This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
In rewriting the article, I've tried to have the article not take a stand as to whether impact winters are possible or not, or whether they've occurred in the past. That seems to reflect the uncertainty in the geological/astronomical community.
Before I started, the article (rather contradictorilly read):
Yes, technically Chicxulub isn't "recorded history", but rather "prehistory", but to many people "never in recorded history" is going to read like "never ever".
That first line also rather oversimplifies the KT extinction debate, and there are plenty of folks who either don't believe the impact winter scenario at all, or who have plenty of doubts ([1]).
Also the article later says "Such an impact would cause an impact winter", which I think is an overly bold statement. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop moving this article and read what I am about to type. Michaelbusch 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am a student of planetary science. We refer to this effect as impact winter or nuclear winter. I admit that the latter term is something of a mis-nomer. Until the page was moved, I had never heard the term 'cosmic winter'. A Google search shows that the term has indeed been used, but there are only ~800 hits, as compared to ~32000 for 'impact winter'. Given the professional usage, and the 40:1 ratio in internet usage, this article should stay where it is. It certainly should not be moved without consensus. Michaelbusch 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have also attempted to clean up the article somewhat. I know something of 99942 Apophis and 1950 DA, and the treatment in this article was largely irrelevant and somewhat mis-leading. Michaelbusch 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Malamockq has obtained ~1.3 million hits on Google, by removing the quotation marks from 'cosmic winter'. This naturally gives a great many more hits, but is not relevant to this discussion because most of them are invalid. Putting in 'impact winter' with no quotes gives just shy of 50 million hits. This merely shows that Google is not the best source when it comes to terminology. Checking scholarly papers, 'Impact winter' has been used almost exclusively for the last two decades. Michaelbusch 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Use of the term nuclear winter in this context is colloquial in the planetary science community. As I said, it is a misnomer, but the effect and physics are the same even though the cause is different. Please avoid personal attacks. Michaelbusch 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that "impact winter" is a good description, "cosmic winter", while less common, is also probably just as correct in laymen's terms, as it's more descriptive of how catastrophic such an event would be. Just because a term is more or less common doesn't make it more or less "correct", IMO - perhaps merge the titles into something like "Cosmic Impact Winter" or "Cosmic/Impact Winter"? --Dark Pulse 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've protected this against moves. Please discuss here William M. Connolley 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Um. Suddenly, no-one cares? William M. Connolley 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mb is not being as helpful as he could be; but his argument - an 40:1 favour of impact over cosmic winter - is so far unaddressed. OTOH Ml appers to base his argument at least in part on the incorrect assertion that Cosmic winter gets 1.2M google hits [2]. It would be nice to see him explicitly withdraw this claim William M. Connolley 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Malamockq - I think you have to face the fact that you and Mb have different preferences for the page title, and are unlikely to convince each other. That leaves the overwhelming google advantage with Mb. Unless you can come up with something new, the current name will stay William M. Connolley 09:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sections "size" and "impact" contradict each other, and state that objects have to be above either 50m or 3km to impact the ground, both of which are obviously nonsense as meteorites regularly hit the ground with every possible size from marbles to cars. Fig (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Which decade? One source is from the 90s, one is from the 00s, right now we have 2014. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this also. Very unclear. --Blakeelias (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
By the end of the decade we expect to know the orbits of 90% of the kilometer size near-Earth objects. Changing to As of February 5, 2018[update], 886 NEAs larger than 1 km have been discovered,[1] or 96% of an estimated total of about 920.[2] --24.138.60.176 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Impact winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Impact winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
The Earth experiences a never ending barrage of cosmic debris.
I think "never ending" is inappropriate here: science predicts that the universe will end (or at least change beyond recognition), which makes the phrase "never ending" both unscientific and incorrect.
A better phrase would be something like "The Earth experiences a continuous barrage" or "ongoing barrage".
Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
At the time of this reading it says "As of February 20, 2018, there are 17,841 near-Earth objects known. 8,059 potentially hazardous objects are known; they are larger than 140 m (460 ft) and may approach the Earth closer than 20 times the distance to the Moon.[4] 888 NEAs larger than 1 km have been discovered,[19] or 96.5% of an estimated total of about 920.[20]" That is not what one expects when the word "survivability" is said. Maybe it used to make more sense and stuff was deleted?
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicjordan009 (article contribs).