DOCSLIB.ORG

The Correlation Between Impact Crater Ages And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cosmic Impacts and Global Change 1 The Correlation Between Impact Crater Ages and Chronostratigraphic Boundary Dates Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/staa3790/6041705 by Flinders University user on 19 December 2020 R. B. Firestone? University of California, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Berkeley, 94720,USA Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ ABSTRACT The accurately measured ages of 89 large impact craters and layers were compared with the boundary dates for Periods, Epochs and Ages of the Geological Time Scale by a weighted least squares fit. They are highly correlated with a χ2/ f =0.63. A Monte Carlo simulation of randomly chosen crater ages gives a >99.8% probability that this result is not random. No craters are found in the oceans or, until recently, in ice which collectively cover 80% of Earth’s surface indicating that far more impacts have occurred than are known. Multiple impacts cluster near the times of boundary dates so, based on the observed cluster sizes assuming a binomial distribution, it was determined that the average cluster multiplicity is five. Comparison of the impact ages with the dates of the great extinctions revealed a strong correlation with χ2/ f =0.36 and a multiplicity of 8-9 impacts. It is shown that volcanism, although correlated with boundary dates, is a continuous process unrelated to sudden extinctions. During the past 125 Ma the rate of global change and the impact rate have increased dramatically as the Earth passes near the OB star association. Multiple impacts 12.9 ka ago ended the Pleistocene epoch at the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) causing worldwide extinctions. The date and extent of the YD impact may be consistent with a 62 Ma cycle of major impact events. During the Holocene 20 crater, airburst, and impact tsunami chevron ages correspond to dates of global cooling with a χ2/ f =0.75 and >99% probability. Future impacts could reverse global warming or even induce next ice age. Key words: Earth – meteors – comets – supernovae 1 INTRODUCTION A large number of impact craters and layers have been identi- fied, many with precisely measured ages. The larger craters, >1 km The geological history of Earth can be described by ≈116 pe- in diameter, would have produced significant local to worldwide riods, epochs, and ages as shown on the International Chronos- damage. Both the K-Pg and P-Tr extinctions are coincident with tratigraphic Chart Version 2020/03 which is maintained by the multiple land impacts yet many additional, undiscovered impacts International Commission on Stratigraphy Cohen et al.(2018). must have occurred near those times in the oceans or glaciers that The boundaries between the ages are well dated and are asso- cover 80% of the Earth’s surface. No craters are found in water or, ciated with sudden changes in climate, extinctions, and the evo- until very recently, in ice where the evidence is quickly erased by lution of new flora and fauna. The major extinctions are also ocean currents and subduction into Earth’s mantel. The average age well dated in marine fossil records Sepkoski et al.