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, 4 months, and 1 day

CT Post Calendar

April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


Fair Enough: Van Hoesel breaks down YDB science in critical review

Annelies Van Hoesel (Dr. Van Hoesel yet?) recently published an overview of Younger Dryas Boundary Hypothesis in Quaternary Science Reviews. I hear at least one of the YDB authors found it terribly biased against the impact. But it seems to me that she is implicitly admitting that the many obituaries of the YDB impact have been premature. In this game that counts as a win.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: a critical review by George Howard

13 comments to Fair Enough: Van Hoesel breaks down YDB science in critical review

  • Steve Garcia

    As is fairly typical for me, I barely got into this paper before taking exception to something.

    Van Hoesel says i the first sentence that the YDB hypothesis is about multiple impacts/airbursts. I’ve never explicitly seen it say multiples, even if it suggested it. The hypothesis leaves the question open, as far as I know. There may be something in her paper (or other papers) that tells me I’m wrong, but I don’t recall that being an integral part of the hypothesis at all.

    YES, we here discuss multiples – but the people HERE are not part of the hypothesis as much as we are simply closely following developments and rolling it around in our minds.

    And like I argued recently, if we are to use the Shoemaker-Levy 9 multiple impacts on Jupiter as a model, then multipples should be pretty much ruled out, because the S-L/9 impacts were celary at very nearly the same latitude on Jupiter, and if the same rule applies on Earth, then other clear sites would have been noted by now, around the globe at about the latitude of Michigan. I looked around the globe within 1° of that latitude, and there do not seem to be any sites. And those sites would be either inder the ocean or clearly visible, since that part of the Laurentide Ice Sheet was the southernmost of the ice in that period. Other sites would have been clearly exposed to a non-ice impact.

    …Now back to sentence two…

  • Steve Garcia

    Well, sorry, but I couldn’t get past sentence two without getting my dander up again.

    “After the hypothesis was first published in 2007, it gained much criticism, as the evidence presented was either not indicative of an extraterrestrial impact or not reproducible by other groups.”

    This is an outright mischaracterization of the history of the discussion.

    “Not reproducible by SOME other groups,” she should have said. There have been PLENTY of “other groups” that reproduced the evidence. And ONLY the skeptics keep repeating this falsehood. And they are only skeptics befcause they selected samples poorly and failed to follow the protocols laid out in the early YDB papers.

    How many times are they going to repeat this lie?

    Do they even KNOW it is a lie? Have they completely not even read the other papers?

    Perhaps in this paper she explains herself. I am quickly losing patience with her SLOPPY presentation. If not her sloppy work.

    I got her on a short leash as of right now. She is pissing me off. And she has given me every reason to be VERY skeptical of what she has authored.

    . . . stay tuned. . .

  • Steve Garcia

    Okay, round and round we go, and where she stops, nobody knows…

    “In addition we address the timing of the
    Younger Dryas impact, a topic which, despite its importance, has not gained much attention thus far. We
    show that there are three challenges related to the timing of the event: accurate age control for some of
    the sites that are reported to provide evidence for the impact, linking these sites to the onset of the
    Younger Dryas and, most importantly, an apparent age discrepancy of up to two centuries between
    different sites associated with the proposed impact event.”

    Okay let’s get into the question of FALSE PRECISION in dating.

    IntCal04 only lasted 5 years before having to be replaced by IntCal09. Everyone involved with C14 dating in ANY way has to take this to mean that the +/- 30 years or so that is claimed by either IntCal04 or IntCal09 IS NOT THE LAST WORD ON THIS PRECISION.

    When the YDB date changed by 100 YEARS when IntCal09 came out, it has to be obvious that the precision claimed by IntCal04 was BOGUS. I say this with all due respect for the effort and GOOD SCIENCE that has been put into both those calibration curves. I REALLY do respect the scientists and what they have had to do to get us to this point.

    At the same time, a 100 year shift is CLEAR proof that IntCal is a work in progress. A shift 3 times bigger than the claimed precision?

    With evidence like that in front of us, we have to simply say that we DON’T KNOW the exact dating of the YDB evidence.

    Hell, it might shift ANOTHER 100 years in another five years.

    So arguing 100 years or 200 years at this point is like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. We’ve regressed to Galileo’s time.

    At the same time, if van Hoesel wants to argue this, bring it on, Annelies. But we aren’t going to be able to come up with a solid conclusion.

    I think it is highly significant that when IntCal09 came out, the shift was TOWARD merging the dates and not DIVERGING. But that means nothing. Until we get at least two IntCal’s that DO NOT SHIFT, we are trying to hit a moving target. Putzing around with this and trying to make an issue out of it right now is just spinning our wheels. We can all talk till we are blue in the face, and if the next IntCal has another shift, ALL of the current arguments might be rendered null and void.

    +/- 30 years with a 100 degree shift tells us our real precision is greater than our tolerances.

    Right, Annelies?

  • Steve Garcia

    Still haven’t gotten out of the Abstract yet…

    “Although convincing evidence for the hypothesis that multiple synchronous impacts resulted in massive environmental changes at ~12,900 yrs ago remains debatable, we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis cannot fully be explained at this point in time.”

    Nice negative spin, Darlin’, in that last.

    “…we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis cannot fully be explained at this point in time.”

    Only a skeptic would phrase it that way. It can also be phrased THIS way:

    “…we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis cannot fully be REFUTED at this point in time.”

