At https://phys.org/news/2024-12-evidence-material-ceres-solar-rich.html … this concerns material brought back to Earth from the asteroid Ceres, otherwise described as a small planet, during NASAs DAWN mission. Ceres is described as a water rich dwarf planet with apparent signs of geological activity. A new study claims there is an internal reservoir on Ceres which I suppose is why it is not an asteroid anymore. The water is located inside the belly of Ceres. See also https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad86ba …. and https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp3664 … …
At https://phys.org/news/2024-12-massive-asteroid-impacts-earth-climate.html …. two asteroids hit the surface of the Earth in the Late Eocene era, around 35 million years ago. We are told they did not interfere with Earth’s climate. That is extraordinary so it requires a bit of digging into. Apparently, we are told they struck at 25,000 years between them. They are being blamed for the Popigai crater in Siberia and the Chesapeake Bay crater in the US. The 25,000 years apart idea is derived, most likely, from a uniformitarian dating of sediments laid down at the end of the Eocene. In fact, the study finds no evidence of a lasting shift in climate during the 150,000 years that followed the impacts. Again, these are derived from uniformitarian dating of sediments, one might assume.
In addition, the findings of the study are also worth considering as they are based on foraminifera isotopes, an organism living in the oceans – on the bottom and near the surface. They showed no sign of warming oceans – and presumably no sign of cooler temperatures. However, they admit their study would not have picked up changes in the tens or hundreds of years as the samples, we are told, were spaced at 11,000 year intervals. Again, these periods are solely derived from uniformitarian dating of sediments. If they had been laid down quickly, as one might expect ater two big space rocks impacted Earth, the results may have differed. I shall have to look if there was any climate change at the very end of the Eocene.
Incidentally, the foraminifera fossils, we are told, were found embedded within 3 m of rock core drilled from beneath the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, we may note the Late Eocene also involved three smaller asteroid impacts – but where did all five come from. Were they all part of a single body that broke up before reaching the surface – or were they strung out in a line prior to reaching the atmosphere? In order for that to be a possibility the uniformitarian interpretation of sediment dating would have to be revised. Not much chance of that. In a catastrophist model geological chronology is divided into a succession of catastrophic events. Most likely Earth encountering space rocks at indeterminate intervals. The decision to reject catastrophic encounters in the 19th century was largely in order to get rid of the Biblical catastrophe, the Noachian flood. However, in their eagerness to rubbish the idea of catastrophism it meant that any other view on catastrophes was sidelined – including the geological ideas of Cuview, and others.
Note … it is obvious that local geology can preserve evidence of mundane climatic events such as flash floods laying down localised gravel and sand beds. Likewise, bigger events such as some volcanoes can lay down sedimentary layers. The Mount St Helens eruption, for example. They too are local as far as geology is concerned. An asteroid impact could result in global geological changes but are these being masked by uniormitarian thinking?
After looking up late Eocene on the web I came across two posts on the Wiki. One of them is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene-Oligocene_extinction_event … and on the basis that geology posts are written by geologists as it is not particularly controversial, it says the transition between the end of the Eocene and the beginning of the Oligocene, was an extinction event. Nowhere near as bad as that at the end of the dinosaur era but notable, never the less. It involved a faunal turnover occurring between 33.9 and 33.4 million years ago. The boundary is marked by the glaciation of the Antarctic in its aftermath, a distinct change in climate. And the weather. It was also the start of the Ice Ages, for good measure. However, the author of the piece blames the extinctions of flora and fauna on the cold weather. From a catastrophist perspective it was due to the five asteroid strikes, creating a global change in the climate. However, that means treating the sediments laid down in late Eocene as all part of the same event – as they were probably laid down quickly. As one might suspect if five asteroids impacted the surface of the Earth. Or 5 pieces of one space rock. Obviously, geologists are not, as yet, prepared to make the jump and look again at the sedimentary layers. We are also told that in central North America temperatures fell by 8 degrees – but over a period of 400,000 years. One can also suppose they dropped extremely quickly, as a result of the asteroid impacts causing an opaque sun [reducing temperatures quickly]. The figure of 400,000 years is also dictated by the uniformitarian dating of the sediments. We may also note there is no reason why the normal run of the mill life on earth has left a mark in the geological record. It seems to me more logical to think that only geological activity can do that – which includes catastrophic events of various kinds. In order to produce a global event, those catastrophes would not be the kind that we are experiencing today. They were extraordinary events and involved an extraordinary vector. Namely, in this instance, space rocks.