Kerr Watch

Number of days writer Richard Kerr has failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 3 years, 8 months, and 8 days

CT Post Calendar

August 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


Finally Available in PNAS: Very High Temperature Impact Melt Products: Evidence for Cosmic Impacts \ Airbursts 12,900 years ago

These scientists have identified three contemporaneous levels more than 12,000 years ago, on two continents yielding siliceous scoria-like objects (SLO’s),” said H. Richard Lane, program director of National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. “SLO’s are indicative of high-energy cosmic airbursts/impacts, bolstering the contention that these events induced the beginning of the Younger Dryas. That time was a major departure in biotic, human and climate history.

Ted Bunch

Hard link to full and free PNAS

Bunch, Hermes, Mooreet al,

Cosmic Airbursts – Impacts Leave High Temperature Melt Products at Younger Dryas by George Howard

45 comments to Finally Available in PNAS: Very High Temperature Impact Melt Products: Evidence for Cosmic Impacts \ Airbursts 12,900 years ago

  • What Bolide Ignimbrite in yonder horizon breaks. Tis the dawn. The light doeth fall upon the scoria and upon the sand. Tis the dawn of rational cooperation between Gradualists and Catastrophists, as the AWESOME Geologic Record slowly reveals its secrets. The process may now be truthfully revealed in the imprinted record, for any one capable of comprehending the simple truth.

    Now the climatologists and oceanographers can explain giant waves in the Record without the need for giant storms in the Record. In Ireland. In Bermuda. In Alaska, in Madagascar, In Australia.

    Now the astro camp can politely explain that to the Earth Scientists that yes, in fact, a heliocentric debris stream actually tweaks the climate over periods of debris storms as well as in single events. Oh yes, Napier already did that, I almost forgot. Anyway…

    Now the multitudes of formerly unrecognized, geologically recent impact scarring imprints all over the world may be accepted for what they are, and dated as to when they were imprinted, and suddenly there is going to be a whole lot of correlation going on between that dating effort and all those 200 ton boulders up hundreds of feet above where they were torn form sea level. And those 200 meter deep ocean floor sediment piles the size of Manhattan, sitting 5 miles inland on S.W. Madagascar, the Fenambosy Chevrons. Just moments ago geologically.

    And the dates are going to be SINCE the YOUNGER DRYAS for many of those events, so stay tuned. Biblical flood at about 4800 BP, yep. perfect sense. Iron age and Middle age and Dark age cold snaps, yep. Got it covered.

    Periods of climate disturbance. Naturally what you get from a Heliocentric debris stream. Funny how that all ‘falls’ into place when you throw a little astro at it.

    PROGRESS!

    TH

  • Ignimbrite (gnm-brt) is a literal translation from the Latin words for ‘Fire Cloud Rock’.

    Ignimbrites are composed of bomb to lapilli-sized pumice fragments, and subordinate lithic fragments, embedded in a matrix of vitric, crystal, and lithic ash. And Ignimbrites have the fundamental characteristic of having been formed and emplaced violently in a pyroclastic density current. In other words, while in motion, all of the particles and fragments are suspended in a superheated cloud of hot gasses.

    A more common term is welded tuff.

    The problem with using that word in the context of this blog is that it invites confusion. Because it has long been assumed that the only conceivable source of enough heat, and pressure to get terrestrial materials into atmospheric suspension in a pyroclastic density current is terrestrial volcanism. Also, under that standard model assumption the only possible motive force for a pyroclastic flow is gravity pulling the materials down a slope, and away from a volcanic vent.

    The idea that a very large airburst event might be capable of extremely efficient stripping, and ablation of melted terrestrial materials has only recently been suggested in the literature. But it is logical to think that while in motion, any ablated melt from such an event would in fact be in a superheated pyroclastic density current. But the motive force for a pyroclastic density current of geo-ablative melt would not be gravity pulling the materials down a slope. Rather, it would be the supersonic, and superheated winds of an airburst that provides the motive force.

    In other words the heat, and pressure for a pyroclastic density current of ablative melt would come from above. Instead of tumbling downhill during its emplacement, it would move like the wind-driven, debris laden, froth, and foam on a storm tossed beach. So we might be looking for ‘Orphan’ ignimbrites that have never been positively associated with a volcano, and in locations where gravity could not have been the motive force.

    There is actually a hell of a lot of materials in Northern Mexico, and southwest Texas that meets that description.

    Personally, I’m of the theory that when the planetary scarring of the cluster airburst storms of the Pleistocene/Holocene transition are identified, and positively confirmed by detailed chemical analysis, it’ll be realized that much of those materials have been listed on the old geologic maps all along as “Ignimbrites”

    But to assume that all Ignimbrite is actually airburst melt would be obviously wrong. And to use the word to describe the theoretical blast-effected materials, and planetary scarring we’re looking for would only invite confusion.

    “Fire Cloud Rock” sounds like such a wonderfully poetic term to describe rock born in the fiery clouds of a large and ablative cluster airburst event. Badly sadly, it’s already been claimed by the volcanologists to describe something that got explosively belched out of the ground.

    We need our own word.

  • Ignimbrite is a literal translation from the Latin words for ‘Fire Cloud Rock’.

    Ignimbrites are composed of bomb to lapilli-sized pumice fragments, and subordinate lithic fragments, embedded in a matrix of vitric, crystal, and lithic ash. And Ignimbrites have the fundamental characteristic of having been formed and emplaced violently in a pyroclastic density current. In other words, while in motion, all of the particles and fragments are suspended in a superheated cloud of hot gasses.

    A more common term is welded tuff.

    The problem with using that word in the context of this blog is that it invites confusion. Because it has long been assumed that the only conceivable source of enough heat, and pressure to get terrestrial materials into atmospheric suspension in a pyroclastic density current is terrestrial volcanism. Also, under that standard model assumption the only possible motive force for a pyroclastic flow is gravity pulling the materials down a slope, and away from a volcanic vent.

    The idea that a very large airburst event might be capable of extremely efficient stripping, and ablation of melted terrestrial materials has only recently been suggested in the literature. But it is logical to think that while in motion, any ablated melt from such an event would in fact be in a superheated pyroclastic density current. But the motive force for a pyroclastic density current of geo-ablative melt would not be gravity pulling the materials down a slope. Rather, it would be the supersonic, and superheated winds of an airburst that provides the motive force.

