Re: New refs about impacts

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> >

http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0091-7613&volume=031&issue=06&page=0489
  
> 
>  So acid rain did not result from the impact? 
 
It did, and at least in some places it reached the ground (as shown by 
etched shocked quartz grains), but apparently less of it reached the 
ground than thought earlier. Looks like I must repeat that I haven't read 
the paper because I don't have access. 
 
> Wasn't it supposed to have played a major role in marine extinctions? 
 
Oh yes. 
 
> And why are these authors invoking larnite 
> if limestone supposedly neutralized the acid in freshwater? 
 
Because they, apparently, get from their calculations that larnite formed, 
and _then_ go on to hypothesize on its effects. 
        There obviously wasn't limestone in every body of freshwater. I 
just suppose that you can't sterilize the Amazon faster than it flows... 
but that should be easy to calculate, and guessed it, I haven't done that. 
 
> > Simms has found a huge area of Rhaetian seismites [...] 
> >

http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0091-7613&volume=031&issue=06&page=0557
  
> 
>   There shouldn't be any temporal gap between the quake horizon and 
> extinction, if an impact caused both. 
 
And in the abstract I can't find where it says that there's a gap. I can't 
find a mentioning of the Tr-J or any boundary at all. Has someone read the 
whole paper and can comment? 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!