(2002) which of the ocean floor is only ≈60 Ma Williams et al.(2020). sometimes vary from the chronostratigraphic dates. The sudden- In this work I will investigate the statistical correlation between ness of these changes suggests that they are due to catastrophic the chronostratigraphic boundary, marine extinction and volcanic events such as major volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, or eruption dates, and the ages of impact craters and layers. Airbursts gamma ray bursts. Both the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) and Per- and impacts during the Holocene will be investigated to infer the mian–Triassic (P-Tr) extinction events have many proponents who likelihood of future impacts that could change the global environ- argue they were caused by impacts, while others argue the cause ment. was volcanism. Still others have argued that impacts enhance large volcanic eruptions Rampino & Caldeira(1992); Hagstrum(2005); Meschede et al.(2011); Renne et al.(2015). Rampino & Caldeira 2 STATISTICAL METHODS (2018) have linked 10 of the past 11 extinction events to either flood-basalt eruptions or to large body impacts. The crater and impact layers have been compared to the boundary dates by a standard weighted χ2 analysis. This method rigorously ORIGINAL UNEDITEDdetermines whether MANUSCRIPT the two sets of data coincide within the un- ? Contact e-mail: rbfi[email protected] certainties assigned by the authors to the data. Both data sets are © 2020 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society 2 R. B. Firestone Table 1. Compilation of precise crater and impact layer ages and their nearest chronostratigraphic boundary dates. Timeline Boundary Date (Ma) Associated crater and impact layer ages (Ma) Chibanian/Calabrian 0.774±0.020 Australasian strewn field Jourdan et al.(2019) 0.788 ±0.003, Belize strewn field Schwarz et al. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/staa3790/6041705 by Flinders University user on 19 December 2020 (2020) 0.769±0.016, Pantasma Rochette et al.(2019) 0.815 ±0.011, Darwin Schmieder & Kring (2020) 0.816±0.007 Calabrian/Gelasian 1.80±0.05 Tenoumer Schultze et al.(2016) 1.57 ±0.14 Pliocene/Pleistocene 2.58±0.05 Eltanin impact layer Goff et al.(2012) 2.51 ±0.07 Pleistocene/Zanclean 3.600±0.0020 El’gygytgyn Schmieder & Kring(2020) 3.65 ±0.08, Mar del Plata impact layer Schmieder & Kring (2020) 3.37±0.10, Roter Kamm Schmieder & Kring(2020) 3.8 ±.3 Pliocene/Miocene 5.333±0.0020 Karla Beech et al.(2018) 5 ±1, Bahai Blanca impact layer Schmieder & Kring(2020) 5.38 ±0.05, Tsenkher KOMATSU et al.(2017) 4.9 ±0.9 Serravalllian/Langhian 13.82±0.20 Riesa Schmieder et al.(2018) 14.59 ±0.20, Steinheima Schmieder et al.(2018) 14.59 ±0.20 Langhian/Burdigalian 15.97±0.20 Takamatsu Miura et al.(2000) 15.3 ±0.2 Miocene/Oligocene 23.03±0.20 Haughton Jessberger(1988) 23.4 ±1.0 Chattian/Rupelian 27.82±0.20 Libyan Desert glass Bigazzi & Michele(1996) 28.5 ±0.8 Eocene/Oligocene 33.9±0.5 Chesapeake Bay Assis Fernandes et al.(2019) 34.86 ±0.32, Popigai Wielicki et al.(2014) 33.9 ±1.3 Priabonian/Bartonian 37.71±0.20 Wanapitei Schmieder & Kring(2020) 37.7 ±1.2, Mistastin Sylvester et al.(2013) 37.83 ±0.05 Bartonian/Lutetian 41.2±0.5 Logoisk Beech et al.