    In other words the heat, and pressure for a pyroclastic density current of ablative melt would come from above. Instead of tumbling downhill during its emplacement, it would move like the wind-driven, debris laden, froth, and foam on a storm tossed beach. So we might be looking for ‘Orphan’ ignimbrites that have never been positively associated with a volcano, and in locations where gravity could not have been the motive force.

    There is actually a hell of a lot of materials in Northern Mexico, and southwest Texas that meets that description.

    Personally, I’m of the theory that when the planetary scarring of the cluster airburst storms of the Pleistocene/Holocene transition are identified, and positively confirmed by detailed chemical analysis, it’ll be realized that much of those materials have been listed on the old geologic maps all along as “Ignimbrites”

    But to assume that all Ignimbrite is actually airburst melt would be obviously wrong. And to use the word to describe the theoretical blast-effected materials, and planetary scarring we’re looking for would only invite confusion.

    “Fire Cloud Rock” sounds like such a wonderfully poetic term to describe rock born in the fiery clouds of a large and ablative cluster airburst event. Badly sadly, it’s already been claimed by the volcanologists to describe something that got explosively belched out of the ground.

    We need our own word.

  • George Howard

    Harris, you are a nut.

    [I mean that in a kindly North Carolina manner.]

  • Over on WUWT.com Spector asked:

    “Is it possible that a near miss (near hit) with possible atmospheric penetration might result in a capture of the disruption fragments? Perhaps one site is an initial glancing contact point and the others are due to returning fragments.That type of event might lead to a large cloud of ballistic extra-atmospheric debris that could have taken a long time to decay”

    So I answered him:

    Good question. Based on what I’ve been able to learn so far, I’d say yes. But when you’re considering the potential effects of multiple clusters of fragments of varying size, from dust grains up to stuff that must have been hundreds of meters across, as the Earth passed through Taurid progenitor’s debris field, then the correct answer is probably, “all of the above”.

    The thing is, in spite of numerous examples of fragmented comets in short period elliptical orbits that cross the orbits of all the planets of the inner solar system like comets Scwassmann Wachmann –3, or Linear-1, none of the impact simulations to date have ever considered the impact effects of a cluster of fragments of an icy body soon after it’s complete breakup. NASA planetary sciences are still stuck on the gradualist model of one lone bolide at a time, ballistic/kinetic impacts.

    With the exception of some work on the Libyan Desert Glass, and the Tunguska event of 1908, by Mark Boslough at Sandia Labs. (see Large Aerial Bursts and the Impact Threat) all the simulations we see are based on the 60+ year old point-source approximations that came out of the nuclear test detonations of the cold war years. None of them accounts for preservation of the downward momentum of a hypervelocity object that detonates in an airburst like Tunguska did, or the event that produced the Libyan Desert Glass without leaving any shock-metamorphic effects such as a crater. In other words, those old point source detonations without preservation of momentum are not valid for estimating the destructive force of a hypervelocity airburst. Much less the destructive potential for a large cluster of them. Or what the resulting planetary scarring of something like 10,000 Tunguska class airbursts over a period of just a few minutes might look like.

    They’re pretty heavily invested in that single bolide model. And they’ve been working from the assumption of a steady, and consistent impact flux for decades. They work from that unproven assumption when they use the number of craters in a given surface on the Moon or Mars, to estimate the age of that surface. But all it would take is for the impact of one large cluster of small fragments such as we see in the two images above, to have happened sometime in the past to cause them to over estimate the age of the resulting planetary surface by billions of years.

    And for them to even acknowledge the possibility of a cluster impact event means throwing decades of work counting craters to estimate the ages of planetary surfaces in the inner solar system right out the window.

  • Steve Garcia

    George -

    Someone at WUWT pointed out that in the Abstract the location of the Trinity site was not at Socorro, NM, but at Alamagordo. I see that this error is still in the Abstract, although it is correct in the body text (page 2).

    I have to ask: Is this something we all don’t know, or is it a misidentification that needs to be corrected?

  • Steve Garcia

    From the paper:

    Blackville, South Carolina. This dated site is in the rim of a Carolina Bay, one of a group of >50;000 elliptical and often overlapping depressions with raised rims scattered across the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Alabama (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). For this study, samples were cored by hand auger at the thickest part of the bay rim, raised 2 m above the surrounding terrain. The sediment sequence is represented by eolian and alluvial sediments composed of variable loamy to silty red clays down to an apparent unconformity at 190 cm below surface (cmbs). Below this there is massive, variegated red clay, interpreted as a paleosol predating bay rim formation (Miocene marine clay >1 million years old) (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). A peak in both SLOs and spherules occurs in a 15 cm—thick interval beginning at 190 cmbs above the clay
    section, extending up to 175 cmbs (SI Appendix, Table S3).

    This is revealing. The clay under the rim of this CB is evidently right at the YDB. This is both completely in disagreement with the 50-100kya datings of the CBs we’ve seen AND in completely in agreement with the CB equals YDB idea. I don’t want to take this and run with it, but just note it for future reference.

    One thing about this is that the datings of the CBs, as I understand them – have been taken on the rims, too. How does one have some of them dated to 12.9kya and some at 50-100kya? Multiple events seems to be the only explanation, but then the alignments are miraculous.

    Evidently there is more to come on this…

  • Steve Garcia

    Oh, btw, I am pretty sure the last sentence quoted is a victim of poor wording. On closer reading I read it to say that “a 15 cm-thick interval beginning at 190 cmbs above the clay section, extending up to 175 cmbs” means that the 15cm interval is between the depths of 190cm and 175cm. IOW the interval is not 190cm ABOVE the clay, but begins at a depth of 190cm.

    George? Would I be correct on this?

  • Dennis,

    OK I’m going to “lay off the Bolide Ignimbrite” for now! (except for the T-shirts. and neckties. and cuff links! the hats. Oh man…..)

    Thank you sincerely sir for your gracious tact and infinite patience. George likewise. We need our own word or phrase like “ablative effluent” or “ablative fume” (this is a good one since fume is welding effluent with melted metal spherules re-solidified while airborne), or “slag sandwich”, or “cosmic entropy burst”

    I like hypersonic face peel, but its not entirely accurate in all cases, which we would like our candidate name to be.

    Actually the unique energy level, astronomical in magnitude, should be in the name as well, so I would try something like “Astro Ablative Fume”. Or “cosmic ablative blast melt” (like it). Cosmic ablative fume. “Ablative Tuff” is ok….

