Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 3 months, and 3 days

Common culture embraces the Younger Dryas Boundary theory

  • pyromancer76

    Steve, mantle plumes as per conventional science might be largely a myth (not completely, just largely). The asthenosphere might be more complex and creative of heat and magma. See mantleplumes.org.

  • Steve Garcia

    Okay, thanks, Trent.

    No idea exactly what “moderation” is on Wiki. But if that is what they had, that is what they had. But moderation suggests what they actually DO call a “controversial subject”. No idea why that one would be controversial. Maybe some of the alternate people edited in some Velikovskian or Electric Universe or some such assertions and the academics had a hissy fit.

    If so, it is typical Wikipedia, to let the academics’ emotions run the show.

  • Steve Garcia

    pyromancer76 –

    Yeah, those are the geologists I am talking about. You know about them, too? Cool.

    As I understood it, you are right – not completely a myth but partly. As I read the skeptics before. It SOUNDS like a fascinating subject, actually. And the repercussions could be far-reaching for the geological paradigms including plate tectonics.

    The arguments were a bit over my head, a bit too technical and subtle for me, and I decided I didn’t have time to put thought into it at the time. Maybe some day I will. And it sounded also like it was going to take them all a long time to sort it out, one way or the other.

    But the mantle plume skeptics said that they’d been skeptical a long time before going public about their doubts.

    A 2012 book review (apparently) said this, which I think is pertinent to the discussion of the African features:

    The plate tectonic theory provides rational answers to these questions, but still a significant number of volcanoes remain for which the answers are not straightforward. Most of them are located within oceanic and continental plates. They involve some very productive volcanoes, such as in Hawaii and the Réunion islands, but also the small-volume basaltic volcanoes of many monogenetic volcanic fields. The ultimate reason for the long-lasting but intermittent volcanism in the latter, for example in Arizona and Nevada in the USA, in the
    Michoacán-Guanajuato region in Mexico, around Auckland in New Zealand and in the Eifel and the Pannonian Basin in Europe, is still unresolved…

    I think it might be necessary to add to that list the LDG-area features in Africa, if they are, in fact, volcanoes.

    (In several ways, as I’d noted, they DO look like the volcanoes here in what that reviewer called the Michoacán-Guanajuato region in Mexico, and their dispersal is also reminiscent of the spread of the ones here).

  • Trent Telenko

    >>it is typical Wikipedia, to let the academics’ emotions run the show.

    It is not academics.

    It is Wikipedia.

    “Chieftain” — one of the major contributors at the “World of Tanks” web site — ran into some really obscure Wikipedia article citation rules because he cited a real document from the US National Archives stating that a posted Wikipedia article on an armored fighting vehicle was wrong.

    His article contribution got rejected for reasons amounting to most other people didn’t have access to the document he cited.

    Repeat after me — Wikipedia article are not reliable sources.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    Not the worst rule of thumb in the world, and one repeated millions of times a week.

    Wikipedia is FINE (in spite of my own disrespect of their policies and internal cops) – as long as the subject is not controversial. But definitely use Wiki at the risk of using crap info. Which is why it should generally only be used as a starting point, or if one apologizes up front for using Wiki as a source.

  • Trent’s right.
    In fact, in mostmost college courses nowadays don’t consider Wikipedia a trustworthy source. As a Wiki editor myself I’ve butted heads with the hem more than once.

    The biggest problem there is that a true Expert on any given subject is disallowed from doing edits on that subject because it is assumed they will write their own cognitive biases into their edits.

    So Wikipedia is only useful as a place to begin an information search. You should never rely on them to be a an authority on anything.

  • David L Ulrich

    I really somewhat have trouble with “editors” who go by the name of “internet guardian”… and I do use wiki but really only to see what their sources are.