(2018) 42.3 ±1.1 Lutetian/Ypresian 47.8±0.5 Montagnais Beech et al.(2018) 50.50 ±0.76, Kamenska Beech et al.(2018) 49.0 ±0.2, Guseva Beech et al.(2018) 49.0 ±0.2, Ragozinka Beech et al.(2018) 46 ±3 Ypresian/Thanetian 56.0±0.5 Impact layer Schaller et al.(2019) 54.2 ±2.5, Marquez McHone & Sorkhabi(1994) 58 ±3 Cretaceous/Paleogene 66.0±0.5 Chicxulub Schmieder & Kring(2020) 66.052 ±0.043, Boltysh Pickersgill(2019) 65.47 ±0.21 Maastricrichtian/Campanian 72.1±0.2 Karaa Schmieder & Kring(2020) 70.7 ±2.2, Ust-Karaa Beech et al.(2018) 70.7 ±2.2 Hetonianb /Campanian 77.1±2.0 Lappajärvi Kenny et al.(2019) 77.85 ±0.78, Manson Schmieder & Kring(2020) 75.9 ±0.1 Campanian/Santonian 83.6±0.2 Wetumpka Wartho et al.(2012) 84.4 ±1.4 Santonian/Coniacian 86.3±0.5 Suvasvesi N Schmieder et al.(2016b) 85 ±2 Coniacian/Turonian 89.8±0.3 Dellen Beech et al.(2018) 89.0 ±2.7 Cenomanian/Albian 100.5±0.5 Deep Bay Beech et al.(2018) 99 ±4, Avak Kirschner et al.(1992) 100 ±5 Aptian/Barremian 125.0±1.0 Mien Schmieder & Kring(2020) 122.4 ±2.3, Vargeao Beech et al.(2018) 123.0 ±1.4, Tookoonooka Schmieder & Kring(2020) 125 ±1 Barremian/Hauterivan 129.4±1.0 Talundilly Beech et al.(2018) 128 ±5 Valanginian/Berriasian 139.8±1.0 Mjølnir Beech et al.(2018) 142.0 ±2.6, Dellen Mark et al.(2014) 140.8 ±0.5, Steen River McGregor et al.(2020b) 141 ±4 Jurassic/Cretaceous 145.0±1.0 Morokweng Beech et al.(2018) 145.0 ±0.8, Gosses Bluff Beech et al.(2018) 142.5 ±0.8 Tithonian/Kimmeridgian 166.1±1.2 Zapadnaya Rampino & Caldeira(2015) 165 ±5 Bathonian/Bajocian 168.3±1.3 Obolon’ Beech et al.(2018) 169 ±7 Pliensbachian/Sinemunian 190.8±1.0 Puchezh-Katunki Holm-Alwmark et al.(2019) 194 ±2 Hettangian/Sinemurian 199.3±0.3 Gow Lake Schmieder & Kring(2020) 196.8 ±9.9 Rhaetian/Norian 208.5±2.0 Manicouagan Beech et al.(2018) 214 ±1, Bristol spherule layer Walkden et al.(2002) 214.0 ±2.5, Rochechouart Schmieder & Kring(2020) 206.9 ±0.3 Norian/Camian 227±2 Saint Martin Schmieder & Kring(2020) 227.8 ±0.9, Paasselkä Schwarz et al.(2015) 231.0 ±2.2 Permian/Triassic 251.902±0.024 Araguainha Hauser et al.(2019) 251.5 ±2.9 Kungurian/Artinskian 283.5±0.6 Clearwater West Meier & Holm-Alwmark(2017) 286.2 ±2.2 Devonian/Carboniferous 358.9±0.4 Woodleigh Beech et al.(2018) 364 ±8, Lockne Tillberg et al.(2019) 356.6 ±6.7 Frasnian/Givetian 382.7±1.6 Alamo Pinto & Warme(2007) 382 ±4, Ilyinets Beech et al.(2018) 378 ±5, Siljan Reimold et al. (2005) 377±2, Kaluga Beech et al.(2018) 380 ±5 Givetian/Eifelian 387.7±0.8 Nicholson McGregor et al.(2018) 387 ±5 Himantian/Katian 445.2±1.4 Pilot Bottomley et al.(1990) 445 ±2, Calvin Schmieder & Kring(2020) 451 ±7 Katian/Sandbian 453.0±0.7 Brent McGregor et al.(2020a) 453 ±3, Lac La Moinerie McGregor et al.(2019) 453 ±5 Sandbian/Darriwilian 458.4±0.9 Kardla Jourdan et al.(2012) 455 ±1, Tvaren Jourdan et al.(2012) 462 ±5 Darriwilian/Dapingian 467.3±1.1 Clearwater East Jourdan et al.(2012) 465 ±5 Ordovician/Cambrian 485.4±1.9 Carswell Alwmark et al.(2017) 485.5 ±1.5 Phanerozoic/Precambrian 541.0±1.0 Gardnos Kalleson et al.(2009) 546 ±5 Ediacaran/Cryogeian 635±30 Strangways Spray et al.(1999) 646 ±42, Sääksjärvi Kenny et al.(2020) 608 ±8 Cryogenian/Tonian 720±50
Recommended publications
  • (Uth)He Age for the Shallowmarine Wetumpka Impact Structure

