4 ms·
That seems like a bad model if it does not include the effects of the waves penetrating inland and instead acts as if the coasts are inviolable.
by frankfrankfrank 4y ago
That seems like a bad model if it does not include the effects of the waves penetrating inland and instead acts as if the coasts are inviolable.
- nixass 4y agoThis particular event happened 66M years ago, it would be wild guess to include effects on land that may have or haven't existed then.
- rhn_mk1 4y agoI don't see why it would be any more of a wild guess than the guess at what rock layers were hit by the asteroid and what effect they had at displacing water.
- Xophmeister 4y agoI also wonder if the model also accounts for vapourisation. Over the entire ocean, the effect may be negligible, but local to the impact may have made a non-trivial difference.
- throwaway4aday 4y agoMost of these asteroid impact models are also missing the secondary impact events from ejecta. For very small asteroids it's not much of a concern but anything large enough to be dangerous would kick out enough material to create a storm of falling superheated boulders. Big enough asteroids can blast stuff into orbit which then falls all over the Earth.
- SnowHill9902 4y agoSuperheated as opposed to plainly-heated?