    And I love the comment made on one posting that went something like “Dr. Richard Firestone, a known fringe scientist of questionable expertise, has published a book on……

  • David L Ulrich

    rule of thumb for me…

    when “wiki” trashes something, a person usually should check it out as “wiki” will probably be “misleading”. A person should look at what they did to Scott Wolter and Albert Goodyear and Christopher Hardaker, to name just few….

    http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/what-we-do/information/exhibits/peo/pre-clovis/

    do I need to mention the name of that college professor (SMU) who has graced the pages of this forum with his “research”…..

  • Steve Garcia

    Dennis – That is pretty much what I said, too. So we all agree.

    David (1:11 am) – Yep, it isn’t bad for looking at their sources. And, Dennis, yes, even THAT should be only as a starting point.

    David (1:30pm) – (Sorry if this diverts…) What kind of a freaking article is THAT? ONE paragraph, and it took TWO people to author it?

    That link claims that someone (unnamed) says humans might have been in the Americas at 40,000 ya or 100,000 years ago:
    “Several are thought to be more than 40,000 years old, and a few are argued to be hundreds of thousands of years old.”

    No one I have ever heard of has stated anyone was in the Americas 100,000 years ago. This sounds a WHOLE LOT like a straw man argument – putting up some mysterious unnamed people as saying things that THESE authors say they said – but did anyone actually say that? Or are these authors simply trying to ridicule any side that doesn’t say what they say.

    I mean, I could have added to their article, “And others are thought to have been with Santa Claus at the North Pole 250,000 years ago,” and it doesn’t add one whit to the discussion.

    The following summary paper from 2005 lists the modern humans found in Africa (195,000ya), Europe (40,000ya), and South Asia (35,000ya). So anyone putting modern humans in the Americas at even 40,000ya (much less 100,000ya) would be really be putting their butts on the line.

    Cooper et al. (2005) Early Modern Humans, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:207-30 http://crcooper01.people.ysu.edu/trikhaus%202005.pdf.

    However, all we have about those dates are these two authors and their un-sourced assertions about what others say.

    My guess is that they read it on Rense.com, and who cares about THAT?

    My mind boggles at why those two bothered writing that article, It says nothing, and it sure as hell doesn’t say it with anything behind it. They mention, but don’t say anything specific about, vague “flakes”, vague “radiocarbon dates”, vague “other types of chronometric dates”, and vague “ages of geological contexts”.

    If I was a science post-grad instructor, I’d throw those two out of the program. I think most high school sophomores would be embarrassed to have written it and submitted it.

    archaeologysouthwest.org should hide their heads in shame at having accepted such a sloppy and inexact article.

  • Steve Garcia

    OOPS!

    I put in some filler dates and had intended to fill in more accurate ones before posting that comment!

    “The following summary paper from 2005 lists the modern humans found in Africa (195,000ya), Europe (40,000ya), and South Asia (35,000ya)” should read:

    “The following summary paper from 2005 lists the modern humans found in Africa (195,000ya), Europe (37,570ya), and South Asia (30,000ya).”

  • David L Ulrich

    just watched a news blurp about ‘wiki’….the young lady ‘said’ they get 1/2 billion hits… and she ‘said’ they try to screen all posting ‘very carefully’.. but she did say they are ‘cautious’ with ‘new scientific’ work…

    that would be my first thought also (hahahahahhahah)

  • David L Ulrich
  • Cevin Q

    Steve,

    I am going to have to call that last reply set a “rant” and a surprisingly uninformed one from you.

     In response to the paper David posted a link to, when that presentation was put together, the authors were essentially committing archeological heresy, to suggest a substantive pre Clovis population.

     

     In the list of sites#1 I’m am not familiar with, but #2, Burnham OK, mammoth kill site 50+k ,

    3)Calico hills, Well then, Calico is is to American archeology just as Younger Dryas Event theory is, an abundance of evidence that is summarily ignored, with the detractors relying on nitpicking the small details using flawed and many times fallacious arguments.

     Calico hills, Manix lake and the China lake site should all be grouped together as they are reasonably close to each other, Manix and Calico are right next to each other.

    I used to be very very very skeptical of Calico, until I spent most of my free time for the better part of a month tracking down and reading all of the available information on the site, and it radically changed my view.

