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, 11 months, and 29 days

Recent Comments

CT Post Calendar

December 2014
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


Rise of the Zombie: Harvard Discovers Evidence for Major Earth Impact at Younger Dryas Initiation (~12,875 BP)

 

20130214-195722.jpg

Update: As published in PNAS in July, 2013 

“The [Younger Dryas Boundary] theory has reached zombie status,” said Professor Andrew Scott from the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway. “Whenever we are able to show flaws and think it is dead [!], it reappears with new, equally unsatisfactory, arguments. [Sniff!]

- “January 30, 2013, Royal Holloway Press Release two weeks before the Harvard discovery.

Among other causes, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis [4] is based on observations and is testable. A C-rich layer, exposed in many sites in North America and Europe at or near the YD boundary, is enriched in magnetic grains with Ir, magnetic microspherules, charcoal, soot, carbon spherules, glass-like carbon withnanodiamonds, and fullerenes with extraterrestrial. This has been interpreted as evidence for an impact or aerial blast at ~12,900 years ago. Subsequent studies both cast doubt on [5-12] and found new support for [13-14] the petrographic evidence. However, the invoked markers have never been supported by a geochemical impact signature such as a sharp increase in Ir or other PGE concentrations……..

……..Our results could be explained by the impact of an iron meteorite with low Ir and high Pt con-centrations like Sikhote-Alin (IIAB) or Grant (IIIAB); the former is a large crater-forming meteorite shower. If the Pt peak is caused by an iron meteorite impact, then the observed gradual ingrowth of the Pt concentration in ice over ~25 years requires lifting impactor’s material above the stratosphere and formation of a ring around the Earth. The decay of the Pt signal is consistent with ~5-years lifetime of the dust in the stratosphere. Such an impact could result in a global Pt anomaly. An anomalous 50 cm thick ice layer with 100 ppt Pt would require a sub-km-size iron meteorite to account for the Pt mass-balance.

Concluding remark: The main conclusion of our study is the detection of an unusual event during the Bølling-Allerød- YD transition period that resulted in deposition of a large amount of Pt to the Greenland ice.The nature of the event remains uncertain, but our results clearly rule out an impact or airburst of a chondritic bolide. If an impact was involved, the impactor had a very unusual composition deriving froma highly fractionated portion of a proto-planetary core.

           - LARGE PLATINUM ANOMALY IN THE GISP2 ICE CORE: EVIDENCE FOR A CATACLYSM AT THE BØLLING ALLERØD?

 

Harvard Researchers Discover Evidence for Major ET Impact at Younger Dryas Boundary by George Howard

42 comments to Rise of the Zombie: Harvard Discovers Evidence for Major Earth Impact at Younger Dryas Initiation (~12,875 BP)

  • Jonny

    This does seem contradictory to the evidence of Firestone et al who found an increased iridium signal in stratigraphy attributed to the the YD boundary, given that the hypothesised bolide in this study is low in iridium. It seems strange that there should be a high deposition of iridium over land and little accumulation of it in ice cores if the bolide was iridium rich, and even stranger if it was iridium poor.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Jonny,
    metal condensation cores of comets, my lay insight, are needed for slow gravitational accumulation of ices and dust. If so, variant, inhomogeneous densities likely, especially if distinct pre-cometary parts combined, & would explain pt in Greenland, ir over land.

    Why do you say “hypothesised bolide in this study is low in iridium” if it was most likely a comet or comet frag?

  • Steve Garcia

    The following passage struck me as interesting:

    The huge Cape York IIAB iron meteorite shower from West Greenland is thought to have fallen at about the time of the YD (~10,000 years ago), but it has comparable concentrations of Ir and Pt that cannot account for the very high Pt/Ir ration found at the ice core.

    1. A “huge” meteor shower – What does this mean, in general? Does it mean that the impactors were huge? That there were very many of them? Evidently those that impacted are the basis of this adjective, “huge,” since ones that didn’t impact would have left no trace.

    2. That it was at ~10,000 years ago – Why do people confuse 10,000 years ago with 12,900 years ago, like they were two week apart? 2,900 years is essentially 50% longer than the time since J.C. That is a lot of “wow” (fudge) in their numbers.

    3. If it was at the time of the YDB, it shows that at that same time there was a multiple impact, of some sort.

    4. Halley and Hale-Bopp – didn’t they show that comets are not just ‘dirty iceballs’? As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong about this), the distinction between comets and meteors/asteroids has become muddied (no pun intended). It seems that we are a long way from knowing what mixtures of ice and rock and iron are out there. If so, the West York “iron” meteor shower could have been a broken up comet with at least some iron and some other materials.