    OR

    ASTRO TUFF!!! I call mine! (naturally you own the Tuff half of this Dennis – I got the Astro half)

    the name needs provision for projectile and target material alike, since the atmosphere itself is part of the target in this proposed case even when the ground may not be. got it covered. “Astro Tuff” covers all cases, Air + Bolide and Air+ Surface + Bolide.

    Also just found:

    Here’s a good ocean impact paper by Galen Gisler, Robert Weaver, Charles Mader at Los Alamos. That Weaver name looks familiar. So does Mader.

    http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/Teaching/Geos-2111GIS/Tsunami/gisler_ImpactTsunami.pdf

    …Solid impactor puts 25 km crater at the bottom of 7 km of ocean. Notice complex wave train generated, and excavated crater plume landing directly upstream of same. Think Fenambosy. Megatsunami entrainment of excavated ocean floor. Scale to taste.

    I’m just Sayin’

    Paper is 2003 epoch

    TWO- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATIONS OF ASTEROID OCEAN IMPACTS
    LA-UR 02-66-30

    Science of Tsunami Hazards, Volume 21, Number 2, page 134 (2003)

    TH

  • Thanks Tom,

    As for me, I’ve become kinda fond of jus’ plain ole “Geo-Ablative Airburst Melt”.

  • Respect.

    What about Astro-Ablative Airburst Melt. Or don’t we want to jump the gun on the actual cause (joke). Naturally, yours is perfect. It begs the cause of whatever the Ablative process. Airburst heat from above. And like you say, no vents.

    That paper of George and friends is up to no good in my noggin. I just don’t know where the Melrose PA CBay stuff was from exactly, and I dearly need to wrap my head into exactly where that stuff is coming from. I need to completely be that imprint. in that environment. I need to hear those birds chirping and then startle as there is a flash. And more flashes.

    And about those fires, can’t we just light backfires or cut a fire break?

    TH

  • Hey Steve,

    Something I haven’t heard given much consideration to yet is that If the CB’s were produced by the secondary impacts of ice and slush ejecta from ice sheet impacts, then the rims would’ve all been emplaced at the moment of bay formation. And a date from the base of one of the rims should give the correct age for it’s formation.

    But this paper only dated that one bay. If they are all contemporaneous with the YD event, then the same structural location, or stratigraphy, in a number of bays should give the same date.

    Time will tell.

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis, from what I’ve seen the dating of CBs has mainly been done on the upper layers of the rims. That is the part I don’t agree with, not after recently seeing that one guy’s pdf (what happened to him?). In the transects he showed, the contours of the layers appeared draped over the rims and down into the bay bottoms – NOTHING like sedimentation. As such the layers had to have been laid down AFTER the forming of the bays he showed.

    This paper talks about measuring down 190cm into a 2 meter high rim, and at that level was clay. But without also measuring IN the bay, too (and outside, too), their sampling was floating out there all alone. They DID date the rim bottom of that bay, but it is a data point hanging in air. The date? 12.9kya.

    But if there is a 12.9kya date UNDER a rim, the top of the rim can’t be 100kya old, not without something overturning the material (which is sometimes seen in geology). The whole thing is a clusterf*** so far, IMHO. Everybody seems to be looking for confirmation bias evidence. The data itself, of courses, is real – but without a properly interpreted framework that encompasses ALL of those data points, they are meaningless. For now. A proper framework is needed. The YDIH may be it at some point, but not yet.

  • With regards to dating of the CB that’s my feeling exactly. If someone had a perfect understanding of the exact formation mechanism of the bays, they would be able to identify the correct location to get a specimen that’ll give an accurate age. But since OSL only measures how long it’s been since a specimen has seen the light of day, and not whether that specimen has been moved in the formation event if it wasn’t exposed to sunlight, then without that perfect understanding there is no guarantee that your aren’t measuring the age of antecedent materials. And your dates are going to be all over the place.

    Note the the ages of the bays given so far have been all over the place.

    Maybe it’s confirmation bias speaking, but I’m convinced they all happened at one time. When I see tested ages from the same structural location in a number of bays that all give the same result, or at least close, I’ll start to have more confidence. But so far I don’t believe anyone’s age for the CBs

  • I have had a chance to glace at this paper superficially and I’m sorry to say the math does not allow me to seriously consider any type of nuclear winter causing the Younger Dryas without some kind of additional massive fresh water forcing to the Arctic Sea, the North Atlantic along with the associated sea ice feedback (and possibly somewhat weaker atmospheric circulation feedbacks). I’m also quite skeptical of the Carolina Bay connection. I don’t have any problems with physical plausibility of ice sheet impacts, multiple impactors or an outright blanket shower of impacts. So again I am led back to the Glacial Lake Agassiz enigma. (Sorry, me very bad, maybe neurotic). To exclude this area as an unusual impact zone, I would start there.

    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/22/6/547.abstract

    Now this paper is quite old and maybe the 14C dating isn’t accurate anymore, but anything that can put that much mud into the lower Lake Michigan certainly qualifies as catastrophic, and that would seem to rule out Thunder Bay. So if you are looking for further analytical samples to work with you may want to take a closer look at the ‘distinctive massive gray Willmette mud’.

    Thank you for your time and effort into this seemingly unresolvable and intractable problem.

  • Steve Garcia

    TLE, you should also read Rod Chilton’s post at WUWT about the THC issue. He catalogs papers that show that it – and especially Lake Agassiz – had nothing to do with anything at 12.9kya.

    Now my take on it:

    With all due respects, TLE, the fresh water in the North Atlantic hypothesis has been accepted by everyone as if it were a tenable premise. But it is not. Noted climatologist Carl Wunsch calls the entire thing a “fantasy” that the sinking of cold water in the N Atlantic could stop the Gulf Stream. He says (and it is my position also) that to stop the Gulf Stream one would have to stop the rotation of the Earth, which is the one and only underlying driver of the Gulf Stream.

    I also add that the entire idea of sinking water sucking the water north is ludicrous, for several reasons. Mostly it is that suction requires a closed tube/closed system, and any ‘bleed in’ (leaks) from other sources reduces the suction in that system. In the open Atlantic, there is bleed in from all around – it is a completely OPEN system, open for water to enter from every direction.

    “Reducing the suction” is a lay term for “increasing the pressure drop;” when the total pressure drop reaches zero, no flow can exist.

