Could the Chicxulub asteroid have changed Earth's orbit or axis at all

The biggest control knob for the earth's climate is well known and understood.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter1.pdf

This video is interesting. Richard Alley is a well respected lead author for the IPCC.
Here, he gives an interesting talk on the history of the earth and what has changed over time.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lec...eos/A23A.shtml

was at ten kilometers in diameter

It was not an equatorial aspect … for the asteroid was approaching from the south.

When it hit, the rock released the equivalent of 100 million megatons of high explosive, about one hundred times the energy needed to create a global catastrophe, bringing the Mesozoic era - the age of dinosaurs - to a close.

The massive scar, around 180 kilometers in diameter, is buried under a kilometer of limestone rock,

The sea into which the great lump of rock splashed down was about ten meters deep.

This rock hit the Earth at a speed of at least twenty-five kilometers per second, the atmosphere providing little if any cushioning effect.

It almost certainly disintegrated on impact, as stony meteorites are prone to do.

it opened a hole five kilometers deep in the Earth's crust, blasting thousands of times its original mass into the atmosphere and back into space, where some earthy fragments doubtless became heavenly wanderers themselves.

The celestial chip shot had other unfortunate consequences, for it took a huge divot of molten rock and debris and propelled it straight up the Bearpaw seaway.

Just two million years before the asteroid struck, these trees had formed a great belt of evergreen tropical forest that extended in a swath, south of 60 degrees latitude (the present latitude of Nunivak Island, Alaska), right across the continent's middle. This forest did not entirely replace the great conifers, however, for some were now gigantic trees, towering above the canopy of broad-leaved flowering plants. Growth rings are difficult to detect in the fossilized timber of these trees, which indicates an absense of seasons.

Therefore, based on the above bold information it appears plausible to me that the Earth's tilt axis was impacted but not sure the extent.

One thing that was quoted in the above book about tree growth rings prior to Chicxulub states on pages 12 & 13 I am not sure if this indicating that there was a zero tilt angle prior to Chicxulub.

Maybe check your basic mechanics. Any force impulse on a rotating body causes nutation, basically it does not change the direction of the spin axis.

Interesting is the hypothesis about antipode volcanism in relation to such a major impact and in this case the Indian deccan traps could be a candidate.

Maybe check your basic mechanics. Any force impulse on a rotating body causes nutation, basically it does not change the direction of the spin axis.

Yet most astronomers attribute the axial tilt of Uranus (almost 90^o). So, impacts can cause axial tilt, according to those who know a lot more about it than I, but the K/T Killer wasn't impact enough, as has been pointed out.

Okay I try to be careful. I'm not stating anything. Merely mentioning that there is a hypothesis about bolide impact and antipode trap volcanism. In this published paper a link is made between the K-T extinction and the Deccan traps (caption fig 1). I'm not aware that there is any concrete proof or refutation yet.

What is that link?

The paper you linked to argues that the largest mass extinction might require that a large meteorite impact occur during the same period of time as massive continental volcanism. That's a far cry from what you appear to be proposing: that meteorite impacts trigger antipode volcanism.

Just to be clear, that paper makes only a statistical link (given the frequency of those events) that they will probably have occured at the same time. There is no causal mechanism proposed.

Basu showed that massive lava flows in India date back precisely to the Chicxalub impact, and recently he also reported that similar giant lava flows in Siberia coincide exactly with the Bedout impact.

That's not the point, the point is that the hypothesis exists and that I did NOT propose it.

Boslough et al. [14], however, used shock-hydrodynamic
simulations to generate source functions for
seismological modeling of the entire Earth, and
estimated the effects of antipodally focused seismic
waves from a Chicxulub scale impact (10-km-diameter
asteroid impacting at 20 km/s). They found that the
largest displacements (F 10 m at antipode), stresses,
and strains occur in the antipodal lithosphere and
upper asthenosphere, and that these large amplitudes
are due primarily to the convergence of fundamental
mode Rayleigh surface waves. Although peak stresses
and strains fall off rapidly with depth beneath the
antipode, the seismic energy remains sharply focused
down to the core–mantle boundary. Indeed, motions at
the core–mantle boundary are greater beneath the
antipode than beneath the impact site itself.
Because the focused seismic energy would be most
strongly attenuated in the partially molten asthenosphere,
Boslough et al. [14] suggested that dissipation
of the seismic energy could cause heating and
additional melting, and possibly antipodal flood basalt
volcanism. Ivanov and Melosh [48], however, concluded
that the antipodal thermal anomaly generated
by a Chicxulub scale impact would be negligible.
Accepting that the upper mantle is likely hotter and
more fertile than generally presumed in dstandardT
mantle plume models [8,9], lithospheric fracturing by
focused seismic energy from large-body impacts
might have played a major role in the formation of
antipodal flood basalts. As shown in Boslough et al.
[14], peak antipodal displacements, stresses, and
strains would occur throughout the lithosphere.

The Cretaceous–Tertiary (K/T) Chicxulub impact
was neither antipodal to nor coeval with initial Deccan
volcanism on the Indian subcontinent.

Andre, thank you for finally backing up your claims with the Hagstrum paper you linked to, we got there in the end.

No, I am NOT claiming anything, again I merely point out that the hypothesis exists. And the reason that I'm splitting hairs is the regime here.