It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

whats more worse: asteriod hit on land or water?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
English isn't my first language, sorry.

I am asking this question because I have been wondering what is more worse asteriod hit on land or water. I am talking about the size of half mile long. Half mile long asteriod might not wipe out life on earth. A mile long of asteriod will definitely wipe out life on earth either hit on water or land. I think hitting on land is way worse than water. The debris will spread all over the world which will block most of sunlight. That cause temperature drops and different weather. The crops will struggle to grow because it need energy from sun. Now, if asteriod hit on water, all we will see is tsunami and debris spread on the ocean and land. The nuclear reactors on the shore by oceans can get ugly as well.

Which do you think is more worse half mile asteriod hit on land or water?




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I don't know which one's the worst, but a thought of a comet hitting earth to me is by far the worst thing to anticipate.

Chances of survival are slim, unless you leave at the opposite end of the actual impact site.

Peace...
edit on 11-8-2011 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
ASTEROID IMPACT

www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-8-2011 by Talon666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiteblack
English isn't my first language, sorry.

I am asking this question because I have been wondering what is more worse asteriod hit on land or water. I am talking about the size of half mile long. Half mile long asteriod might not wipe out life on earth. A mile long of asteriod will definitely wipe out life on earth either hit on water or land. I think hitting on land is way worse than water. The debris will spread all over the world which will block most of sunlight. That cause temperature drops and different weather. The crops will struggle to grow because it need energy from sun. Now, if asteriod hit on water, all we will see is tsunami and debris spread on the ocean and land. The nuclear reactors on the shore by oceans can get ugly as well.

Which do you think is more worse half mile asteriod hit on land or water?

Well either wouldnt be good at all.. they would both have devastating effects no matter what..
but it it hits watter its going to make one big mega tsunami thats for surre.. and im sure lots of country would feel the effects major effects of the tsunamis washing on there shores....



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Is this the Monty Hall question???
The Door???
The Box???
Curtian Number 3???

Answer: Either way you're screwed!!!!

But keep thinking happy thoughts!!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by whiteblack
 


Find out for yourself

impact.ese.ic.ac.uk...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I suppose that living almost at the geographic center of the United States may bias my view, but I'll put my request on an Ocean landing, please. Preferably the Atlantic, if anyone is listening. The Pacific has already been abused enough in recent years and D.C. isn't on the West Coast.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 
That was way cool!!!
Thank you for sharing that link.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by redzareptile
 


You're welcome.

I ran a few scenarios and I'm surprised at how little damage your average impact would do from 1000km away. I assumed a mile wide comet would be the end of humanity but not according to the people who made this.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


What that calculator doesn't predict is the resultant climate change, which is what would potentially lead the most deaths. And that's the benefit of an ocean impact. If the asteroids hits land, a massive amount of ejecta will be released into the atmosphere, which would lead to potentially devastating changes to the climate for years afterward. An ocean impact, while immediately equally devastating, would have very little effect on the global climate, aside from whatever effect the added water vapour would have. The increase in atmospheric water vapour would, perhaps, lead to increased rainfall, but it has nowhere near the potential to disrupt the climate as does a land impact.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Depends on how it hits.
Here is one that may have hit in the US in 1871
www.peshtigofire.info...

June 30, 1908 Tunguska Event.
en.wikipedia.org...

Two "Tunguskas" in South America in the 1930's?
www.xtec.es...

Then you have 48,000 B.C.E.
A meteor about 50 meters (54 yards) across impacts the desert near what is now Flagstaff, Arizona, leaving a crater about 1,200 m (4,000 ft) in diameter, some 170 m deep (570 ft),

The problem with water impacts is they leave little evidence other then a tsunami that may have wiped out a large area of sea coast but left no evidence of its source and may have later been put down to a unknown earthquake cause.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Thanks for the Link!

Great to see if an impact on the local WalMart still allows you to survive



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Definately anticipation of the worry is a much greater pain than the actual threat! Death is very quick, no matter where it comes from.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
well, if it hits land it has a much bigger chance of hitting a major city directly.
if it hits water, you have the potential for an enormous tsunami, but with a tsunami you have a little bit more warning time to get away from the shore(The people on the shore won't, but people miles away will have a better chance of surviving).
So I'm going to have to go with land.