    5. Are impactors assumed to be heterogeneous? If a meteor had broken up and was not heterogeneous, the fracturing could easily have been between the different materials aggregated together. (I assume aggregated because they historically seem to me to have been somewhat friable.) What better place to fracture than at the discontinuities?

    6. If not heterogeneous, different fragments may have considerably different constituents.

    7. On another front, some of us have concluded that the YD impact was a multiple air burst. A multiple air burst is different from a meteor shower in what ways? In materials, certainly. In any other ways? Yes – a comet break-up is more likely than a meteor break-up to be friable enough to air burst. If meteors can break up, and if the comet S-L/9 broke up, then obviously both meteors and comets DO break up.

    Is there anything that prevents some of the fragments of a break-up from impacting while other parts air burst? That we have not yet seen it – is that enough reason to argue that it doesn’t happen? If ti happens once in 20kya or 30 kya, we would only get one shot at seeing it happen (if that). And if we try to recognize it having happened 10kya or 13kya or 20kya, what would we expect to see?

    From all that off-the-cuff reasoning, it seems the West York iron meteor shower may or may not be connected with the YD, both in time and in its break-up. While doubtful in time, and even more doubtful in constituents, are we comfortable saying it is impossible?

    I hate arguing from negatives, which cannot be proven or falsified. But I would lean toward putting this aspect of this paper in the back of my mind. More evidence may come down the line. Till then, I will say it is doubtful but that certain aspects suggest that knowing about it may prove useful later on.

  • Steve Garcia

    Hermann -

    In your first part, it seems we picked up on the same (in)homogeneous thing.

    But I got my words backward! Dammit!

    5 and 6 should read:

    5. Are impactors assumed to be homogeneous? If a meteor had broken up and was not homogeneous, the fracturing could easily have been between the different materials aggregated together. (I assume aggregated because they historically seem to me to have been somewhat friable.) What better place to fracture than at the discontinuities?

    6. If not homogeneous, different fragments may have considerably different constituents.”

    I don’t know where my brain was with that word. Sorry, folks.

    But it is also not impossible that it was pt in Greenland, ir over land, and part missed. The Earth, unlike Jupiter, may not have enough of a gravity well to ensure that all fragments would impact.

    Addressing Jonny’s (and the paper’s) point:

    “It seems strange that there should be a high deposition of iridium over land and little accumulation of it in ice cores if the bolide was iridium rich, and even stranger if it was iridium poor.”

    I agree in principle. It does seem strange.

    1. The evidence IS there that the meteor shower was Ir rich, and at about the same time, the ice cores show extremely Ir poor..

    So, what kind of scenario can possibly explain that incongruity?

    A. They happened at different times. 10 kya is not 12.9 kya.

    B. They happened at the same time, but the fragments were different in materials. This could be possible (even if it would certainly be “strange”), based somewhat on my #7 above.

    The more likely of these is A. But admitting that two very large impactors arrived within 2.9 kya of each other, or maybe even simultaneously – either one would be a problem for those who adhere to the “rare impact” viewpoint.

    It seems that, one way or another, some viewpoints need to adjust/flex.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Hi Steve, kiddo,
    don’t worry about that!
    Q1 = Heterogeneous?
    Q2 = Homogeneous?
    Those two Q’s are logically equivalent,
    A1 = not A2.

    So, why do you think Jonny thinks it was low on ir? Is that in one of the papers by the Firestone team?

    BTW, GUS* synched our brains, what? Even I first chose heterogeneous, then took homogeneous because people would know it better, can you believe that?
    – - –
    (*) Great Universe Spirit

  • George Howard

    Oh, come on, Jonny. Colonel Mustard with the Flat Iron, Colonel Mustard with the Chopping Block…..there is a bloody body.

    What we have here are nervous servants walking around the corpse telling us the old man just tipped over with his toddy. Give me a break.

  • Steve, in regards to your question concerning bolide breakups, your question is incomplete.

    If we are going to draw a line to distinguish between asteroids, and comets, then that line should be related to the amount of volatiles in the object. Or more simply: Is it an icy body or not? So if it’s a fairly solid chunk with no ices, or volatiles to out-gas in the inner solar system, it’s no comet. This brings us to recognizing that there may be many different breakup mechanisms to take into account, depending on the compositional nature of the object, and it’s structural integrity.

    For example, the breakup of comet Shoemaker Levy was caused by tidal forces from Jupiter’s intense gravity field as it made it’s first close pass of the gas giant before returning to impact. There the breakup mechanism stretched the fragments out into a long stream that came back to impact one right after the other. But we don’t have to  look very hard to find a completely different, and probably far more common breakup mechanism of an icy body.