    Illustration: Put a fan on one end of an HVAC type duct with a series of closeable registers. Put a flow gauge at the opposite, open end with all the registers closed. With this condition, the flow at the open end should equal the flow through the fan. The fan would be “sucking” or “drawing” all its air from that open end. Now if you partly open the register closest to the fan the air will come from the closest source (the partly open register) as much as it can; the remainder will come from the open end of the duct and you will be able to see a reduction in the air flow on the gauge. As you open that register more fully the flow gauge will show a further drop. Once that register is fully open, begin to open the next one and watch the flow gauge reading drop further. If you keep on doing this with successive registers, you can find a point where the flow gauge shows NO air flowing at the open end of the duct. At that point the pressure drop is total and the flow is zero at the end of the duct.

    You can do the same thing with water and a straw. Put water in a glass and suck through the straw. It will act normally. But then cut a hole in the side of the straw above the water line. If the hole is large enough, you will not be able to draw any water out of the glass with the straw.

    Both of these are examples of how leaks in a system prevent suction from happening at the distant end of the system.

    Now consider the water sinking in the North Atlantic. The first to consider is that it is gravity working, which at the surface of the Earth is a really weak force. Then consider that the saline water that is sinking has to push other water out of the way. (You can’t argue that the other water is moving away of its own accord or some other reason, because the hypothesis is that it is the SINKING water that is the driver in this scenario – that is the stated premise, after all.) So this CONVECTION is supposed to be the only force. If there is a force weaker than gravity it has to be convection. Convection is really weak. And the sinking water has to push aside other water to get to the bottom or whatever depth is its balance point. That uses up a lot of its “sucking power” – which was small to begin with.

    Now consider the weight of the water at the southern end of the Gulf Stream and all the water along the length of the Gulf Stream being moved north by this force, and compare that weight to the weakness of convection at the northern end. We are talking of about 6,000 km of water about 100 km wide and lets say 50 meters deep. We are asking this very weak residual downward convective force to pull all that water northward. To do so, it not only has to pull all that weight, but to also prefer that water to all other waters around the area of downward convection. Will it not, though, also draw in water from the north and the east and the west? If not then why not? The N Atlantic is an open system, not a closed one, so water will leak in from all directions, not just from the direction of Florida. The system being open, the pressure drop will be so high as to drop the available suction to zero long, long before the distant end (Florida) of the “tube” (the Gulf Stream). I suggest that the effective distance of suction will be less than 100 miles from the edges of the sinking water. The current coming in from the north around Greenland will itself overwhelm any effects of the sinking.

    The sinking is not the DRIVER in this scenario. It is, instead, the feeble end-of-the-line resultant. Far from being the driver, it is the DRIVEN component in the system. To claim it is the driver is to have the tail wag the dog, with the dog being a St Bernard and the tail being that of a chihuahua.

    In addition, there is the matter of the heat of the Gulf of Mexico. Water enters the Gulf between Cuba and the Yucatan, flowing rather quickly. (Is one to suggest that the sinking water in the N Atlantic also sucks this water into the Gulf?) As it enters the Gulf the current widens ten-fold or more, which slows its velocity considerably. It then meanders lazily CW around the Mexican coast, then the US gulf coast, all the while baking under the tropical sun and absorbing immense amounts of heat energy, before exiting through the 90-mile wide Florida Straits between Cuba and the Florida Keys.

    To assume the sinking of the THC may fail and stop warm water from moving north is to also ignore the heat buildup in the waters by the time they have left the Gulf of Mexico. If the THC stops, where does the heat go? Does it stay down near Florida (and keep on accumulating heat energy)? Does it travel eastward across toward Gibraltar – and if so why?

    Last point: Go online and look at the varying maps of the THC. Google Images shows up about 3 out of 20 that even show the Gulf of Mexico as a part of this system, even though without it there is no THC climate collapse that can happen. To collapse is to stop the heat from arriving off Europe. But their maps (going back to the first Woods Hole concept) don’t even show the Gulf itself as part of the system. (Why not? Because then some sharp reporter would ask, “But then what happens to the heat that builds up?”) About 3/4 of the remaining maps show the current turning tightly around the west end of Cuba, which is all out of touch with reality. ALL of them that do not show the water circulating around the entire Gulf of Mexico are missing the one most important feature of the Gulf Stream – the accumulation of the heat energy in the first place. Current or not, there is no Gulf Stream to warm Europe if there is no slow Gulf circulation. Without it, there is no “sudden breakdown of heat transport” to trigger an ice age (or, as there reality is, to NOT). Yes, there would be a current, but it would not be a excessively warm current – and without the excess heat the whole thing is not a system that can fail.

    If we were to block the current from entering the Gulf of Mexico in the first place, THEN we could turn Europe into Saskatchewan or Manitoba. But if the sinking water stops sinking (it won’t because it can’t) the Gulf Stream will continue on. And on. And on. As long as the Earth rotates.

    TLE, the THC concept is wrong-headed. It sounds reasonable unless one knows something about pressure drops and what really drives ocean currents. The water sinks in that area of the NA because it has given up its heat and is petered out at the END of the cycle. The tail does not wag the dog. If you cut off the tail the dog still lives.

  • I have read all of the comments over there at WUWT related to this topic, and I have even attempted to correct some of the more salient lucid misconceptions in a couple of comment posts.

    Most of that stuff is so illucid and wildly cranky that it’s mostly unreadable. What I have done otherwise is read all of the published peer reviewed literature on the subject, from which I base my scientific judgements and opinions. As such, I’m am unwilling to consider any of your points.

    In fact, I refuse to even read them here. Sorry. I’m operating on a completely different and vastly more sophisticated level. I know that sounds a bit arrogant. But that’s how it is, Steve.

    Unless you can address these concepts using numbers, equations and computer programs, I’m done. Thank you for your interest and consideration in this matter.

  • George Howard

    Don’t start some kinda Dennis <> Ed thing, now.

  • Steve Garcia

    George,

    I don’t mix it up with arrogance. With the little quantitative that is really solid on this topic, it is amazing that when I talk of GPR transects and what they show, that I am accused of being vastly unsophisticated. It’s not like this is all a bunch of high level equations. No one has a real handle on it, including any of us.

    But when as big a climatologist as Carl Wunsch says the THC/AMOC is a fantasy and I agree, TLE is free to agree with the climatologists of his choice. If I am too far below him, well, then so is Wunsch. And that would make the rest of us, too. It’s amazing he comes here. I thought this was a place of discussion and exchange of ideas.

    I won’t be getting into it with TLE. I am not worth his time.

  • Lets remember guys, that a fragmented comet stream with the cluster(s) spreading out along the path of the original larger body could leave Earth subject to groups of hits for a period of time, whenever the phase of Earth and the phase of the cluster(s) line up at crossing, a la Napier, so the drawn out effect could manifest itself as a long period of tweaking to the climate after the sequence starts (initial incident). Napier is good because he bases the concept on observed structure in the debris streams.