     Homonins have been visiting the quarry there for a possible 200k years, dates from the 100+k range are solid, and artifacts at those levels are still in situ, for anyone who want to do field work.

     It is the site of the oldest known hearth outside of Africa, one pit yielded quartzite tools and debitage, along with yellow ochre, neither of which is local nor found in adjacent pits.

     I have an aquaintence that has worked a site in the Mojave that has dates ranging from the ydb going back 40k with solid occupation levels 17-20k years.

     

    6)China lake has has a pre Clovis and Clovis layer,  pre Clovis is securely dated at 16k and it has a YD boundary layer with Clovis above it.

     24) Listed as Tranquility, likely should be Wittt, the two are about 15-20miles apart. Originally the tranquillity burials were thought to be very ancient 25-40k based on the very archaic morphology, but have subsequently been redated to 6-10k , while Witt has verifiable occupations at 15k  As evidenced by a human femur, found within a shellfish midden that has dates going back 62k years. The midden is a quarter of a mile long 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, all made out of quarter sized freshwater mussels, that would take a very long time. Clovis shows up here 600 years after the YDB event.

     Things have changed in the field tremendously since this presentation was put together.

    Meadowcroft, topper and cactus hill are all missing, all of which have securely dated pre Clovis occupation going into deep antiquity.

     Sites all through south America are giving dates in excess of 20k some as much as 40.

     There is good evidence that the people who made the haskett, agate basin, sluiceway/mesa points, found from the great basin to the north slope of Alaska, older south to younger north , were northern migrating descendents of the El jobo tradition from South America.

     Oh I forgot, the 25k old midden recently found in Monterey county, disarticulated mammals, with split long bones, waterfowl, fresh and saltwater shellfish several miles inland from the coast.

     And the central cal site from a couple of years ago that has dates from 17-24k that produced mammoth, horse, camels and dogs, not Coyotes or wolves or foxes, but dogs.

     Now the second part of the rant about the 2005 paper, the authors were way ahead of the curve on that one. The model of humans assimilating into or be being assimilated by existing archaic populations is exactly what is being shown by recent work.

     Some of the split times are way off from modern work, 

    First split in Ydna lines A0-A00, 225-320k years ago

    Native American split from Eurasians 125+k maybe 175k, earliest “Europeans” and native Americans have common ancestor or native Americans are the common ancestor.

     Native americans have the highest levels of Neanderthal ancestry, and substantial denisovan ancestry, but there is a cline between the two, with some populations leaning more to one that the other.

     The assertion that modern African are the product of a back migration has been substantially reinforced in the last couple of years, as all africans show some Eurasian ancestry. 

    That south Asian date of 30 something k years, even when the paper was written is ludicrous, modern humans were already tuna fishing in PNG, and had spread to Australia and all of oceana by 40 k years, where they assimilated and were assimilated by the indigenous archaics, the denisovans.

  • Steve Garcia

    cevinQ –

    Your point is heard, but I read that article completely different than you do.

    Though they list those sites, their text (as brief and vague as it is) ends saying that the (vague and unspecific) assertions of unnamed scientist (perhaps) are not good enough for “many archaeologists). The insertion of some un-sourced claim of humans in the New World at 100,000 years ago is, in itself, fodder for ridiculing the people (whoever they may be) whom the “many archaeologists” disagree with.

    Your point that “when that presentation was put together, the authors were essentially committing archeological [sic] heresy, to suggest a substantive pre Clovis population,” I don’t get, because there is no date on the article, so I have no date to go by, nor do you (unless you know when it was submitted). And nothing that they say spells out a “substantial pre-Clovis population”, either”, as I read it.

    I see nothing but the list itself as being pro- or anti-, and even that is doubtful.

    But in general, there seems to be no point to the article – except the closing sentence which says that many don’t agree with any such things. (But as I said, the thing is so vague about EVERYTHING that who knows WHAT the purpose of the article is.)