    Just take a look at Comets Linear, or SW-3. In both cases we see comets that broke up without any gravitational influence from a planetary body. It’s as if the ices holding them together lost integrity after sublimating away in the inner solar system, and they just came unglued like the wings of Icarus.

    Bottom line: The breakup of an icy body can happen at any time. It doesn’t have to plow into an atmosphere first. Nor does it need to make a close pass of a planet, and be torn apart by tidal forces and stretched out into a string.

    There is no logical reason to assume that a meteor shower, or large impact storm, is never the result of a large cloud of cometery fragments such as either of those two examples impacting soon after the complete breakup of a large comet. Yet the only pre-impact breakup mechanism folks seem to be able to consider is the silly idea that we only need to be concerned with single lone bolides that arrive one at a time, and don’t begin to breakup until they get here.

  • Jonny

    Herman,

    It doesnt matter whether the iridium was in a differentiated core, or homogeneously mixed through-out the body upon impacting and vaporising, the debris becomes mixed in the atmosphere, and so will be deposited upon the ice caps, so if there was an iridium rich part that fell over the continent, then we should still see enhanced iridium in the ice cores. Indeed, if the scenario suggested is correct, and a ring of debris was formed around the earth, and coupled with a mean atmospheric residency time of 5 years, then we should expect an iridium excess in the ice cores if there was increased iridium on any part of the impactor. So in an extreme case, even if the bolide was made up of two halves, one iridium rich, and one platinum rich, with the iridium impacting over land and platinum elsewhere, we would still expect iridium enrichment in the ice cores.

    The ice core chemistry does not tell us that an impact occurred over Greenland, merely that there was an impact somewhere.

    I also say hypothesised bolide, since that is what it is, a hypothesised impact event of an platinum rich iron meteorite, since we have no conclusive proof that it was an iron rich impactor, or indeed if it is an impact at all. We have data that could be interpreted as an impact, and the authors have hypothesised it was due to a particular composition of impactor. They also note another hypothesis that the platinum could be induced by a super-volcano. Thus having two hypothesis we can now look for other physical evidence to support or falsify either hypothesis.

  • Jonny

    Steve,

    It was noted that while the cape york meteorites could be dated to 10,000 years ago, there was equal platinum to iridium in them, which does not match the Pt/ir ratio in the ice cores, suggesting that they are different bodies, and likely not contemporary with each other.

    Why this is considered a huge meteor shower is because of the large fragments of meteorites that have been found, the largest being 31 tonnes.

    Undoubtedly the Cape York shower occurred at a different time to the YD boundary. Its inclusion in the paper would have been to discount a local contamination of the ice cores from this shower, since although the ice-cores can be dated with a degree of precision, such precision may be lacking in the dating of the Cape York meteors, thus some could potentially argue that the Pt anomaly was caused by the cape York meteor. By comparing the Pt/Ir content of these meteorites to the Pt/ir ratio in the ice core discounts this meteorite being the cause of the platinum anomaly.

  • Jonny

    Hermann,

    I say that it was low in iridium because that’s what the ice-core data shows. If you look at the graph in figure 1b of the paper under discussion, you can see that there is no iridium anomaly associated with the platinum anomaly. Indeed, the iridium concentration at teh platinum anomaly is pretty much equivalent to background across the 300 years investigated. Therefore, as the authors conclude, if it was an impact event, then it would have to be low in iridium not to leave an iridium signal. Compare this to the 2007 Firestone et al paper in which they show in their stratigraphy analysis a marked excess of iridium at the YD boundary.

  • Jonny

    George,

    No one is dancing around any body here, and all this paper does is confuse the identification of any body, as well as whether it was murdered or not. Indeed it goes so far as supplying a second dead body.

    You posted a paper that on the surface seemingly supports Firestone et al, but when you look at the actual “forensic” evidence there is a glaring disparity in iridium concentrations between the two studies. Why does Firestone et al find an iridium anomaly at the YD boundary, but seemingly contemporaneous ice cores do not show such an anomaly?

    The problem is this. Looking at the Harvard study alone, we can interpret this as an impact event. Looking at the Firestone data, it could be interpreted as an impact event. But looking at them together with the ice core chemistry, they cannot be both the same event due to the iridium evidence. Indeed, even if the Harvard data is not extraterrestrial in origin, it still leaves the problem of a lack of corroboration of enhanced iridium in the ice cores that purportedly date the same epoch as Firestone et al’s stratigraphy.