    This time distribution of multiple encounters of debris stream may be spread out many years, or many 10′s or years, etc.

    This makes me wonder how multiple encounters would be detected in the strata and by other dating techniques. What are 10 major hits over 50 years going to look like, etc.

    The problems with the Napier model are:

    1) If there was a debris stream on an Earth crossing path that caused YD, then its largely gone now, unless it actually was the Tourid Complex now largely depleted of larger chunks.

    2) Complete faith in any one suspect being the sole guilt party leaves all other potential perps in our midst. ALL OTHERS.

    Also, George, Dennis, T. Lee E especially you, we need to remember that as visionaries, the onus is on us, not on our (disadvantaged) audience, to offer, never to demand. Smother with love, as it were. I say this after encountering Michael Simpson, and noticing I was but another in a long list, if you hear me, y’all on that list. I know you do. He made a mistake, and it was human. We lovingly convince him of that fact. Then he comes around. Not till then. I know, but how annoying, right? Completely!

    He is actually on our side, but doesn’t realize it. And we could use his help once we shed the love and the light on him. So I (finally) humbly attempted to steer out of the angry trap when he failed so miserably (!), and I started on this lovin’ path I’m talkin’ ‘bout with Mr. Simpson, and more flies with sugar, E Pluribus Unum, and lastly Nolis Illegitimus Carbarundum! Its the civilized and intellectual tact. Peace.

    I’m talking about the “Quality of Wikipedia”

    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/quality-of-wikipedia/

    page of Michael Simpson’s Skeptical Raptor blog where he defends his move to delete a YD Impact related paper Wiki reference (correct me if I’m not accurate). I completely understand how he could make such an obvious (to us) mistake, and he is an innovator so he deserves credit for his intentions, even if !NOT! for his action. I don’t think he gets much sleep if you look at all he gets into. Just sayin’. Because the field work AINT TRIVIAL! Thats how! Thats how data can’t be easily replicated by any schmoe thats got a site open because WHERE’S CLOVIS? Hello? Clearly. So lets move on, and not hold it against our skeptic scientific brethren for their but (t) human lapses, rather we should lovingly guide them along the path, that we may all live longer and happier, with kids and their kids, etc. Unlike poor Mr. and Mrs. Clovis and their whole family. Ouch.

    Funny the list of folks that end up there at that TLE pointer to Raptor. Ranting nut cases. And I know, ‘cause I’m right there in the middle of ‘em! beautiful.

    Anybody, I need a current e-mail for Dr. Napier because the one with star.arm.ac.uk is apparently invalid, and T. Lee E. I need yours too. George if you could help me out there & send mine to TLE – appreciado.

    Every last one of you is out of your mind. Completely out there, farther out than a long range weather predict. Just for the record.

    Oh yeah, so as a lifetime innovator of concept and structure, I have realized that I had to do those (innovative) things by myself. Thats also how I realized I was on the right track to innovation. To leadership. I’d take a look around, and no one else was in that space where I was working. Obsessing. (Like the solid condensate core of the Earth with all else churning outside my own conceptual identity.) So anyway I’d take a look around and I was alone. Thats the chosen path of the innovator. Like a free electron in the conceptual cloud of humanity. Rutherford and Schrödinger would be proud.

    Along those same lines, its good when innovators council laypeople, ultimately good for increasing the chance of Humanity surviving in the long run, because you spread the ‘know how’ and increase the overall brain power through education of the masses, etc. blah blah. Really though, we are all laypeople too, in some element. So to proceed with true humility in view of that fact, and with respect for others equal to or better than our own self respect, is the true path we should each steer toward. Amen.

    I’m still at a conceptual imp-ass as to the YD dating as to impact. But there is the plume and the fall out process that can take years for serious events/series of events. I keep wondering about other things that could tweak the climate, and Dr. Boslough’s suggestion (I believe it was his) of a ring system forming for a number of decades or even hundreds of years, that would have affected incident sunlight levels at the surface, sounds better and better. Gotta step back and look at the entire environment. Governing conditions. Study the imprint. Listen to its music. Imprint records process.

    The process is revealed in the music of the imprint.

    But mostly what’s on my mind, while all of this whatever stuff was going on at and around Earth I’m wondering, like a teenager out past curfew: Where was the moon during all these Shenanigans. Capital S. That stuff was serious. Moon was up there watching. Maybe allied in the effort to throw down some mayhem, direction Earth Lane. Aiding and abetting. We need to interrogate the Moon carefully in this investigation. Treacherous hoodlum. Likely suspect. Questionable pedigree. Serious LACK of any alibi. My big picture spider sense is tingling, and the Moon is like a beacon. It flashes text like the Goodyear Blimp . “ . . . count . . . . craters . . . . count . . . craters”

    TH

  • I won’t be getting into it with TLE. I am not worth his time.

    Sure you are, it’s just that I hold attempts to overturn established science to a higher standard.

    The causation of the Younger Dryas is not yet even well established science, however, general ocean circulation and climate science is well establishedm and is backed up by math and physics that has been around for well over a hundred years now. Hand waving does not suffice for me. Sophisticated computer models based upon a hundred years of ocean observations and well known mathematics and physics does work for me.

    On the other hand, if you’ve got a crackpot idea back up by some hard empirical evidence that can be summed up in a sentence or two then I’d love to hear about it. YD impact is one such idea, but I’d like to hear some crackpot ideas on how such an impact could cause a climate reversal lasting well over a thousand years. That’s where I’m at.

    Fresh water forcing combined with sea ice feedbacks works for me, whereas atmospheric perturbations lasting a decade at most doesn’t, unless such an impact can somehow contribute to fresh water forcing. Thus, I’m back to Nipigon.

    That’s my own personal neurosis, sorry. There are many other alternative explanations for both the hydrogeological and palentological aspects of the Younger Dryas chronozone, but a large impact at Nipigon is the only hypothesis that satisfies both of them. So either one or them is wrong or there is some other crackpot atmospheric idea out there waiting to be elucidated. I would listen. But I am not particularly open to cosmic rays or it’s the sun kind of nuttery that come from WUWT.

  • T. Lee E.

    How about a big comet shot to the moon, with enough stuff scattered to rain on Earth (from different angle and at different times due to different launch conditions from primary Lunar impact) AND cause a ring or some debris structure that lasts for hundreds or tens of hundreds of years casting shadow on Earth’s surface.
    AND
    tweaks atmospheric and and oceanic mass/heat flow in process, just to be sure of long lasting effect.

