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