    Therefore this paper is no help in reinforcing the YD impact hypothesis, and could in fact weaken it. Also, the Harvard study does resort to a form of special pleading. In order to explain the platinum excess, they propose an impact event, but in order to explain it as an impactor they must suggest that it is a special type of impactor from a fractionated proto-planetary core to explain lack of iridium. It doesnt mean that it is wrong, but it is a stretch.

  • Jonny

    Dennis,

    There are different causes of comet fragmentation. These are, impact fragmentation, tidal disruption, thermal stresses, and spin up. The first three are self explanitory, the first occuring from an object hitting the comet with enough force to disrupt it. The second we observed with SL-9, and the third is the what we all assume is happening, but all three can give rise to the forth fragmentation mechanism.

    As a rotating comet looses mass though jetting and gas drag on dust particles, it’s spin rate will increase. The spin rate increases in order to conserve its angular momentum. As the angular velocity increases, so to does the centrifugal acceleration until the weak internal forces can no longer balance the centrifugal acceleration, at which point the comet comes apart.

  • Thanks Jonny,

    That’s exactly my point. And if we read Professor Napier’s Paleolithic extinctions, and the Taurid Complex describing the progressive breakup of a very large body then finding evidince of multiple major impacts over a period of centuries is to be expected.

    I would be surprise if there was only evidence of one.

  • [...] the marvelous platinum result, I’m baffled! An iron meteorite is unlikely to fragment Earth-wide, and the lechatelierite [...]

  • [...] high Fe/Ni ratios, pdf’s, shock melted quartz, high 10 Be/9 Be ratios and occasional presence of platinum metals. Controversy over the impact, the so-called Black Mat enigma, and its relation to the Younger Dryas [...]

  • Rahn

    With all of the discussion about the possibility of multiple relatively current impacts I am a bit disappointed that more effort hasn’t been made with regard to identifying where these impacts may have occurred. I would also suggest that there have been numerous research expeditions around the globe that would facilitate the start of this study. For example ocean sediment depths.

    I think it would be safe to assume that the odds are in favor of the majority of impacts striking in the oceans of the world and that where ever this has occurred all of the sediment in the strike zone would be blown away.

    In my brief efforts to correlate this kind of research (there are volumes of sediment studies at Scripts Institute in San Diego) along these lines I found that one of the places where there is the least amount of ocean sediment is off of the west coast of South America. I believe there is also a substantial amount of other evidence that would suggest that a comet impact occurred there around 500 BC. (For instance: Darwin noted recent coastal uplifts in his studies in South America, recent digs on the Peruvian coast that date to this time where complete cities were buried under 50 feet of sediment)

    I am sure that most of you are aware of the Yucatan impact (Chicxulub crater) which was discovered by a geologist working for one of the oil companies who was looking at gravitational anomalies. This kind of research (by oil companies) has also been conducted all over the world and as such could be requested – in regards to where likely impact zones could be located.

    One thing that is missing though is an ACCURATE computer model for what actually would happen if a larger comet or asteroid hit the planet in the ocean. Although there are several out there, what is not included is how the crust would flex in such situations. In most cases it seems to be assumed that a comet would penetrate the crust in the same way that an solid object would. I would suggest that this is not the case. Of course this would be influenced greatly by the angle of impact as well. This could make for an interesting discussion:)

    I believe there is some evidence of a sudden warming in the Greenland samples at around 5500 years ago. Whether there are physical deposits in the ice or not would probably depend greatly upon where the impact occurred relative to Greenland and the direction of the incoming object.

    Although I am sure my conclusions are probably going to passed off as novice musing here they are anyway:
    500 BC a comet impact near the equator around 500 miles southwest of Ecuador.
    3500 BC a comet impact in the Indian ocean south of Bengal about 1000 miles
    7500 BC an asteroid impact in the Atlantic around 1000 miles or less west of Spain.
    10,000 BC an asteroid impact in the north Pacific in the area of the Aleutian Islands.

  • [...] This is certainly appropriate given the The Bos’ paper, by their own admission, was designed to be a definitive critique that should halt research into the YDB.  Common courtesy — and scientific method — would demand The Bos take a deep breath in [...]

  • George Howard

    Excellent comment, Rahn. Missed that.

  • George Howard

    Actually, that would pretty much be my short list too, Rahn — with another on the ice in Canada.

  • Steve Garcia

    Rahn –

    I missed your comment on Feb 28. It’s a good one.

    I might want to add Ed’s 536 AD jobby, too.