    I can’t sleep. Mind is swimming with too many astro solutions at once. I need a ‘pensieve’ to detangle.

    Step back and picture the bigger environment. Calibrate to known governing conditions of same.

  • TLeeE

    “…but I’d like to hear some crackpot ideas on how such an impact could cause a climate reversal lasting well over a thousand years”

    This is exactly the thing I’m talking about! I’m shoveling on the crackpot over here. AND – Your not off the hook buddy, you still need to throw a couple out there too!

    Love

    TH

  • Tom Elifritz said:

    I’d like to hear some crackpot ideas on how such an impact could cause a climate reversal lasting well over a thousand years.

    Instead of thinking in the singular as in “an impact”, try thinking in the plural; as in multiple impacts of large clusters of small fragments, as well as all the dust and debris that implies, since that’s what most of the global stratigraphic evidence is pointing to.

  • boiling glass is hot. This delivery sequence (multi impact indicated!) was not mild. Very bad for vacation. All flights grounded.

    TH

  • Hermann Burchard

    George,
    would you say the question of CB age is now answered in view of your hand-cored results from the CB rim near Blackville SC: The Bays are all YDB, 12.9 ka BP.

    This would place a main impact site at Saginaw Bay, according to Mike Davias, his latest estimates (as revised based on smaller total ejecta volume), see his recent comment on TUSK.

    If, judging by the Bays, the Saginaw impact was from the main, huge impactor, then perhaps sites outside of N America with Very High Temperature Impact Melt Products came from minor fragments, but at the same time (within minutes).

  • If we consider images of Linear, or 73P/Schwassmann Wachmann 3, both of which are typical examples of clusters of comet fragments, then we have to recognize the very real possibility that there never was a “main, huge impactor”. But rather, multiple ‘main huge clusters’.

    This is one of those areas where NASA planetary science has their heads in the sand. Because in spite of the fact that we have numerous examples of such objects in short period, elliptical orbits that cross the orbits of all the inner planets, no one has ever attempted to do any numerical modeling of the physics involved in the impact of a dense cluster of comet fragments, and debris, like we see in those two examples.

    The idea that such clusters of icy comet fragments typically exist in such orbits without the occasional celestial train wreck with one of the planets of the inner solar system is ridiculous. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if it hit anyplace with a thin, or nonexistent atmosphere like the Moon, Mars, or Mercury, then you’re going to see a billion years or more worth of small craters appear in the target surface in a matter of seconds.

    But look at that image of linear again, and imagine a dense cluster like that, a couple of hundred miles wide, of icy fragments, dust, and debris, falling into the atmosphere at something like 20,000 to 30,000 feet per second.

    They’ve modeled single bolides, and fragments, to death. But just what do we think happens when stuff like that is falling so close together that only the materials on the leading edge of the cluster is falling into cold atmosphere, and the rest falls into the already superheated impact plumes of the stuff that lead the way, and it just cranks up the heat, and pressure?

    What happens in the atmosphere, and to the ground beneath, when 100% of the kinetic energy, and a significant amount of the mass of a 200 mile wide cluster of comet fragments like that gets translated into heat in the atmosphere in a matter of seconds?

    And what would happen to the world’s climate if the target surface was a mile thick sheet of ice?

  • Awe shucks! I meant to include links to the images of Linear, and 73P/Schwassmann Wachmann 3

    These’ll fix that.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Dennis,
    for years I have been proponent of multiple comet frag impacts, beginning on CCNet, now extinct. Of course Clube & Napier had made this point even earlier. And we all had the SL-9 wake up call in 1994.

    My brief msg, now preceding yours, was mainly to ask George if CB date at YDB is now confirmed by his recent paper.

  • Steve Garcia

    Re crackpot ideas (without many or any numbers), let’s ask these questions as to the effect five 1.5km impacts would have on creating a long-term (>>10 years):
    – How big is the fireball for each? (SL/9′s biggest 5 fragments were between 1km and 1.4 km, and the fireballs in Jupiter’s 2.78g gravity were as big as Earth)
    – What amount of aerosols are put into the troposphere and how long would they stay there, if the circulation stays the same as now?
    – What would happen long term if the Hadley cells and the Intertropical Convergence Zones get disrupted and settle into a 3 or 10 year nuclear winter equivalent? (The ITC convection is really the starting point of all weather/climate. Take that away and how long before it comes back to normal, without enough sunlight getting through the troposphere)?
    – In an all-out nuclear war, with all the world’s nuclear arsenals were exploded, the nuclear winter is modeled to put ~150gT of ‘smoke’ into the atmosphere. The black mat suggests how much smoke was put into the atmosphere by an impact? At least that much? Any impact would have much more capability of putting the aerosols into the troposphere, where they would not be able to be washed out by rain.

    I can see this disruption creating a new climate regime, colder and dryer. And until the aerosols allow sunlight to re-start the ITC convection, the Hadley cells may not even exist at all. Water is a major factor in transporting heat energy. Colder means desert conditions.

    One of the big ice age questions that has not ever been answered is how the ice caps built up in Arctic conditions. It actually takes HEAT to generate the precipitation that dumps snow onto ice fields. Look it up. Cold won’t do it by itself. Cold conditions simply are not conducive to ice sheet accretion. The world may get cold, but that alone will not make ice sheets, especially not ones 2 miles thick. (For one thing, the precip weather would have to rise two miles to add the last of the snow/ice AND carry it several hundreds of miles across the ice sheet. The dew point would not allow the moisture to remain in the clouds; all f it would precip out near the edges.) None of this has ever been worked out satisfactorily.

    All I am doing here is posing questions relating to how climate mechanisms might react to whatever caused the black mat. All of these points/questions are qualitative, in that they discuss “What?” not “How much?” or “How long”. For quantitative we’d need funding, which we at CT are not going to get.

    But I can see it being possible that 5 or so impactors 1.0-1.5 km across would affect the climate much, much more than a nuclear war would. And once affected, the normal workings of the climate cannot be assumed to function. Uniformitarianism as we know it could break down, and once broken down, how long does sunlight falling on aerosols in the troposphere at 3.77 watts per sq meter take before it reverses the damage?

