Paper detail

Bayesian time series analysis of terrestrial impact cratering

Giant impacts by comets and asteroids have probably had an important influence on terrestrial biological evolution. We know of around 180 high velocity impact craters on the Earth with ages up to 2400Myr and diameters up to 300km. Some studies have identified a periodicity in their age distribution, with periods ranging from 13 to 50Myr. It has further been claimed that such periods may be causally linked to a periodic motion of the solar system through the Galactic plane. However, many of these studies suffer from methodological problems, for example misinterpretation of p-values, overestimation of significance in the periodogram or a failure to consider plausible alternative models. Here I develop a Bayesian method for this problem in which impacts are treated as a stochastic phenomenon. Models for the time variation of the impact probability are defined and the evidence for them in the geological record is compared using Bayes factors. This probabilistic approach obviates the need for ad hoc statistics, and also makes explicit use of the age uncertainties. I find strong evidence for a monotonic decrease in the recorded impact rate going back in time over the past 250Myr for craters larger than 5km. The same is found for the past 150Myr when craters with upper age limits are included. This is consistent with a crater preservation/discovery bias modulating an otherwise constant impact rate. The set of craters larger than 35km (so less affected by erosion and infilling) and younger than 400Myr are best explained by a constant impact probability model. A periodic variation in the cratering rate is strongly disfavoured in all data sets. There is also no evidence for a periodicity superimposed on a constant rate or trend, although this more complex signal would be harder to distinguish.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author5 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.