    Call it a rant if you wish. But my point was, “WTF was this even ABOUT? And which side are they taking?” I can’t tell, even now, after reading it for the 6th time. Without any specifics about ANYTHING, it is a useless article that says nothing. That still is my take on it.

    But I WILL correct one point: CALICO is, actually, a site that is argued to be 200,000 years old, to be honest. But none of the others are. The article should, IMHO, point that only one was. And if they were going to include CALICO, they should have included Valsequillo, too, near Puebla, which was dated by the geologists in the 1960s at 240,000 years old.

  • Steve Garcia

    Thanks for all of the info, though what you present is too sketchy for me to follow some of it.

    I did not read past your opening line before responding to it. Which is why I talked about Calico – I didn’t see your mention before commenting on it. My bad.

    The rest is good stuff. Thanks much. But if you could flesh them out, I for one would appreciate it.

    Had the article mentioned dates in the 15,000-25,000ya range I wouldn’t have said much. 40,000ya is a stretch, and Calico is at 200,000, not 100,000. Why they would mention those ages – 40kya and 100kya – instead of the others I wouldn’t have a clue.

    The Ydna split before 200kya is interesting. That is before the earliest early modern man dating I’ve found, which is in Ethiopia at 196kya. On the surface that seems like a contradiction – having modern human DNA splitting before early modern humans are said to have existed.

    Your last comment, about Asia, I pretty much agree with. Other sources I’ve found recently showed as much as 46kya in Borneo. I do not know why that linked paper showed such conservative ages, but SOME people think those are really the oldest. I DID know about the older ages, but presented the conservative ones.

  • Barry Weathersby

    Now you’ve done it! I have Calico on the brain again. Thought I had let that ship sail. Got interested in Leakey in the 60’s… even dragged my wife to hear him speak about it in the 70’s. Now I’m going to go check the place out myself… as if I could really tell anything by looking at it.

  • Steve Garcia

    The Tranquility shellfish midden is totally interesting. Dating to 62kya at the lowest levels it is clear evidence of human occupation at that time. How can anyone possibly argue differently? That otters did it? Raccoons? Bears? Not possible.

    The more interesting part of that is that the linguists examining the spread of languages in the Americas say that there is more diversity in NA than can be explained in the short time humans have been here. Not only that, but they say that the language diversity is greater than in Europe or Asia or Africa and therefore suggests that humans began in the Americas, not in Africa. Like the mtDNA and Ydna splittings/mutations, they assume things like how long between one language and the next. And maybe all three have errors in their assumptions, but they all do their best to make the assumptions as solid as possible. But since the two DNAs and the languages come to different conclusions at least one of them is wrong. It’s too early to tell which, IMO.

    But the shellfish midden I think DOES extend humans in the Americas back farther than that – because Tranquility and Witt are deep in the interior, over the Rockies. It should have taken at least 3,000 years for peoples to have wandered inland that far. I mean, 62kya will be resisted like HELL, though…LOL

    It’s kind of like seeing the high-tech architecture at Gobekli Tepe at 12,000 years ago. The fish midden wasn’t built in a day, and you have to go back to the beginning. WIth a fish midden that is direct and easy, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. With Gobekli Tepe, that level of architecture wasn’t developed in a day, so the ruins there argue for humans to be building structures for thousands of years earlier (and they DO have portions of the immediate area that they are pretty sure date to earlier. How much earlier, based solely on the level of architecture? Orthodox archaeology says that it took from 10,000 BC to about 3,500 BC for the Sumerian culture to evolve. So do we put the start of the Gobekli Tepe development at 6,500 years earlier than 12,000 ya? Probably something less, but certainly 1,000 years earlier at a minimum.

  • Steve Garcia

    Barry – “…as if I could really tell anything by looking at it.”