    (Uth)He Age for the Shallowmarine Wetumpka Impact Structure

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OceanRep Meteoritics & Planetary Science 47, Nr 8, 1243–1255 (2012) doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2012.01381.x An (U-Th)⁄He age for the shallow-marine Wetumpka impact structure, Alabama, USA Jo-Anne WARTHO1*, Matthijs C. van SOEST1, David T. KING, Jr.2, and Lucille W. PETRUNY2 1School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, PO Box 876004, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA 2Geology Office, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 12 January 2012; revision accepted 27 May 2012) Abstract–Single crystal (U-Th) ⁄ He dating was applied to 24 apatite and 23 zircon grains from the Wetumpka impact structure, Alabama, USA. This small approximately 5–7.6 km impact crater was formed in a shallow marine environment, with no known preserved impact melt, thus offering a challenge to common geochronological techniques. A mean (U-Th) ⁄ He apatite and zircon age of 84.4 ± 1.4 Ma (2r) was obtained, which is within error of the previously estimated Late Cretaceous impact age of approximately 83.5 Ma. In addition, helium diffusion modeling of apatite and zircon grains during fireball ⁄ contact, shock metamorphism, and hydrothermal events was undertaken, to show the influence of these individual thermal processes on resetting (U-Th) ⁄ He ages in the Wetumpka samples. This study has shown that the (U-Th) ⁄ He geochronological technique has real potential for dating impact structures, especially smaller and eroded impact structures that lack impact melt lithologies.
  • Earth in Upheaval – Velikovsky

    Earth in Upheaval – Velikovsky

    KANSAS CITY, MO PUBLIC LIBRARY MAR 1989 JALS DATE DUE Earth in upheaval. 1 955 . Books by Immarvjel Velikoviky Earth in Upheaval Worlds in Collision Published by POCKET BOOKS Most Pot Ian Books arc available at special quantify discounts for hulk purchases for sales promotions premiums or fund raising SpeciaJ books* or txx)k e\( erj)ts can also tx.' created to ht specific needs FordetaJs write the office of the Vice President of Special Markets, Pocket Books, 12;K) Avenue of the Arm-mas New York New York 10020 EARTH IN UPHEAVAL Smnianue! Velikovsky F'OCKET BOOKS, a division of Simon & Schuster, IMC 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N Y 10020 Copyright 1955 by Immanuel Vehkovskv Published by arrangement with Doubledav tx Compauv, 1m Library of Congiess Catalog Card Number 55-11339 All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever For information address 6r Inc. Doubledav Company, , 245 Park Avenue, New York, N Y' 10017 ISBN 0-fi71-524f>5-tt Fust Pocket Books punting September 1977 10 9 H 7 6 POCKET and colophon ae registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster, luc Printed in the USA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WORKING ON Earth in Upheaval and on the essay (Address before the Graduate College Forum of Princeton University) added at the end of this volume, I have incurred a debt of gratitude to several scientists. Professor Walter S. Adams, for many years director of Mount Wilson Observatory, gave me all the in- formation and instruction for which I asked concern- ing the atmospheres of the planets, a field in which he is the outstanding authority.
  • The Eltanin Impact and Its Tsunami Along the Coast of South America: Insights for Potential Deposits

    The Eltanin Impact and Its Tsunami Along the Coast of South America: Insights for Potential Deposits

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 409 (2015) 175–181 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl The Eltanin impact and its tsunami along the coast of South America: Insights for potential deposits Robert Weiss a, Patrick Lynett b, Kai Wünnemann c a Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, VA 24061, USA b Sonny Astani Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2531, USA c Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The Eltanin impact occurred 2.15 million years ago in the Bellinghausen Sea in the southern Pacific. Received 21 June 2014 While a crater was not formed, evidence was left behind at the impact site to prove the impact origin. Received in revised form 10 October 2014 Previous studies suggest that a large tsunami formed, and sedimentary successions along the coast of Accepted 19 October 2014 South America have been attributed to the Eltanin impact tsunami. They are characterized by large clasts, Available online xxxx often several meters in diameter. Our state-of-the-art numerical modeling of the impact process and its Editor: J. Lynch-Stieglitz coupling with non-linear wave simulations allows for quantifying the initial wave characteristic and the Keywords: propagation of tsunami-like waves over large distances. We find that the tsunami attenuates quickly with −1.2 Eltanin impact η(r) ∝ r resulting in maximum wave heights similar to those observed during the 2004 Sumatra tsunamis and 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunamis.
  • Raman Spectroscopy of Shocked Gypsum from a Meteorite Impact Crater

