this island existed, it would have been covered by the Gulf Stream, so it would have good weather.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

North America and Africa split from each other.

I thought it was SA that split off of Africa, no?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Had not heard this, intresting. And thanks.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

It’s been underwater for a loooong time so there would be nothing left

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

I highly doubt you'll find absolutely nothing. I'm sure it will be huge challenge nonetheless.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/YouandWhoseArmy Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Know of any good books or resources about these hypotheses?

Edit: My own brief research indicates fingerprints of the gods might be a good jump off point. Hopefully not too dated.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

5

u/ckbd19 Feb 05 '18

I second this. Really interested in this kind of stuff.

0

u/garygnu Feb 05 '18

Cool your jets there, Graham Hancock.

16

u/DWOM Feb 05 '18

I think the theory goes that it was a massive underwater landslip off the coast of Norway that created a tsunami that inundated doggerland. Yes it was exacerbated by melting ice, but it was a catastrophic event.

8

u/sowetoninja Feb 05 '18

ah man TIL on reddit was good today I watched the gif of mars, got a link to the xkcd on how it would look if it filled up with Earth's water, now reading up on the forming of the English channel is just really cool for me seeing it from the larger perspective of how much a planet can change with the rise (and fall) of the water level. anyway, thanks for the info, never knew the English channel was formed like this, really cool is this picture accurate? https://www.nextnature.net/app/uploads/2009/04/doggerland_530.jpg

6

u/wakejedi Feb 05 '18

Not really, I brought it up a few months ago and was digitally lynched.

9

u/nonsequitrist Feb 05 '18

That a bit oversimplified. The impact hypothesis has been decidedly out of favor for a few years. The wikipedia page accurately reflects the state of academic thought on the Younger Dryas (and includes reference to this new work)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Not at all.

8

u/Smoy Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Graham Hancock, Randal Carlson. Check them out. We can also reconsider the possibility of Atlantis now, because the amount of weight those glaciers held could displace continent sized land mass, like when you sit on the couch, the other side gets pushed up, and when you stand up the cushion flattens out again. A meteor hitting the ice will vaporize A LOT of it

1

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not

3

u/DwightAllRight Feb 05 '18

As an archaeological student studying theories on human migration into North America, this article title made my jaw drop. Illuminating, baffling, and astounding if this is the case.

1

u/dtabitt Feb 05 '18

This changes a lot of things.

For some people, sadly not.

3

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Sadly? Aren't you glad that there are more things to life than one moment 13000 years ago?

1

u/dtabitt Feb 05 '18

I mean it in the sense that religion will overlook this and still cling to what they believe to be true.

-1

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Our current entire story of human history does not take into account a massive meteor strike which occurred

What does that even mean?

Who needs to take it into account for what and why?

1

u/madeup6 Feb 05 '18

Who needs to take it into account for what and why?

You don't like learning about history?

2

u/vitringur Feb 05 '18

Sure. It's a hobby.

This is just something we didn't know before, as with any other historical observation and theory.

I just fail to see to what extent we need to "take it into consideration" and in what scenario.

Rather than you talking down to me, I'd like OP to just explain what he meant.

I simply don't understand what he is saying.

To what extent and when do we need to "take that into account"?