    I DO think that once the damage is repaired (meaning a “normal” amount of sunlight is again reaching the surface), the ITC and Hadley cells would again carry high levels of heat away from the equator, and that the turnaround would be rather quick. How long is that, though? Current thought is that it is only ~10 years, tops. But what parameters are being assumed in that 10-year scenario? I don’t have supercomputers nor modeling capabilities to determine any of this quantitatively, so I can’t answer my own questions here. I also think that existing models will not work – because of the disruption of the convection due to blocked sunlight at the Equator, in the ITC. If the normal mechanisms cease to exist, what happens then? Much of climate is about “regimes” – which are kind of like ruts; once a particular regime sets in, it tends to stay. El Niño/La Niña make up the ENSO. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was only discovered 15 years ago – and NOT by a climatologist or meteorologist, but by a biologist.

    One aspect of this is that the climatologists claimed before the PDO that they had everything covered in their models. It took about a decade before they started incuding the PDO in the models and their thinking. And all that time they kept on assuring us everything was under control. And now that they have the PDO finally included, they act like it was always there from the beginning. Since their models obviously did not have the PDO in the code until about 2005-7 or so – all the while they were assuring us they had it right – it should give us all pause before we accept any climatologist’s claims that an impact would only last X number of years. There may be things like the PDO that they are missing.

    The PDO’s regimes last 10-20-30 years before reversing and then staying in the opposite regime for about as long. Even sunspot cycles have their Maunder Minimum, Spörer Minimum, etc., as well as their Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period – all of which were regimes.

    But can a regime be put in place by an impact? And if so, how? And if so, how long can it hold? The answer is that no one knows.

    Until those questions are asked and answered, yea or nay, we are all in the dark.

    So that is my crackpot idea on the 1200-year duration of the YD. There may be some valid points in it, or maybe not.

    We also cannot look only at the YD onset. The warming at the Bolling onset was every bit as sudden and large. The warming at the YD end was also as sudden and large. Any solution to the YD onset has to also include solutions to those warmings. Right now the YD end is rubbed in our face, because we can’t have a comet impact that warms the world, so what happened 1200 years after the YD onset?

  • Sorry Hermann. I didn’t mean for that to sound like I was coming down on you or anything. In fact, I’m pretty curious as to how the big kids feel about this YDB date for the bays too. But I’m thinkin’ they need to duplicate the result from the same structural location in a number of bays to really pin it down.

    Also, Tom Harris said:

    1) If there was a debris stream on an Earth crossing path that caused YD, then its largely gone now, unless it actually was the Taurid Complex now largely depleted of larger chunks.


    In point of fact, that is exactly the case being made by by using the Taurid Complex as the astronomical model for the YDIH. But there is also huge pile of evidence that comets from the Taurids were the culprits in the Bronze age collapse too.

    Comet Encke is the largest known remaining fragment of the Taurids. And the Earth hasn’t seen the last catastrophic impact from them.

    Your two most pertinent references to where the Taurid Complex fits into the YDIH are:

    D.I. Steel et al. (1991) The structure and evolution of the Taurid Complex 

    and

    W.M. Napier (2010) Paleolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex

    This second paper is the one cited in the Lake Cuitzeo paper by the YDB team as the favored astronomical model for the YD impact hypothesis.

    Once you get on the path of studying the Taurid Complex, and it’s repeated effects on human history there’s a huge reading list. You can Google ‘Coherent Catastrophism’, and take it from there. But I highly recommend Clube & Napier’s ‘The Cosmic Serpent’ (1982), and ‘The Cosmic Winter’ (1991) Also, ‘Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets’ by Duncan Steel & Arthur C. Clark.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Dennis,
    have those books on my desk, read ten years ago. Did mention Duncan to you in my comment [Cosmic Tusk, June 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm, re: Davias Asheville]: Dennis,vthe CB impactor carved out Saginaw Bay, . . . Duncan Steel in his books has details on impact energies . . .

    Still waiting for George to comment on CB dating implication of his above article, PNAS 18 June 2012.

  • Here’s a simple diagram of the orbit of the Taurid Complex.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Turid%20Complex%20Map.png

    During the early phases of the breakup of the Taurid Progenitor object the debris stream would’ve been much more concentrated than it is today. And since the Earth moves along her own orbital path at something like 8.41 times her own width in an hour, the catastrophic passage through the most concentrated part of the debris field that was the YD impact event would’ve only taken about an hour.

    That being said, once all of the primary YD impact zones are identified and confirmed, we should be able to even pin down which side of the planet was facing the impacts, and thus even the time of day it happened.

  • Thanks Hermann,

    One thing most of the big kids back then were leaving out of their thinking, and writing concerning details on impact energies is the potential effects of large dense clusters of small fragments.

    Almost all of the early thinking was still founded on the single bolide model. And that single bolide paradigm was still being relied upon almost exclusively by almost everyone in the impact research community when Firestone 2007 was published. This is why “Where’s the crater?” became the rallying cry of opponents of the YDIH.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Tell it all to the CFD, Dennis! You sound like you may be ready to join me in blaming the Chicago – Peshtigo – Michigan fires of Oct 8, 1871 on a comet debris stream: Multiple barge loads of gravel or silt-like comet frags showering the land, people, creating mega amperage plasma currents capable of fusing an entire yard of pig iron, bring down large stone buildings in seconds according to eye-witnesses.

  • Re:

    “Multiple barge loads of gravel or silt-like comet frags showering the land….”

    Hmmm… A typical barge load is 1,500 tons. Clube & Napier propose that the Earth collided with about 1015 gm of cometary debris in about an hour as the Earth passed through the most concentrated part of the debris stream.

    Giving the weight of a large comet in grams is like giving the distance to the moon in inches. And I don’t know about you, but it’s way too wonky for me to wrap my head around. Their 1015 gm figure works out to something like 1.1 billion tons. And if Linear, and SW-3 are any indicator of average fragment size, and cluster density, suddenly it’s not hard at all to imagine how one impact could trigger a thousand year long impact winter

  • Dangit!

    This thing stripped the superscript tags off that post. That should have been displayed as a exponential. Where ya’ll see 1015 gm, it should read 10^15 gm.

  • How ’bout it George?

    Since this is a science blog, bein’ able to use exponential notation, and/or subscripts would help sometimes.

    And sometimes being able to post a picture would be priceless.

    Anyway to add sup, sub and img to the list of allowable html tags in a coment?

  • Hermann Burchard

    Midwest Fire from Heaven 8 Oct 1871 was n’t Taurid, Dennis, so C&N mass estimate won’t apply.

    Fragments from at least one comet (Biela) due at that epoch. BobK wrote there was another (ten years ago).