    Now note that Rahns’ list, with the YDB and 536 AD, becomes:

    12.9 kya
    12.0 kya (delta 0.9 kya)
    9.5 kya (delta 2.5 kya)
    5.5 kya (delta 4.0 kya)
    2.5 kya (delta 3.0 kya)
    1.7 kya (delta 0.8 kya)

    Mean delta = 2.24 kya – with a range of 0.8 to 4.0. Median is 2.5 kya.

    536 + mean delta = 3076 AD

    536 + least delta = 1336 AD

    536 + most delta = 4536 AD

    What could this mean? That, more or less, we should not be surprised if an impacting object showed up tomorrow. But it is definitely time to start taking it seriously. We are on the clock.

    If we exclude 536 AD, then we have a mean delta of 2.6 kya.

    500 BC + least delta = 1436 AD

    500 BC + mean delta = 2100 AD

    500 BC + most delta = 4500 AD

    Again, of course, we are on the clock. Who the hell knows when?

    But I am one who thinks that not only do we have the technology to go deal with these things, but that we can go out now and start learning what to do and how to do it – and maybe even make a profit on it – and lean from the NEOs how to keep going and get out ot the asteroid belt, where big profits might be made. There are ways that exist, even now, and people pushing the envelope. Unless the hit comes in the next 50 years, we should have the situation well in hand.

    But I really don’t think it will be NASA doing it. NASA’s little “Bring home a 5 ton NEO” is almost as stupid as doing nothing. Knowing them, they will bring it down from Earth orbit – to (they think) great acclaim and for show and tell – and change the environment of the object so that gases can’t be studied properly. “Look, Ma, it followed me home!” Can I keep it?”

    Chebarkul has motivated more people. Fortunately, some of those people are not NASA. UN-fortunately, WE are stuck with NASA. As long as Morrison is there, the USA effort will be for the purpose of getting funding – and for him not being the director who presided over the demise of NASA. Also, unfortunately, NASA will give the job after Morrison to some numb nuts like Bos, someone who is anti-NEO protection (unless it means he can pose for photon bites).

  • Alright I’m breaking radio silence to soap box some more for basic mechanics and especially for shallow angle impacts. Anyone tired of those topics can skip this post.

    Careful Jonny
    in your February 15, 2013 at 6:39 am post your wrote:

    “…There are different causes of comet fragmentation. These are, impact fragmentation, tidal disruption, thermal stresses, and spin up. The first three are self explanitory, the first occuring from an object hitting the comet with enough force to disrupt it. The second we observed with SL-9, and the third is the what we all assume is happening, but all three can give rise to the forth fragmentation mechanism.

    As a rotating comet looses mass though jetting and gas drag on dust particles, it’s spin rate will increase. The spin rate increases in order to conserve its angular momentum…”

    Actually…

    This is only true for a conservative system which is acted upon by no externally applied unbalanced forces. Each of the differential bits of mass which leave the bolide, however, impart their own momentum upon the bolide during departure from that object, and said momentum may (usually does) include some angular component or torque impulse unto the bolide. For an irregular bolide shape or irregular departure direction other than purely radial, most of the mass that leaves will impart some torque, however minor.

    When all of these angular impulses are integrated over the entire mass depleted (fraction of a planet), and over the duration of depletion (billions of years), the results could be almost anything. Any assumption of pure conservation of angular momentum in this scenario is out the window.

    Out the window.

    Conservation of angular momentum (or linear momentum for that matter) requires the system not to be acted on by any external unbalanced force. So to determine final spin rate after depletion, one would have to draw a control volume around the entire mass, INCLUDING all the mass of escaped or depleted volatiles, or one would have to define the angular impulse imparted by any and all differential mass elements leaving the bolide and sum those to find the result.

    It is, by definition, another statement of the rocket problem. You can’t just say F=MA when M is variable over time (because you are burning fuel or outgassing volatiles, pardon my vulgarity). And this is true for both linear or angular systems, just fill in the dimension of choice, length or angle.

    Also, from Feb 15 at 5:20 am:

    “…if the scenario suggested is correct, and a ring of debris was formed around the earth,…”

    Shallow angle impact is one possible case to allow this sort of thing. Much of the mass of the impacting bolide may depart the impact site at, near or even slightly faster (!) than the approach velocity (See “Fate of the Projectile” hydrocode paper). A smaller percentage of the mass will have distributed departure velocity down to something much less than that of approach.

    And distributed direction of departure! This is critically important!

    Now picture a larger bolide which has the punch to spray most of its mass back out of the atmosphere after a shallow angle impact. Take your pick of which range within that departure velocity distribution may stay captured in Earth/Moon orbit for a few years.

    This is why shallow angle impacts are so important.