    Raman Spectroscopy of Shocked Gypsum from a Meteorite Impact Crater

    International Journal of Astrobiology 16 (3): 286–292 (2017) doi:10.1017/S1473550416000367 © Cambridge University Press 2016 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Raman spectroscopy of shocked gypsum from a meteorite impact crater Connor Brolly, John Parnell and Stephen Bowden Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology, University of Aberdeen, Meston Building, Aberdeen, UK e-mail: c.brolly@ abdn.ac.uk Abstract: Impact craters and associated hydrothermal systems are regarded as sites within which life could originate onEarth,and onMars.The Haughtonimpactcrater,one ofthemost well preservedcratersonEarth,is abundant in Ca-sulphates. Selenite, a transparent form of gypsum, has been colonized by viable cyanobacteria. Basementrocks, which havebeenshocked,aremoreabundantinendolithicorganisms,whencomparedwithun- shocked basement. We infer that selenitic and shocked gypsum are more suitable for microbial colonization and have enhanced habitability. This is analogous to many Martian craters, such as Gale Crater, which has sulphate deposits in a central layered mound, thought to be formed by post-impact hydrothermal springs. In preparation for the 2020 ExoMars mission, experiments were conducted to determine whether Raman spectroscopy can distinguish between gypsum with different degrees of habitability. Ca-sulphates were analysed using Raman spectroscopyand resultsshow nosignificant statistical difference between gypsumthat has experienced shock by meteorite impact and gypsum, which has been dissolved and re-precipitated as an evaporitic crust. Raman spectroscopy is able to distinguish between selenite and unaltered gypsum. This showsthat Raman spectroscopy can identify more habitable forms of gypsum, and demonstrates the current capabilities of Raman spectroscopy for the interpretation of gypsum habitability.
  • A Novel Geomatics Method for Assessing the Haughton Impact Structure

    A Novel Geomatics Method for Assessing the Haughton Impact Structure

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 1–13 (2020) doi: 10.1111/maps.13573-3267 Electronic-Only Article A novel geomatics method for assessing the Haughton impact structure Calder W. PATTERSON * and Richard E. ERNST Department of Earth Sciences, Ottawa Carleton Geoscience Center, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 22 July 2019; revision accepted 22 August 2020) Abstract–Terrestrial impact structures are typically modified by erosion, burial, and tectonic deformation. Their systematic morphologies are typically reconstructed through a combination of geological and topographic mapping, satellite imagery, and geophysical surveys. This study applies a novel geomatics approach to assessment of the morphology of the extensively studied Haughton impact structure (HIS), Devon Island, Nunavut, in order to test its potential to improve the accuracy and quality of future impact structure reconstruction. This new methodology integrates HIS lithological data, in the form of digitized geologic mapping, with a digital elevation model, within diametrically opposed, wedge-shaped couplets, and plots these data as pseudo cross sections that capitalize on the radial symmetry of the impact structure. The pseudo cross sections provide an accurate reconstruction of the near- surface stratigraphic sequences and terraces in the faulted annulus of the modified crater rim. The resultant pseudo cross sections support current interpretations regarding the 10–12 km diameter of the transient cavity, and successfully reproduce the visible outer ring and intermediate uplifted zone within the central basin. Observed positions of vertical offsets suggest that the extent of impact deformation extends beyond the current estimates of the apparent crater rim to radial distances of between 14 and 15 km.
  • The Formation, Morphology, and Economic Potential of Meteorite Impact Craters