    Like we haven’t ALL had that experience! I could name a dozen places I’ve done that… LOL

  • jim coyle

    Gentlemen; I wasn’t sure where to put this comment but this seemed as close to subject as anyplace. I live in the Chicago area and this we are having the wettest and coolest summer on record. 2 weeks ago I received over 20 inches of rain in just over a week and we haven’t seen but a hand of 80 degree days this summer. Interestingly the weather people keep telling us about how the forest fires in NW Canada are bringing a smoke pall over the entire Midwest creating very hazy days and nights. Some days you can even smell the wood smoke. If a couple of forest fires in the Northwest Territories can drop temps 3000+ miles away about ten degrees just think what a comet that eats up a piece of Michigan could do globally!! Just a little perspective.

  • Cevin Q

    Jim,
    We have had our share of fires around here, and some huge ones in last couple of years. And a big one can throw enough smoke to cause some atmospheric cooling without leaving a measurable carbon deposit.
    Image how how big a fire would have to be to leave an ash layer an inch thick sixty miles upwind.
    That is the ash layer on Santa Rosa island off of California. The early Holocene layers at Witt overlap the oldest burial at tranquillity.
    And that poster led me to a crap load of new/old info, especially the work of Carter, in San Diego.
    Carterrs work backs up McNiesh’s theory of a very early pebble tool culture in so cal.
    Also since then I have read a paper, pining the minimum surface age of rocks at the various calico excavations, at more than 100k, across three distinct dating methods.
    I’ll track a citation down for that.

    Steve,
    I missed previous reply to me, some how. Yes the presence of a shell midden , with human remains, the remains of nearly every indigenous mammal, plus most of the indigenous fishes, clearly shows a human hand at work.
    The two sites are about 15 miles apart on the end of a dead end slough at the end of side channel of the San Joaquin river.

  • Cevin Q

    How’d that happen
    Here is the post in the proper order.

    Jim,
    We have had our share of fires around here, and some huge ones in last couple of years. And a big one can throw enough smoke to cause some atmospheric cooling without leaving a measurable carbon deposit.
    Image how how big a fire would have to be to leave an ash layer an inch thick sixty miles upwind.
    That is the ash layer on Santa Rosa island off of California.

    Steve,
    I missed previous reply to me, some how. Yes the presence of a shell midden , with human remains, the remains of nearly every indigenous mammal, plus most of the indigenous fishes, clearly shows a human hand at work.
    The two sites are about 15 miles apart on the end of a dead end slough at the end of side channel of the San Joaquin rive

    The early Holocene layers at Witt overlap the oldest burial at tranquillity.
    And that poster led me to a crap load of new/old info, especially the work of Carter, in San Diego.
    Carterrs work backs up McNiesh’s theory of a very early pebble tool culture in so cal.
    Also since then I have read a paper, pining the minimum surface age of rocks at the various calico excavations, at more than 100k, across three distinct dating methods.
    I’ll track a citation down for that.

  • jim coyle

    Thank you Cevin for backing my observation. If A few small fires (2-3,000,000)acres can effect Chicago, the concept of a North American conflagration on the globe is mindboggling. Nuclear winter has nothing on this! I’ve also read a couple of articles that state that during the YDB period the mountain glaciers in the Southern hemisphere were actually melting. Small periods of retreating and advancing with more retreat. So it appears that the northern hemisphere carried most of the cooling from the event but why did it cause the ocean currents to change and the southern hemisphere to warm up some?

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim – Nice connection you made on that cool summer. My kids in Chicago have commented on the cold, but I hadn’t realized anyone is calling it the coldest summer ever. In my time around Chicago, I saw some DAMNED cool early summers. In about 1978, I could use the community pool 3 times all summer. Yeah, anecdotal. But even some of my last summers there – 2010 comes to mind – were very cold.

    Stuff I know about connects it all mainly to the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation”, which ties alternate cold and warm phases in the northern Pacific sea surface temps to decades-long droughts and heat waves and then decades-long cool phases in N America and N Europe. These phases are known to go back before any recent human-CO2 increases, so the PDO is certainly not caused by anthropogenic global warming.

    It’s good to pay attention to the forest fires as you are doing. The particulates definitely are known to cause cooling.

    NOW think about continent-wide forest fires and how bad they must have been to lay down black mats averaging 10 cm (4″) thick all the way to Belgium and Syria – black mats that survived rain, snow and erosion for 13,000 years.