    George, she may be weakening her stance, but she is still fully in the thrall of the boy from the wrong side of the tracks (SIU), Pinter, and his like.

  • Han Kloosterman

    When I studied geology at the Geol. Inst. of Utrecht U., in the 1950s, we were told that the Nordlinger Ries impact crater was a “cryptovolcanic explosion structure”, a volcanic feature without volcano. Words without meaning.
    Since then, the Institute has been upgraded to Inst. of Earth Sciences – please note that geology means Earth Science. That happened all over the world, after the Plate Tectonics revolution: they were so proud of it to have passed through a paradigm shift, just like real scientists, that they had to shout it out, all over the world.

    But now we’re passing through a vastly more important shift, from uniformitarianism to catastrophism, they haven’t noticed it yet. Like people living in 1530, unaware that the Renaissance had started.

    Of course, they make silly mistakes. In Annelies van Hoesel’s paper the Usselo Horizon,
    a windblown layer, is called a soil (p.96, p.106). Why, because Hoek has told her so? A funny kind of soil, with both under and upper surfaces, and without B- and C- horizons.
    After working through 200-odd papers with her left hemisphere, she happens to be unable to recognize a marker horizon in the field, with her right hemisphere. Most of her preoccupation with laboratory dating is a waste of time, it can give us a rough idea, not more – certainly not from samples taken at a depth of 1 or 2 meters, which have undergone bioturbation and worse. Near Hilversum I have seen roots of conifers that had sniffed their way horizontally through the Usselo layer, after food.

    I underestimate modern laboratory methods? Yes, I do. I prefer stratigraphy.

  • Steve Garcia

    Oh, BTW, this: “…we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis cannot fully be explained at this point in time”

    can ALSO be restated as,

    “…we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis CAN fully be explained at this point in time.

    After all, “SOME” means “part of,” so what about the OTHER PART?

  • Robert Grant

    https://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/neutrinos-on-ice/5513179/

    Some new stuff in keeping with Firestone’s idea of the origin of supernova debris wave.

  • Steve; Have I missed something or did Ms Van Hoesel just rehash a lot of previous work and throw in a commentary or two. I sat down and read it twice and it all sounds familiar. Do you or anyone else out there know if Mr Firestone is doing any follow up reasearch in this area?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Steve –

    The part that bothers me is that they keep referring to Firestone and Kennett’s publication, qiven that I published in 2006.

    Firestone is a much easier target than I am.

    As far as the dating goes, once again,the impact event was coincidental with the Allerod, not the YD, which follows 1,000 years later. The continued mistatement here of the climate periods will only confuse the argument more.

    What it will take to end this argument will be the location of undeniable astroblemes. If one pursues the distribution of impactites, they will center on these structures.

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim -

    van Hoesel’s paper was a summarizing paper. That kind doesn’t include any original work, just an attempt to put things in perspective. I myself think that kind of paper shouldn’t be accepted by journals, since they ARE only rehashes.

    In non-controversial topics they do no harm. In controversial topics, however, they can be simply a person or group on one side trying to spin the results and characterizing (or mischaracterizing) the work by the “other” side.

    As I see it, it is a long version of a rebuttal submittal to a journal. Rebuttals are usually limited to one page (as I have seen them), so by doing an entire paper, they get to hold the floor for a longer period.

    I think they should be banned. I thikn if the other people want to rebut in more than one page, let them go out and do their own damned field work.

    In the YDB debate the Daulton Gang (which we can expand to include van Hoesel, Boslough, and Pinter) has done almost NO original work. All they do is go through the pro-YDB papers and snipe at their heels like mongrels.

  • Steve Garcia

    Ed -

    “Firestone is… than I am” The world does not revolve around you.

    Get over your egocentricity. Please.

    As far as the dating goes, most people disagree with you. They are entitled to THEIR opinion, not yours.

  • E.P. Grondine

    The author glides by the actual data on the mega-fauna extinction.

    Its 43 species across many continents, independent of human population.

    Further, mammoth 14C death dates have 2 clusters, one of which is at 10,850 BCE.

  • Steve Garcia

    I had commented above on this staement of van Hoesel:

    “Oh, BTW, this: “…we conclude that some evidence used to support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis cannot fully be explained at this point in time”

    I slipped and missed pointing out that she cannot explain it at this point – within her paradigm. She refuses to acknowledge any validity to the thinking of others who DO have an explanation, every bit as supported by the evidence as her own paradigm – but she refuses to consider that her paradigm may not be correct.

    With followers of outdated paradigms this is common – inability to change their underlying assumptions, in the face of evidence that doesn’t FIT.

    She is talking about it not FITTING, not that there are no explanations. But perhaps with this paper she is beginning to soften her calcified thinking. There does seem to be a crack there, since she uses the word “fully.” That MAY say that she thinks we have AN answer, even if we don’t have it 100% correct. Well, if so, she can join all of us, because we all KNOW that we don’t have all the answers – but that we ARE on the right track. A better track than her old school thinking.

    (BTW, I would think that THAT might be stick in the craw of any scientist more than anything else – to have people out there that think you are behind the forefront.) Especially when there are lay people who are also ahead of them on the curve.

    That is not to say that any of are here because it is new. We are here because we think that the overall YDB hypothesis it is correct. Finding out that it isn’t just correct in the “overall” but in the details, too – that is exciting.

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>