    The Formation, Morphology, and Economic Potential of Meteorite Impact Craters

    Meteorite impact craters The formation, morphology, and economic potential of meteorite impact craters Hans-Henrik Westbroek and Robert R. Stewart ABSTRACT One quarter of the known terrestrial impact craters are associated with economic deposits of some kind whether they are mineral ores, hydrocarbons or even evaporite minerals and fresh water. Detection of new structures is hindered by the apparent randomness of impact, terrestrial erosional processes, non-systematic search efforts, and that 30% of craters are buried. The vast expanse of the Earth’s surface that is covered by oceans makes submarine detection difficult - only three submarine structures have been found to date. These economic deposits are classified as progenetic, syngenetic and epigenetic deposits depending on formation characteristics and timing relative to the impact event. In some cases, the mechanics of crater formation itself may be conducive to economic material accumulation. When one considers the current impact rate, an average of four impact structures with diameters greater than 20 km are formed on the land surface every 5 million years. There is expected to be seven more impact structures with sizes on the order of the highly economic Sudbury and Vredefort structures. There is evidently good potential for further resource exploitation based on economic deposits associated with these structures. INTRODUCTION Collisions between astronomical bodies have been an integral process in the formation of the solar system. It is likely that the planets formed through accretion of the early solar nebula when relative velocities were lower, preventing catastrophic collisions and allowing for the formation of the Sun, planetismals, and finally, the planets themselves.
  • Early Fracturing and Impact Residue Emplacement: Can Modelling Help to Predict Their Location in Major Craters?

    Early Fracturing and Impact Residue Emplacement: Can Modelling Help to Predict Their Location in Major Craters?

    Early fracturing and impact residue emplacement: Can modelling help to predict their location in major craters? Item Type Proceedings; text Authors Kearsley, A.; Graham, G.; McDonnell, T.; Bland, P.; Hough, R.; Helps, P. Citation Kearsley, A., Graham, G., McDonnell, T., Bland, P., Hough, R., & Helps, P. (2004). Early fracturing and impact residue emplacement: Can modelling help to predict their location in major craters?. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 39(2), 247-265. DOI 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2004.tb00339.x Publisher The Meteoritical Society Journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science Rights Copyright © The Meteoritical Society Download date 23/09/2021 21:19:20 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/655802 Meteoritics & Planetary Science 39, Nr 2, 247–265 (2004) Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org Early fracturing and impact residue emplacement: Can modelling help to predict their location in major craters? Anton KEARSLEY,1* Giles GRAHAM,2 Tony McDONNELL,3 Phil BLAND,4 Rob HOUGH,5 and Paul HELPS6 1Department of Mineralogy, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK 2Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, USA 3Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK 4Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK 5Museum of Western Australia, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia 6School of Earth Sciences and Geography, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE, UK *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 30 June 2003; revision accepted 15 December 2003) Abstract–Understanding the nature and composition of larger extraterrestrial bodies that may collide with the Earth is important.
  • Appendix a Recovery of Ejecta Material from Confirmed, Probable

    Appendix a Recovery of Ejecta Material from Confirmed, Probable

    Appendix A Recovery of Ejecta Material from Confirmed, Probable, or Possible Distal Ejecta Layers A.1 Introduction In this appendix we discuss the methods that we have used to recover and study ejecta found in various types of sediment and rock. The processes used to recover ejecta material vary with the degree of lithification. We thus discuss sample processing for unconsolidated, semiconsolidated, and consolidated material separately. The type of sediment or rock is also important as, for example, carbonate sediment or rock is processed differently from siliciclastic sediment or rock. The methods used to take and process samples will also vary according to the objectives of the study and the background of the investigator. We summarize below the methods that we have found useful in our studies of distal impact ejecta layers for those who are just beginning such studies. One of the authors (BPG) was trained as a marine geologist and the other (BMS) as a hard rock geologist. Our approaches to processing and studying impact ejecta differ accordingly. The methods used to recover ejecta from unconsolidated sediments have been successfully employed by BPG for more than 40 years. A.2 Taking and Handling Samples A.2.1 Introduction The size, number, and type of samples will depend on the objective of the study and nature of the sediment/rock, but there a few guidelines that should be followed regardless of the objective or rock type. All outcrops, especially those near industrialized areas or transportation routes (e.g., highways, train tracks) need to be cleaned off (i.e., the surface layer removed) prior to sampling.
  • Geochemistry of Darwin Glass and Target Rocks from Darwin Crater, Tasmania, Australia

