Number of days writer Richard Kerr has failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 1 year, 1 month, and 6 days
Why then is there not some sign of a big wave — just once — running up onto the flat and featureless Carolina coast in human times?
After re-reading some of the work of Dallas Abbott and others describing tsunami signatures in Long Island Sound and the Hudson Valley, I was Googling about for anything hinting at such a wave. I had looked before — but apparently prior to the 2007 publication of the article below.
The authors describe a catastrophic inundation around 1000 AD of the Pamlico Sound, the 2000 square mile shallow estuary that defines the North Carolina’s coast. Look closely at a map of our proud state. The North Carolina coast is characterized by long narrow barrier islands that embay the Pamlico Sound, an inland sea, as thought by Verrazano.
I knew work had been underway for years taking geological cores these sounds, led by Stanley Riggs of ECU and the USGS. But I had not seen much of interest to the Tusk (though I have not paid terribly close attention).
In any case, the cores in the Pamlico Sound revealed that the sound had been repeatedly — at least twice in the last 5000 years — inundated by seawater. Flooded so throughly by the sea that the former sound became open marine waters for hundreds of year before closing again.
The authors presume it was a hurricane or closely space hurricanes that caused the Pamlico Sound to become the sea again for 500 years.
This paper reports on the intriguing sedimentary and micropaleontological record of several vibracores that indicates that the southern Outer Banks barrier islands underwent significant destruction, presumably as the result of a major hurricane or hurricanes, approximately 1,100 cal yr BP. Culver, et. al. 2007
The Tusk thinks the authors are probably underestimating the potential for a cosmic tsunami. Other earth scientists have found evidence of Holocene tsunami’s on the America’s eastern seaboard and concluded they were induced by rocks into the pond.
The authors of this paper think differently and quite quickly dismiss tsunami (and surely cosmic tsunami) as a cause of the Pamlico innudation:
Tsunami and hurricanes are potential causes of barrier island collapse. Unfortunately, foraminiferal signatures of tsunami are not yet sufficiently well defined (e.g., Hawkes et al., 2006). [to........?] Major hurricanes (category 3 and greater) hit coastal North Carolina several times a century, but vibracore PS03, three adjacent cores, and more than 30 cores across the Hatteras Flats and through the modern barrier islands, indicate just one substantial collapse, several centuries in duration, since the barrier islands formed around 3,500 cal yr BP. A major hurricane, or a closely spaced series of major hurricanes, such as hit the Gulf Coast in 2004 and 2005, is the most likely proximal causal agent in this North Carolina coastal region that was dubbed, “Hurricane Alley.” Culver, et. al. 2007
The authors kind of leave you hanging after the tsunami reference, huh?
Culver, et al. don’t rule out a tsunami, but rather claim their manner of testing for abundance and types of tiny sea creatures called “foraminifera” cannot — yet — define a tsunami. Fair enough, but it still leaves me wanting them to rule tsunami out on others ground — which they do not.
Then things get more interesting — much more interesting. Looking for references to an Atlantic tsunami in 1000 AD, I remembered another Dallas Abbott paper, one which I had posted last year to the Tusk. In the paper Abbott tentatively dates tsunami materials from a New York bog to several time periods.
She puts the most recent tsunami layer in New York within the same period as the Pamlico inundation.
Further coorroboration is found in the well-recorded English annals from September 28, 1014, where middle age historians note a “flood from the sea” in England. [The congruence of Abbott's findings and the English tsunami history is well summarized in this 2012 blog].
On 28th September 1014 widespread coastal flooding occurred in Britain [13]. William of Malmesbury in The History of the English Kings (vol. 1) states that «a tidal wave, of the sort which the Greeks call euripus and we ledo, grew to an astonishing size such as the memory of man cannot parallel, so as to submerge villages many miles inland and overwhelm and drown their inhabitants.[23].
For the same year, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that «on the eve of St. Michael’s Day [28th September], came the great sea-flood, which spread wide over this land, and ran so far up as it never did before, overwhelming many towns, and an innumerable multitude of people» [16]. Some accounts suggest that this flood affected Kent, Sussex, Hampshire [11], and even as far west as Mount’s Bay in Cornwall, where the Bay was «inundated by a ‘mickle seaflood’ when many towns and people were drowned» [29]. Healy [15] describes organic deposits in Marazion Marsh, that lie behind a coastal barrier in Mount’s Bay, that is dated to no later than AD 980 and overlain by a sand layer, which could be a signature of the flood event. In North Wales, it has been suggested that recently described field evidence for tsunami impact may be related to this Celtic event [14]. The flood is also mentioned in the Chronicle of Quedlinburg Abbey (Saxony), where it states many people died as a result of the flood in The Netherlands, and it is remembered in a North American account by [17].