    In one way they are far more complex than a steep angle strike, due to the complexity of post-impact momentum distribution. I am baffled as to the lack of further research in this area, when CLEARLY the initial studies point to critical questions and results that may apply very well to the problematic longer term time scales of climate effects after impact.

    Not to mention how we don’t know what a shallow angle strike scar wold look like if the event happened on a mile(s) thick ice sheet. Or what would happen if a shallow angle strike on the moon were to launch a plume with such a distribution of momentum (remember the distribution of the pulverized bolide spray is both through a range of velocities and a range of azimuth and elevations angles.) PBS. Pulverized Bolide Spray. Almost as good as Bolide Ignimbrite.

    The shallow angle strike is arguably far more complex than the steep angle strike that absorbs all the momentum to initiate cratering. In the shallow angle case, the bolide momentum becomes diffused over a range of angles and speeds, to be released as such back into the orbital mechanical environment. The bolide momentum and its composition become more complex by definition.

    Instead of simply being absorbed by the impact and starting a subsequent cratering process as in a steep angle strike, the shallow angle strike becomes convoluted into a more complex set of treacherous hoodlums, all heading in different directions with different astro-mechanical sizes and energies. Its one thug that gets transformed into an entire gang, all with bad attitudes.

    Think about it.

    Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with anything that has ever happened to Earth before. And maybe there is no water on the Moon either.

    Oh, yeah, water has been discovered on the Moon, and its in quantities that NASA scientists believe must be replenished to explain the levels. Really? Yes, really.

    Foolish not to study shallow angle impact science more closely, especially given the profoundly serious implications for our puny species within the greater, more violent local environment in which we have evolved, not to mention to offer causal alternatives for post impact climate effects over time scales too long to be explained even by the most complex and advanced climate models to date.

    Think about it.

    Look both up and down.

    TH

  • At Space Daily:

    “Borneo stalagmites provide new view of abrupt climate events over 100,000 years”

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Borneo_stalagmites_provide_new_view_of_abrupt_climate_events_over_100000_years_999.html

    I wonder how well they can correlate from the YDLB epoch

    Every new record offers more potential clues….

    TH

  • Steve Garcia

    On 6/13/2013 6:14 PM, Steve Garcia wrote:
    TH -

    From the article:

    Among the findings were some surprises that show just how complicated the Earth’s climate system can be. While the stalagmite record reflected responses to abrupt changes known as Heinrich events, another major type of event – known as Dansgaard-Oeschger excursions – left no evidence in the Borneo stalagmites. Both types of abrupt climate change events are prominently featured in a previously-published stalagmite climate record from China – which is only slightly north of Borneo.

    “To my knowledge, this is the first record that so clearly shows sensitivity to one set of major abrupt climate change events and not another,” said Cobb. “These two types of abrupt change events appear to have different degrees of tropical Pacific involvement, and because the tropical Pacific speaks with such a loud voice when it does speak, we think this is extremely important for understanding the mechanisms underlying these events.”

    My first take on this was, “How could D-O evens register in Borneo, where there is no winter, but only rainy season/dry season?” But then I assumed that they must be reading the stalactite rings like tree rings – rainy season creating much more flow and deposition.

    There are THREE such “events” in the Quaternary — D-O events (in the Pleistocene), Heinrich events (Pleistocene and Holocene), and Bond events (in the Holocene).

    The Bond events and D-O events MAY be the same things, merely extended into the Holocene, since BOTH have periods of 1,470 years on average.

    From Wikipedia:

    Heinrich events, first described by marine geologist Hartmut Heinrich, occurred during the last glacial period, or “ice age”. During such events, armadas of icebergs broke off from glaciers and traversed the North Atlantic. The icebergs contained rock mass eroded by the glaciers, and as they melted, this matter was dropped onto the sea floor as “ice rafted debris”. Scientists drilling through marine sediments can distinguish six distinct events in cores of mud retrieved from the sea floor, which are labelled H1-H6 going back in time; there is some evidence that H3 and H6 differ from other events.

    From Wikipedia:

    Dansgaard–Oeschger events (often abbreviated D–O events) are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events.

    From Wikipedia:

    Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events,[1] with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.

    Let me first say that the INTERPETATION of any of these as “ice rafting” is not necessarily the facts of the matter, but may only be a Gradualist crowbar, trying to squeeze what might be catastrophic events into the Uniformitarian model. (After all, the 18O levels in the GISO/GRIP ice cores spike at those points very extremely, FAR beyond anything seen in the later Holocene.) IMHO, it is a speculation/hypothesis that is accepted by everyone simply because someone came up with a gradualist “explanation” that everyone has agreed to accept and run with. It may be true, and it may not be, but no one so far has really suggested any doubt about it. I do, though.