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ – Yeah, black mats UPWIND means 40,000 km DOWNWIND.

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ – Calico – did McNeish and Carter work with Louis Leakey there? Alvarez’s work was covered in a book I read, but those names don’t ring a bell.

    Ah! I found it… Carter did the earlier work in the 1950s that Leakey was following up on in beginning in 1964. Leakey had long suspected that Asians had come to the Americas long before Clovis.

    . . .

    The pebble tools are interesting in more ways than one. Dennis Stanford, in looking in NE Asia for Clovis tools, to find a possible predecessor technology there, found ZERO Clovis artifacts but he DID find that the extant technology in NE Asia was pebble tools. This absolutely ties in with Leakey’s thinking. Was that what Carter thought, too?

    I have no problem myself with pebble tools in California at 60 kya. If, as everyone thinks, everyone was nomads before the advent of agriculture at about 10,000 BCE, then nomads go wherEVER. Why anyone thinks that they wouldn’t travel along the coast at ANY time before 10,000 BCE baffles me. Wanderers wander – that’s what they DO.

    If incontrovertible evidence has not been found yet of such early wanderings, that says more about the unlikelihood of the survival of remains, the very few people who are ALLOWED to go into archaeology who can do research in the field, and the FEW people who lived in the world ANYWHERE tens of thousands of years ago than it does about people entering the New World. Especially when people NEEDED to live within VERY short walking distances of water sources, those very water sources also would have accelerated decay, animals scavenging, and washing silt (filled with bacteria) over the bones and artifacts. It is NOT a coincidence that most remains found are in arid climates – which in itself skews the record BADLY.

  • Steve Garcia

    No idea where would be the best place to post this….

    New Horizons: Spacecraft data boosts Pluto’s size” – http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33513905

    It seems that Pluto is bigger than they had expected it to be, if only by a little bit. I don’t think it is enough to get them to reinstate it as a planet, but…

    “Pluto has just been found to be ever so slightly bigger than we thought, having a diameter of 2,370km.
    The measurement was made by the New Horizons probe which is just about to flyby the dwarf world…

    …But perhaps the main consequence from this result is what it does for Pluto fans, because it finally settles the debate over which is the bigger – Pluto or Eris?
    The latter’s discovery in 2005, with its comparable girth, were partly responsible for getting Pluto demoted from full planet status in 2006. However, this new result indicates that Pluto really does have the upper-hand, if only by about 30km in terms of diameter…

    …The probe will pass just 12,500km above the dwarf planet on Tuesday at 11:50 GMT (12:50 BST; 07:50 EDT).”

    So, we have had a couple of very cool probe missions that are going on right now, what with New Horizons here added to the Philae probe on 67P, as the comet has been approaching the Sun.

    Nice.

  • CevinQ

    Steve,
    here is the conclusions of the 2011 paper on surface ages at calico
    “6. Conclusions
    The 10Be TCN concentrations in stream sediments in the Calico
    Hills show that basin-wide erosion rates range from 19 to 39 m/Ma,
    with an average of 30.5±6.2 m/Ma. Surface boulders have
    10Be TCN ages that range from 27 ka to 198 ka. This wide range of ages probably
    reflects significant erosion of the Calico Hills. However, the oldest TCN
    age (198±21 ka) likely places a minimum limit on age of the Yermo
    Deposits. Depth profile ages at four locations within the study area
    have minimum ages that range from 31 to 84 ka, but when corrected
    for erosion the surfaces have ages ranging 43 to 139 ka. These data
    support the view that the surfaces on the Yermo Deposits likely
    formed during the Late Pleistocene to latest Middle Pleistocene. This
    age has important implications for interpreting the context of the
    artifact/geofacts (Haynes, 1973) that occur within the deposits, which
    might suggest very early human occupation of North America (c.f.
    Marshall, 2001
    ). The new ages and erosion rates provide a framework
    for future paleoenvironmental and landscape evolution studies in this
    region and in other semi-arid environments.”

