If an asteroid were going to hit Earth, would Earth be better off it it hit land or the oceans?

Question

Wouldn't a "water hit" be better for the atmosphere? If a moderate astroid hit land, then the dirt/rock would scatter worldwide, leading to an ice age. So, wouldn't an ocean hit be better for Earth since the water is better for the atmosphere than dirt~ would that ultimately lead to global rains? Could that even eleviate world wide droughts???? Please fill me in! :0)

Answer 1

If its a big one, it doesn't matter. Land or ocean, it will trigger a massive seismic response. EQs and volcanoes will go off everywhere. If its hits the ocean we have to worry about humongous tsunamis but if it hits land hard enough that will happen anyway, maybe at a smaller scale since the land would absorb some of the wave energy. Since the surface of the Earth is 70% water, it would most likely hit water.

Bottom line: A huge asteroid hitting the Earth is bad news no matter where it impacts.

(Cool I'm a follower of Jesus too! I believe in asteroids because there's a whole friggin' belt of them between Mars and Jupiter and that's just some of them!)

Answer 2

It does not matter whether it hit land or oceans. Earth would still be devastatingly affected either way. The degree of devastation depends on the size of the asteroid though.... anywhere from an unnoticed wobble to total destruction. Broken parts of earth might become millions of asteroids themselves wandering in the universe.

Answer 3

It would be slightly better if it hit land. The tidal waves from a ocean hit would kill everything within 200 miles of the ocean worldwide. Both situations would send molten rock raining down all over the earth and burn everything. Of course the size and velocity of the object makes a huge difference.

Answer 4

Depends on the size of the asteroid mostly. If it's big enough to knock earth out of orbit with the sun, or off it's axis, then who cares, we're all gonna die. It's not a whole lot different either way, because it's gonna hit land eventually, whether it be the ocean floor, or regular land. A land strike would probably do less damage to the world's ecological systems.

Answer 5

Depending on the size of the meteor. If is small enough, an ocean impact is better as it will not hit populated area (the fish might mid, though). If is it large, then it is better to hit ground, as it would not cause a tidal wave that would spread destruction way beyond the area right around the point of impact. If it is "dinosaur extinction" size -- around 10 km diameter -- it makes no difference; even area that are on the complete other side of the planet would be affected.

Answer 6

I can't see one being better than the other.
If it hits land dirt and debris would circle the earth causing blackout of the sun and cooling of the earth.
If it hit the ocean there would most likely be a huge explosion and tidal waves from the impact.
That's not even calculating the air blast prior to impact.
Either one would equally be destructive.

Answer 7

I would say the land....why?. if it hit the land there could be time to get the people out of the place it was going to hit..if it hit in the ocean it would set of a giand Tsunami that will cover the land and killing more people

Answer 8

i think that either is just as bad land you get earth quacks with ocean you get big ways washing over 100 miles of land.. death by water or death by earth... i think i would have to pick land.. i can deal with that more than being taken out to sea and dieing out there..

Answer 9

If the asteroid was big enough, it wouldn't matter where it hit, either way we're screwed.

Answer 10

unpopulated land area is my choice, devastating tsunamis can result from ocean hits.