1014 AD saw the most intense spike of Ammonium in Greenland ice in 1000 years
Pretty interesting, huh? But there’s more to come….
Below is an excerpt from the Field Notes of the Andronikov expedition to inspect the black mat in Europe. At a site just west of Lommel, Holland they find an intriguing feature (above) that some interpret as possibly being a signature of an ancient tsunami at the onset of the Younger Dryas.
I located on Google Earth what appears to be the archeological site where they took the samples and then I plotted the distance to the sea. The Lommel-Maatheide site is 70 miles from the sea (a very flat seventy miles).
Lommel-Maatheide is the exact site where Tian et al. (2010) reported a presence of nanodiamonds from around the Usselo Horizon. At this site, the Usselo Horizon represented by the organic-rich dark material distinctly shows a transition from being a land originated close analogue of the black mat of North America (samples 2 LOM11; Fig. 16) through the peat-bearing material generated in thewet environment (samples 2A-LOM11; Fig. 17) to the sheer aquatic-related Usselo Horizon represented by a thick (20-30 cm) layer of peat (samples 2B-LOM11; Fig. 18). A very interesting and unusual structure of the disturbance can be observed in a peat layer of the Usselo Horizon(Fig. 19). This structure was interpreted [sic] as a possible fingerprint of a paleotsunami. Providing the age of the Usselo Horizon, such a tsunami might be related to the impact in question. Other interpretations related for example to the permafrost, however, are also possible. But the origin of the observed structure should be a matter of an independent study and in the moment is beyond the scope of our work. All three cross-sections of the exposed Usselo Horizon sequence in Lommel-Maatheide where sampled for the material from the Horizon itself, and from the over and underlying sediments (Fig. 20).
I’ll be darned if I did not come across a just-added citation from a group at the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Sciences Lab. This is no casual reference or dismissal. It was a confirmation — of space stuff in the clovis black mat — by respected scientists I have never heard of. Big news. And also news to key researchers on the Younger Dryas Boundary Team.
Here are the CV’s for two of the authors who pop up prominently when searched: Alex Andronikov and Dante Lauretta. Very impressive.
A key aspect of the research is that they focused on the stratigraphy that Allen West has long said was most critical; not the black mat itself, but the very bottom and earliest portion of the layer, termed in the Andronikov paper: the Lower Younger Dryas Boundary (LYDB). They call the LYBD, “a thin (2-5 cm) basal pitch-black layer likely corresponding to the lower YD boundary.” The blackest of the black mat.
Though little detail is provided in this brief conference abstract, the LYDB layer exhibited chemistry similar to the now-definitive KT Boundary layer marking the extinction of the dinosaurs. It was elevated in Iridium and Osmium, Platinum Group Elements, with other worldly ratios of said elements. What’s more, Rare Earth Elements were found to be in concentrations 800x times that found in meteorites themselves!
These findings not only corroborate those of the YDB team, but also contradict those of Paquay, et. al., considered by some to be a nail in the coffin of the theory.
When you find the breath of stars at a point in history where whole genera of animals and a human culture disappear from the record, it is time to take a deep breath, keep an open mind — and continue looking.
When the first results were announced in 2007 many scientists simply spat them out, closed their minds, and decided to ignore them. Worse, others later smeared the YD researchers. Fortunately, thanks to curious and competent scientists like Andronikov and Lauretta, good science can survive bad people.
Skeptics of the YDIB hypothesis frequently state that “no one can reproduce the YDIB results” (Kerr, 2010); “nobody has found anything” (Kerr, 2010); there is a “lack of reproducibility of data” (Holliday, 2011); and “unique peaks in concentrations at the YD onset have yet to be reproduced” Pinter (2011). These casual dismissals are hurtful to the investigation, and demonstrably false. That independent researchers have identified materials diagnostic of an event of cosmic proportions at 12.9 before present should not be subject to debate.
To wit, I offer below citations of published research confirming the original findings of Firestone, et. al. in 2007. Note that some of these researchers disagree with an extraterrestrial impact as cause and offered alternate hypotheses, but, in every case, those speculating about causation have not conducted any analytical work to determine if their hypotheses are correct.