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222706024_Surface_ages_and_rates_of_erosion_at_the_Calico_Archaeological_Site_in_the_Mojave_Desert_Southern_California

    One of the problems is that anthropologists in the past have based everything about generalized foragers and hunter/gatherers, two completely different life styles, on the San of Africa.
    The San live in an impossibly marginal environment and needed to move around far more than has now shown of average hg’s or foragers.

    All of these very early sites are on lake shores or seaside.

  • CevinQ

    Oh Yah,
    while doing anthro research I found that our friend Pinter, is a very vocal opponent of a substantial pre clovis horizon, arguing that the round rock lined features, found on Santa Rosa island are not hearths but are caused by natural fires, h has also argued that the carbon deposits( black mats) on santa rosa are also natural fires. So I guess, Mother Nature was busy in pre clovis times, arranging rocks into circles, in caves and at cliff bases or overhangs, and starting fires in them, that vitrified the soil inside the rock ring but not out, then later on she reversed the winds so that fires on the mainland could coat the islands with a layer of soot. Soot by the way that carries forms of carbon you cant make in a average natural fire.

  • Steve Garcia

    CevinQ – Nobody here has a very high opinion of Pinter, and these positions he holds are not going to change any minds.

    Like I’ve said before, S Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC) is the laughing stock university in the entire Midwest, if not the entire country. It is the easiest, lowest quality, lowest reputation state school in Illinois, by far. I have no idea why anyone who values his/her career and reputation would hire on there. As such, one MUST put Pinter’s opinion up there with high school teachers.

    You are catching on, it seems. Pinter is no mental giant.

    The old adage goes, “Those who can’t do, teach.” But the corollary is, “Those who can’t even teach, hire on at SIUC.”

    He was prominent in skepticism regarding the Harvard paper, “Large PT Anomaly in the Greenland Ice Core Points to a Cataclysm at the Onset of the Younger Dryas” that George posted here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/155450332/Large-Pt-anomaly-in-the-Greenland-ice-core-points-to-a-cataclysm-at-the-onset-of-Younger-Dryas

    A teacher at the lowest college in the country vs someone at Harvard… Just how did THAT work out, Mr Pinter?

    I should probably back off. Pinter is just too easy a target.

  • Steve Garcia

    Akkk! That is one of the Scribd links that got erased.

    Here is the PNAS link (full paper): https://faculty.unlv.edu/wpmu/shuang/files/2014/08/Petaev-et-al-2013.pdf

  • jim coyle

    Steve; just back from being off from work all weekend. Just worked all weekend at home. Another concept about the Canadian fires is that all the particulate they dumping into the atmosphere is also partially responsible for the hellaious rains this summer. In a 1.5 week period in June I received over 20 inches of rain, close to 30″ for the month. I’m waiting for the hill I live on the slide the 1.5 mile into the Kankakee River. The one morning we had 5.25″ in 1 hr. I my 65 yrs I’ve never seen rains like this and the intensity, frequency of storms is definitely increasing. The general patterns seem to be the same so the only thing that is different is the smoke particulate to make rain drops. I still haven’t gotten around to installing that mapping site to try and align my impact points. I do need to do that so I can get on with the rest of the piece, just no damn time.

  • Trent Telenko

    Steve Garcia,

    Stuff like the Chicago soot isn’t new.

    I visited the SF bay area in the summer of 1998 from Texas and got to breath a lot of Central American soot on both ends that lowered what should have been 100 Degree F weather in California to the upper 80’s – lower 90’s.

    See:

    Central American fires spew soot over Texas; U.S. sends Mexico aid
    EXAMINER NEWS SERVICES
    Published 4:00 am, Saturday, May 16, 1998

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Central-American-fires-spew-soot-over-Texas-U-S-3088692.php

    “MEXICO CITY – The United States has started assisting Mexico in the fight against a devastating series of forest fires. The blazes have spewed a 1,000-mile plume of smoke stretching from Central America to Texas, California and other southern states, according to Mexican authorities.