S+F for thinking of a creative question

edit on 11-8-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Most would agree that a water impact would be the worst place. The tsunami effect has the potential to affect all the coasts on all sides of entire oceans, and most people in the world live on or very near the coasts. I've actually seen this subject discussed at some length on various documentaries where they compared the damage that would be done by a large, but not enormous asteroid strike of the Earth. Something that might significant but localized damage on land (say enough to take out a single city if the worst happened and it made a direct hit), could easily cause a massive tsunami that would effect all coasts of say the North Atlantic if it were to land in the center there, maybe killing many millions over vast swaths of the world.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by whiteblack
 


Find out for yourself

impact.ese.ic.ac.uk...

Nice site. Thanks. It give me some idea how small/big asteriod/comet can do some damage.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
An asteroid impact would be worse than a comet impact due largely to it's heavier denser makeup and the fact we find a large amount of iron in asteroid rock. More of the comet would break apart during reentry as high as 150 km above the surface lessening it's ground zero impact energy. The speed a comet may be going could be faster than an asteroid but not necessarily when one considers the many NEO asteroid's orbital perihelion. After perihelion however a comet should be going faster than it would be as it approaches the sun from the slingshot at our vicinity.

However, with either body this size, more death would occur from the atmospheric effects of the impact than the impact itself. I've yet to find an impact site that deals with the probable effects the ejecta could cause, and for how long. I haven't looked into it but I venture to guess that it would take a body with some percentage of the earth's mass to turn the planet into a global fireball after impact.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
lol I did not read through the effects site very well when i created my impact so heres the first and last results from the calcations .
first size 1 mile (ocean hit deep water (5000 feet)
densty (iron ) astroid
speed (this is what i didnt read (assumed it was miles per hour
put in 30000 lolol
distance from impact 1000 miles
destroction from impact at 1000 miles almost total 12.8 quake large debres winds of 1000s of mph
dino killer lolol
true speed calaction (in feet per second ) 30 same size and still iron same ocean hit.
1000 miles from impact ((broken windows 8.5 quake
damage not sever .
now isnt this fun the same rock at 2 different speeds one speed is almost total destroction the other a bad day.
seams speed as well as size plays a big part in just how bad things cAn get .



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by xxcalbier
 


Speed is the biggest factor in 1/2.m.v^2 IE impact at double the speed delivers 4x the energy, 10x the speed and it's 100x the energy. It needs to have enough initial mass to make it through the atmosphere with something left to impact the earth's surface because the frictional heating would vaporise quite a lot of it so the worst case would be something large of high density approaching the earth head-on which results in the highest resultant speed at the point where it contacts the outer atmosphere. A lower density object might result in a Tunguska type event where it explodes before hitting the ground, sparing us from much of the damage of an impact except for immediately under the explosion that is.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by whiteblack
Which do you think is more worse half mile asteriod hit on land or water?
It may be a toss-up, but there are different hazards with an ocean impact.

In addition to the tsunamis which could devastate populations living along thousands of miles of shorelines, there's another risk with an ocean impact of the size object you mention:

Asteroid strike into ocean could deplete ozone layer

The results of the simulations showed the 1 km asteroid could affect an area over 1000 km in diameter, and vast quantities of water and vapor would be ejected up to 160 km high. The scientists say the water vapor would contain chlorine and bromine from the vaporized sea salts, and this would result in significant global depletion of the ozone layer by destroying it faster than it is created naturally. Pierazzo said such an asteroid would produce “an ozone hole that will engulf the entire Earth,” and produce a huge spike in ultraviolet (UV) radiation with levels higher than anywhere on the surface today.

If that happened, basically you couldn't go outside during daylight hours, or if you did you'd suffer severe sunburn. They don't make SPFs high enough for that AFAIK. Cattle couldn't graze during daylight either. I'm not sure if crops could survive that or not, it might depend on the type of crop, as the article implies, some crops may have higher UV tolerance than others, but it gives no specifics.

Whether or not an ocean impact could produce climate change from the ejecta is debatable, and would depend on things like the depth of the ocean at the point of impact. If the impact occurs in a relatively shallow part of the ocean like the continental shelf, the ejecta might be just as climate changing as a land impact.

I'd rather not have either type, but it will happen. It's not a question of IF, but WHEN. This is why we need to terraform another planet, perhaps Mars so if a larger object hits us, mankind won't go extinct like the dinosaurs.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join