    Coming down at cosmic velocities > 10 km/sec scorching with high amperage plasma currents upon a long, wide swath of land from Chicago across Lake Michigan and W coast of Michigan, the state.

    See Wikipedia for “Comet Theory,” first advanced 1883.

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis -

    In point of fact, that is exactly the case being made by by using the Taurid Complex as the astronomical model for the YDIH. But there is also huge pile of evidence that comets from the Taurids were the culprits in the Bronze age collapse too.

    Pardon if my ignorance is showing, but isn’t it a fairly straightforward thing to figure out when the dense part(s) of the TC stream matches up with the Earth’s crossing the stream? I am thinking it would give a cyclicity that should either match up with certain possibly catastrophic times or not. Or maybe it is not as simple as I am imagining it.

  • After almost 13,000 years, not so straight forward as you might think. The orbits of the Taurids do undergo a thing called apsidal precession. And after all this time there are multiple streams to take into account.

    Working out when the most concentrated parts of the different streams should be espected to intersect with the orbit of the Earth is no easy task. But doing so is pretty much the gist of the two papers mentioned above.

    The important thing to keep in mind is that the data collected on the Taurids so far is as good as anything you can dig up with a shovel, and a trowel. And there is enough of that data now for a good astronomer to make those calculations with a fair degree of confidence. Hense, we get papers like ‘Paleolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex’ confidently telling us what kind of object hit us, and where it probably came from.

    Forensically speaking, it’s also important to keep in mind that if you can describe a beast, you can predict what it’s footprints should look like. So the realization that we are probably looking for the planetary scarring of large clusters of small airbursting fragments instead of single bolide, kinetic impact craters goes a long way in the search for relevant planetary scarring from the YD event, as well as some potential bronze age events.

  • Just found more of the Michael Simpson saga on the non-editable Wiki page. I guess he is kind of nuts. Bizarre actually. So let me apologize, but… I still stand by what I said (!)

    Skeptical Raptor is the incarnation of what we are up against – folks who, based on their (supposed) education should be smart enough to be open minded, are instead so ridiculously proud, conceited, insecure, weak spirited, scared, professionally stunted, socially outcast, or otherwise weak willed that they just don’t want anyone else to learn something interesting before they can claim it as their own. In this case the sour grapes philosophy seems to dominate, no matter what logic may be presented. I myself will eventually present an actual cosmic fireball video, recorded AT THE YOUNGER DRYAS IMPACT, that Mr. Simpson will refute because I don’t know anything about cameras. Or because my shoe is untied. Yeah, I know. Pretty bad.

    But that’s what I’m talking about. He just doesn’t want to read the paper or any new evidence. He started his stroll down Bloggy Lane, and his readers followed him. Power position. Just like Kerr. He tried to lead, and we should give him credit. But he believed himself to be the ultimate authority (superiority complex SUPREMO!) and started violating his own supposed standards of practice (did he ever actually follow them himself we wonder?), rationalizing himself to be better than any scientist with an actual new hypothesis about anything.

    Seems he may have been a bit psycho-tainted by the slow rate of medical progress or any chance to conduct his own leading edge research, and therefore to criticize those efforts by others would be his ultimate claim to fame. This way he could out weigh any pH.D. or group of same without ever having to actually DO any of his own research or actually MAKE any value added contribution to the greater body of science or to furthering humanity in any way whatsoever. Now THATS power. Poor guy. Too bad everyone else has to suffer from his neurosis.

    Still I’m thinking maybe conservative Republican payroll to discredit any/all climate related science. Coch brothers. That would be ironic for the skeptical scientist, right?

    Anyway, going on the assumption that Mr. Simpson can actually read (it seems he can type, so I’m wildly ‘hypothesizing’ here), we should still lovingly guide him to read the more recent papers where people of skill actually collect samples of merit and do analysis with guts and form conclusions with spirit. (Almost like magic or something!) For no other reason than he can type, and he does have an audience. Some of my friends actually read him.

    His case will be good practice for the hordes of unbathed that fall in line behind that ill-informed position. The evidence is the key. Once the high temp melt products are linked to specific geochemistries from specific scarring features, things should start to become more clear. I just hope its before the next Tunguska.

    TH

  • TH you’re right
    is that true

    … or worse … If the assumptions are right, my bet is a stream of meteoroids… hypotheses and evidence X evidence and hypotheses …

    The road is long, arduous and exciting at every turn!
    https://sites.google.com/site/cosmopier/impact-craters/palaeolagoon-geometry

    regards
    pierson

  • “Lovingly guide him?” Get real! I put every pertinent paper to date on that list. And he spit on it. Ya’ll can try to proselytize to that silly heathen if you like. But personally I think he’s a demeaning waste of time. I’ve had enough of trying to debate, or convince, self important, close minded folks like him who use the logic and debate skills of a spoiled child to try to bully others with going along with their self assumed expertise, and skeptical points of view; all the while denying the validity of any peer reviewed references that fly in the face of their own confirmation bias.

    For the time being I’m content that the moderators over there gave me the last word in the debate on the talk page. And SkepticalRaptor didn’t come through that debate lookin’ very smart at all.

    But note that the other day I did edit in a link on that list of ‘Confirmatory Evidence’ to this latest paper. And each time a new paper is published I’ll quietly put it on that list too.

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific reference. So it’s all about portraying the “Consensus View” on any given subject. New, paradigm shifting science is too radical to find a place in that perspective.

    But the simple reality is that the scientists we need to convince never use Wikipedia as a valid scientific reference anyway. And if a student tries to use Wikipedia as a reference in an assignment, he’ll probably get the paper back with a nasty comment or two. And the reason for that is painfully obvious: The whole “neutral point of view” they preach about is a fantasy. And in the hopelessly biased attitude of self important editors like SkepticalRaptor we see the reason why.

    Our efforts are spent better in open discussions right here on the Tusk

  • I completely accept that, especially based on the outstanding efforts of yours, of which I am in constant awe.

    Let Michael Simpson be continuously spanked by each new paper, as we know the truth, being able to actually think for ourselves. Mr. Simpson apparently doesn’t seem to have that gift, or is perhaps lacking the motivation to actually use it.

    Thousands of square miles of scorched and seriously melted Earth. Hundreds of cubic kilometers of clean, uniform grain sized sand dumped over several percent of the continental U.S. in a single event, now dated to the YDLB.

    It is very clear, but not at all for the weak of heart or spirt.

    Just ask the Clovis family.

    TH

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>