INDEPENDENT GROUPS with positive results:
MAGNETIC SPHERULES.
Baker et al. (2008)
Fayek (2008)
Ge et al. (2009, page 1)
Haynes et al. (2010, page 1)
LeCompte et al. (2010)
Mahaney (2010a, page 10)
Wu (2011)
NANODIAMONDS.
Ge et al. (2009, page 1)
Tankersley (2009)
Tian (2010, page 1)
Van Hoesel (2011)
Bement et al. (2011)
IRIDIUM.
Beets et al. (2008, page 1)
Sharma et al. (2009)
Haynes et al. (2010, page 1)
Mahaney (2010a, page 10)
Marshall (2011)
Wu (2011)
CARBON SPHERULES and GLASS-LIKE CARBON (some w/ NANODIAMONDS)
Mahaney (2010a, page 10)
Tian (2010, page 1)
Courty et al. (2010)
Ge et al. (2009, page 1)
Baker et al. (2008, page 1)
Tankersley (2009)
CHARCOAL AND BIOMASS BURNING:
Mahaney et al. (2010b)
Ge et al. (2009)
Courty et al. (2010)
HUMAN AND ANIMAL POPULATION DECLINES.
Schroeder (2009)
Steele (2010)
CRATER or IMPACT.
Higgins, et al. (2011)
REFERENCES.
Baker DW, Miranda PJ, Gibbs KE. (2008) Montana Evidence for Extra-Terrestrial Impact Event That Caused Ice-Age Mammal Die-Off. American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2008, abstract #P41A-05.
Beets C, Sharma M, Kasse K, Bohncke S. (2008) Search for Extraterrestrial Osmium at the Allerod – Younger Dryas Boundary. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #V53A-2150.
Bement L, Carter BJ, Simms A, Madden A. (2011) The Bull Creek valley stream terraces, buried soils, and paleo-environment during the Younger Dryas in the Oklahoma Panhandle, USA. Paper #1447, XVIII INQUA-Congress, 21-27 July 2011 in Bern, Switzerland.
I have been working on putting this nugget from Climategate 2.0 into context, but wanted to get something up in the meantime. Below is a fascinating exchange between the high priests of climate science, an editor of a paper they had recently submitted, and a reviewer whose own contrary theory was being eviscerated by the paper he was asked to review.
It can be deduced that Mike Baillie is the reviewer. Baillie is a well published and respected dendrochronologist who believes that the climate downturn around 540 AD was cosmically induced, not volcanic.
Baillie’s review can be found highlighted deeper in the text:
date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:49:28 +0100 from: Bo Vinther subject: [Fwd: 2007GL032450 (Editor - Fabio Florindo): Decision Letter]
to: Tom Melvin , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Lars Berg Larsen , “Henrik B. Clausen” , cuh@gfy.ku.dk, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen , Rashit Hantemirov , Kurt Nicolussi , Bjorn.Gunnarson@natgeo.su.se, Håkan Grudd , Matti.Eronen@helsinki.fi, mukhtar@forest.akadem.ru
Dear Colleagues
Good news: Our paper on the A.D. 536 event has now been reviewed an we have been asked to
submit a response to the comments made by the reviewers and a revised paper by December 12.
I will circulate drafts before the weekend – so you will be able to have a weeks time to
come with suggestions/additions…..
The reviews can be seen below – but let me just correct one misunderstanding in the review:
Reviewer #2 makes a lengthy review partly focused on discrediting Greenland ice core dating
- claiming that the dating uncertainties are “guesstimates”! A cornerstone in his argument
is that a volc. signal previously reported to have been dated to A.D. 572 now has been
shifted to A.D. 567/68 – this is, however, not the case as the A.D. 572 signal and the A.D.
567/68 signal are two separate volc. signals in the ice core (A.D. 572 is a small signal
containing significant amounts of fluoride and chloride – suggesting a local eruption -
most probably Icelandic).
Anyway I just wanted to point out that the fact that the A.D. 572 and A.D. 567/68 have
nothing to do with each other mutes the claim of reviewer #2 with respect to uncertainties
in ice core dating….and therefore we have no scientific basis for moving the Greenland
ice core dating 7 years as suggested by reviewer #2.
Cheers……Bo
Recent Comments