    If even ONE of the events is actually tied to an impact, all bets are off. And our YDB is that exact possibility.

    And what would that suggest, if the connection comes to pass? Obviously this: That the ice rafting didn’t happen at all, and that the events were had cosmic causes.

    Outlandish?

    Here, also from Wiki:

    Timing [of D-O events]

    Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland, there is evidence to suggest D-O events have been globally synchronous. A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002) to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003); if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise). However the older parts of the GISP2 core do not show this regularity, nor do the same events in the GRIP core. This may be because the first 50 kyr of the GISP2 core are most accurately dated, by layer counting. The climate system response to the trigger is varying within 8% of the period. Oscillations within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period. Rahmstorf suggests that the highly regular pattern would point more to an orbital cycle. Such a source has not been identified. The closest orbital cycle, a Lunar cycle of 1,800 years, cannot be reconciled with this pattern.

    This says that the regularity can, so far, not be tied to Earth system (meaning terrestrial) causes, because they would never be as regular as D-O events, even for just those last five cycles. They also cannot be tied to any orbital periodicities.

    The former is very important, because Heinrich events are closely tied to D-O events, and their histories overlap for a long period of time. But Heinrich events are tied to ice rafting. Yet Earth system regularity to the degree of D-O events is pretty much ruled out – and that SHOULD include ice rafting. Who in their right mind would suggest that ice dams fail at 1,470 year intervals almost like clockwork?

    Nobody.

    And if the lunar 1,800-year cycle is ruled out, too, then what else is left? No more orbital processes have come to the fore, and Earth system processes cannont be that regular. I repeat: what else?

    So can we speculate on impacts? Well, the YD onset is considered to be one of the Bond events. That should make the current impact studies on the YDB also possibly applicable to the other Bond events. And since Bond events and D-O events are tied together, and since the Heinrich events are also somewhat tied to the D-O events, why is no one yet inquiring into this possible connection? Though it can only be speculation right now, personally, that is where my money is being bet. And if that turns out to be a real posssibility, then the ice rafting is more climate speculation gone wrong.

    Comets are a non-Earth system reality. Comets are regular in their orbits, often within that 2% or 12% mentioned above. Once fragmented, their matter stream is in place just waiting for the Earth to lumber by. We have the meteor showers every year from certain comets having been broken up. It does not seem impossible that meteor showers at frequencies of 1,470 years could exist.

    From Wiki again:

    Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.

    FWIW: Doing a quick spreadsheet on the YD onset and the 1470 year cycle, I don’t agree with that timing at all. The Little Ice Age began about 1400 CE. The 1470 cycle from 12,800 ya puts a Bond event at 960 AD and 2430 AD. That seems to me to be about 500 years out of whack. The 8.2 kya event also doesn’t fit with the YDB.

    However, the 8.2 kya and the 536 AD fit very nicely. And they both fit very nicely to NOW. That might suggest that a D-O/Bond event is due NOW.

    This might give us a handle on how urgent it is to do something NOW in terms of planning a proving out a deflection program. And, like Ed says, it should take precedence over any Mars efforts.

  • Steve Garcia

    Oops! That says I posted this twice. Sorry! I had thought I’d only saved the comment (mostly done yesterday) but not sumbitted.

    George, can you delete the first of the two?

    Apologies.

  • Steve,

    Yeah that 1470 yr cycle combined with a 12.8 ka YD date gives us about 430 yrs of breathing space…

    until you throw in the relatively huge +/- 500 yr variation, in which case all bets are off for any breathing space at all.

    I wonder if Napier has figured any of this out. He is a good authority on the kinds of orbital perturbation that can spell hit or miss in these situations. I’ve never seen any short period numbers in his work though, not like 1.47 ka at least.

    Fishy fishy fishy….

    TH

  • Steve Garcia

    FWIW, if you can indulge me here, I’ve begun to look into the Heinrich events, D-O events, and Bond events a bit more. I had found speculation presented as assertion, but had found nothing in the literature that cast doubt on the ice rafting meme. But I just found this:

    Abstract only, due to a paywall at http://tiny.cc/xpcqyw

    Were the North Atlantic Heinrich events triggered by the behavior of the European ice sheets?