    Geochemistry of Darwin Glass and Target Rocks from Darwin Crater, Tasmania, Australia

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 43, Nr 3, 479–496 (2008) AUTHOR’S Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org PROOF Geochemistry of Darwin glass and target rocks from Darwin crater, Tasmania, Australia Kieren T. HOWARD School of Earth Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia Present address: Impacts and Astromaterials Research Centre, Department of Mineralogy, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 1 March 2007; revision accepted 25 July 2007) Abstract–Darwin glass formed about 800,000 years ago in western Tasmania, Australia. Target rocks at Darwin crater are quartzites and slates (Siluro-Devonian, Eldon Group). Analyses show 2 groups of glass, Average group 1 is composed of: SiO2 (85%), Al2O3 (7.3%), TiO2 (0.05%), FeO (2.2%), MgO (0.9%), and K2O (1.8%). Group 2 has lower average SiO2 (81.1%) and higher average Al2O3 (8.2%). Group 2 is enriched in FeO (+1.5%), MgO (+1.3%) and Ni, Co, and Cr. Average Ni (416 ppm), Co (31 ppm), and Cr (162 ppm) in group 2 are beyond the range of sedimentary rocks. Glass and target rocks have concordant REE patterns (La/Lu = 5.9–10; Eu/Eu* = 0.55–0.65) and overlapping trace element abundances. 87Sr/86Sr ratios for the glasses (0.80778–0.81605) fall in the range (0.76481–1.1212) defined by the rock samples. ε-Nd results range from −13.57 to −15.86. Nd model ages range from 1.2–1.9 Ga (CHUR) and the glasses (1.2–1.5 Ga) fall within the range defined by the target samples.
  • Pander Society Newsletter

    Pander Society Newsletter

    Pander Society Newsletter S O E R C D I E N T A Y P 1 9 6 7 Compiled and edited by P.H. von Bitter and J. Burke PALAEOBIOLOGY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL HISTORY, ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM, TORONTO, ON, CANADA M5S 2C6 Number 41 May 2009 www.conodont.net Webmaster Mark Purnell, University of Leicester 2 Chief Panderer’s Remarks May 1, 2009 Dear Colleagues: It is again spring in southern Canada, that very positive time of year that allows us to forget our winter hibernation & the climatic hardships endured. It is also the time when Joan Burke and I get to harvest and see the results of our winter labours, as we integrate all the information & contributions sent in by you (Thank You) into a new and hopefully ever better Newsletter. Through the hard work of editor Jeffrey Over, Paleontographica Americana, vol. no. 62, has just been published to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Pander Society and the 150th Anniversary of the first conodont paper by Christian Pander in 1856; the titles and abstracts are here reproduced courtesy of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithica, N.Y. Glen Merrill and others represented the Pander Society at a conference entitled “Geologic Problem Solving with Microfossils”, sponsored by NAMS, the North American Micropaleontology Section of SEPM, in Houston, Texas, March 15-18, 2009; the titles of papers that dealt with or mentioned conodonts, are included in this Newsletter. Although there have been no official Pander Society meetings since newsletter # 40, a year ago, there were undoubtedly many unofficial ones; many of these would have been helped by suitable refreshments, the latter likely being the reason I didn’t get to hear about the meetings.
  • ANIC IMPACTS: MS and IRONMENTAL P ONS Abstracts Edited by Rainer Gersonde and Alexander Deutsch