    The fires, which have killed at least 47 firefighters and civilians, have produced “the worst smoky haze event in the southern United State ever,” an Environmental Protection Agency official said Friday.

    As many as 9,000 fires are believed burning in southern Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, some started by farmers to clear fields for planting and others attributed to arson. More than 36,000 people are fighting the fires in southern Mexico, according to the Mexican government.

    Uncontrolled fires were first reported in central and northern Mexico, some close to Mexico City, from December through February. Since April, fires have raged in the more humid regions, areas rarely touched by fires but sparked by the clearing of fields. Fires are currently burning out of control in the states of Veracruz, Tabasco, Chiapas and Oaxaca in southern Mexico.

    Complicating the problem were eruptions from Guatemala’s Pacaya volcano, which began spewing 1,000-foot columns of ash and smoke into the wind currents blowing northward along the Gulf Coast toward Mexico and Texas.”

  • Steve Garcia

    I ran across this article about moving asteroids:

    “End of the world plan: scientists to nudge asteroid off course as practice for protecting the Earth” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/end-of-the-world-plan-scientists-to-nudge-asteroid-off-course-as-practice-for-protecting-the-earth-a6675041.html

    This is a plan to send a spacecraft to an asteroid by 2020, to intercept the asteroid by 2020, and see what we can learn. This makes good engineering sense – use what we have to see if it does what we think it can do.

    This, I think, is just exactly what we should be doing at this time. We have what we think are technologically feasible methods of deflecting asteroids or comets. And we THINK we know what their make-up is. But we don’t know exactly for sure, either one.

    I like that they are sending it FAR out – two years out – because, as we all know, the earlier we mitigate an actual threatening asteroid by deflection, the easier it is to change the course enough to miss Earth.

    It is an obligation for our generation to DO this – to actually LEARN how to do this, because we are the first generation to have the capacity to stop an extinction level event. If we screw this opportunity up, mankind will always be starting over from scratch – always be blown back to the Stone Age.

    Orthodox science now considers that our history has been a linear ascent, up from nothing, and that this ascent has never happened before. This despite the evidence of civilizations in the very remote past that were capable of some technological achievements that were more or less equal to things we do now. I refer to the megalithic cities and sites around the world and some of their incredible stone work. The orthodoxy misreads these as having been done by people working with copper chisels and granite balls being dropped many millions of times to work stone. Christopher Dunn, for one, has shown how inadequate such orthodox thinking is.

    So, if there is ANY evidence of high technology of ANY kind that existed in the past, the orthodoxy is busted, and our history is, therefore, NOT a linear ascent but an interrupted history. With SOME forensic evidence of the YDIH now in hand (no matter HOW much a small group of skeptics thinks otherwise), we appear to have evidence from TWO angles that humankind has experienced an extinction level event before. For one, we have sites with incredible stone work, in most cases far beyond the capacities of the aboriginal societies that Europeans found. Secondly, we have the evidence in nanodiamonds and other impact materials.

    The lesson, it seems, is that it appears to have happened BEFORE. And if it did, we are SORELY obligated to prevent it happening to US.

    And the way to do it is logically, step by step. We don’t want to end up like all the End of the World movies, in which we have to take a flyer on some un-tried method. We have the technology, and we have the people, and we have the TIME – to do it RIGHT.

    I see this spaceraft project as being a logic and hugely important step toward being able to do it anytime we need to – and to know that it will do the job. Sooner or later SOME such body will come at us. It might be in 100 years or 10,000 years, but it WILL happen. Every crater on every solid body in our solar system tells us it DOES happen. Shoemaker-Levy 9 tells us also that it happens on UN-solid bodies, too – leaving no evidence on those that comets and asteroids DO hit planets.

    If we pretend that we are some blessed planet that is immune to impacts, that is to be ostriches with our heads in the ground.

    THIS spacecraft is IMPORTANT. We are doing the right thing, and at the right time.

    Thank the stars that Chelyabinsk hsa people taking this seriously.