    ANIC IMPACTS: MS and IRONMENTAL P ONS Abstracts Edited by Rainer Gersonde and Alexander Deutsch

    ANIC IMPACTS: MS AND IRONMENTAL P ONS APRIL 15 - APRIL 17, 1999 Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany Abstracts Edited by Rainer Gersonde and Alexander Deutsch Ber. Polarforsch. 343 (1999) ISSN 01 76 - 5027 Preface .......3 Acknowledgements .......6 Program ....... 7 Abstracts P. Agrinier, A. Deutsch, U. Schäre and I. Martinez: On the kinetics of reaction of CO, with hot Ca0 during impact events: An experimental study. .11 L. Ainsaar and M. Semidor: Long-term effect of the Kärdl impact crater (Hiiumaa, Estonia) On the middle Ordovician carbonate sedimentation. ......13 N. Artemieva and V.Shuvalov: Shock zones on the ocean floor - Numerical simulations. ......16 H. Bahlburg and P. Claeys: Tsunami deposit or not: The problem of interpreting the siliciclastic K/T sections in northeastern Mexico. ......19 R. Coccioni, D. Basso, H. Brinkhuis, S. Galeotti, S. Gardin, S. Monechi, E. Morettini, M. Renard, S. Spezzaferri, and M. van der Hoeven: Environmental perturbation following a late Eocene impact event: Evidence from the Massignano Section, Italy. ......21 I von Dalwigk and J. Ormö Formation of resurge gullies at impacts at sea: the Lockne crater, Sweden. ......24 J. Ebbing, P. Janle, J, Koulouris and B. Milkereit: Palaeotopography of the Chicxulub impact crater and implications for oceanic craters. .25 V. Feldman and S.Kotelnikov: The methods of shock pressure estimation in impacted rocks. ......28 J.-A. Flores, F. J. Sierro and R. Gersonde: Calcareous plankton stratigraphies from the "Eltanin" asteroid impact area: Strategies for geological and paleoceanographic reconstruction. ......29 M.V.Gerasimov, Y. P. Dikov, 0 . I. Yakovlev and F.Wlotzka: Experimental investigation of the role of water in the impact vaporization chemistry.
  • IMPACT EVENTS: MODELING, EXPERIMENTS, and OBSERVATIONS III 6:30 P.M

    IMPACT EVENTS: MODELING, EXPERIMENTS, and OBSERVATIONS III 6:30 P.M

    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIX (2008) sess323.pdf Tuesday, March 11, 2008 POSTER SESSION I: IMPACT EVENTS: MODELING, EXPERIMENTS, AND OBSERVATIONS III 6:30 p.m. Fitness Center Krøgli S. O. Dypvik H. Etzelmüller B. Automatic Detection of Circular Outlines from Images of Gravity and Aeromagnetic Fields [#1210] An image analysis technique is presented as a tool in the search for possible impact structures. The aim is to detect circular features in regional geophysical data. Chappelow J. E. Determining Simple Impact Crater Shapes from Shadows [#1441] This work expands upon and generalizes previous work toward determining the shapes of impact craters from the shadows cast within them. Byrne C. J. Cavity Shape of Large Lunar Impact Features [#1288] The shape of the apparent crater of an impact feature is sometimes described as a paraboloid. The radial profiles of several large lunar impact features have been examined and they are found to be better approximated with a negative cosine curve. Shuvalov V. V. Trubetskaya I. Impact Induced Aerial Bursts in the Earth’s Atmosphere [#1042] Aerial bursts are produced by comets and asteroids with sizes ranging from tens of meters to about one kilometer (energies from 10 Mt to 100 Gt of TNT equivalents). They produce strong devastation and fires on the Earth’s surface. Ivanov B. A. Multiphase Equations of State for Planetary Impact Study [#1490] EOS for olivine is important to study large scale impacts with the melting mantle. The first step to the ANEOS- based olivine description EOS for fayalite is presented. Melosh H. J. Goldin T. J.