    Francis E. Grousset1, Claude Pujol1, Laurent Labeyrie2, Gérard Auffret3 and An Boelaert3

    Abstract

    Theories explaining the origin and distribution of Heinrich layers—abrupt, massive discharges of ice-rafted detritus—generally attribute these layers to the Laurentide ice sheet. However, doubt has been cast by the discovery that sediments also originated from European ice sheets. Here we present isotopic (Sr-Nd) fingerprints of Heinrich layers obtained in cores from the European margin. They reveal that for most of the Heinrich layers, the icebergs were calved first from the European ice sheets, predating the Laurentide surges. Accelerator mass spectrometry 14C ages reveal that the oceanic Heinrich events were synchronous with their dust equivalents in the Greenland ice cores, implying a direct ocean-atmosphere link. The typical Laurentide surge seems to have occurred over a short time span, after about 1.5 k.y. of iceberg release from the European ice sheets. This suggests that the Laurentide ice sheet responded to a stimulus created by events in the European sector.

    . . . “seems to”. . . “suggests”. . . “a [mystery] stimulus in the European sector”. . . the latter is also a crowbar, trying to force a fit with Gradualism.

    On a topic that overall “seems to” be a settled “fact”, and that other deposits were occurring 1500 years earlier does one thing in my head:

    It makes me wonder how little all this “ice rafting” is based upon and how much upon Gradualistic crowbarring, as I keep saying. (I am not stopping with this…)

    But the chemistry match with DUST in Greenland argues 100% against ice rafting and FOR an impact event, as the abstract argues (but then they have to keep on avoiding catastrophic possibilities). What is matching DUST doing, being deposited on TOP of the Greenland ice sheet if it came from UNDER icebergs? (See the silly cartoonish depiction at http://tiny.cc/0vcqyw)

    One of my aims is to see what the evidence is for their assertion that the debris fields from “Heinrich fields” is actually “continental” as is asserted. Even if it CAME FROM continents, it does not necessarily rule out impact, since most of ejecta is from the target surface. The Ice raft hypothesis is only a gradualist interpretation so far as I can tell so far, and IT should be challenged – and this paper is the first I’ve seen that does that.

    Perhaps comparing the layers in Greenland with the ones in the YDB research would show a temporal match. http://cosmictusk.com/ydb-press-release-scientists-discover-nanodiamonds-in-greenland-ice/

    So, no conclusions possible here, but finding reason to accept that the impact scenario I am wondering about is actually feasible. A door is open, at least in my own mind. And within our OWN hypothesis, if an academic someone can make a tie to this, it IS one area that will need to be addressed at some point. Whatever the final reality, it will have to tie in well enough with all relevant tangencies.

    TH was onto this, too, BTW, so thanks, TH!

  • E.P. Grondine

    Steve –

    You cold try googling on the authors’ names for more information on their work. After that you could try contacting them personally byu e-mail for copies of their papers.

    The simlutaneous dust loading would appear to rule out solar variability as the cause. On the ohter hand, dust is also produced by volcanoes, and the possibiolity of co-incident timing can not be ruled out without esamining each of the dust loads further in much greater depth, as much as possible.

    As far as the timing goes, you may want to look at the orbital mechanics of Comet 21P Giacobini-Zimmer.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Corrected copy:

    Steve –

    You could try googling on the authors’ names for more information on their work. After that you could try contacting them personally by e-mail for copies of their papers.

    The simlutaneous dust loading would appear to rule out solar variability as the cause of the rafting. On the other hand, dust is also produced by volcanoes, and the possibiolity of co-incident timing can not be ruled out without examining each of the dust loads further in much greater depth, as much depth as possible.

    As far as the timing goes, you may want to look at the orbital mechanics of Comet 21P Giacobini-Zimmer.

  • Steve Garcia

    In reading on the Bond/D-O/Heinrich events I am amazed that a hypothesis is so readily accepted and presented as fact. In almost every sentence I can hear the self-brainwashing and great effort to fit in with their peers. As long as they do not consider anything cataclysmic, they have to apply the gradulaist thought processes at every turn, even when the thing gets more and more and more complicated. And why does it get more complicated? Because they aren’t able to correctly predict anything new, and new stuff comes up and doesn’t fit. If it doesn’t fit, they must not acquit, but throw it out and start over again. But they won’t. Because when it does not fit, they gerrymander the whole thinking about it again, twisting it to try to include the new stuff.

    They all KNOW that earth processes are not repeatable within 2% on an oceanic scale, but they pretend like, “Well, there must be something in it that we don’t understand yet.”

    But hoping for “something” to make everything fit – that isn’t science. I’ve said that phrase and heard it so much in the last ten years, but sometimes it’s true.

    If the big picture idea – like the YDB or the Heinrich events – is true, then the scientists involved should be able to predict things that then come true. A true hypothesis IMPLIES things, and those implied things should be somewhat readily seen.

    … One thing I found today was that an area WSW of England and SSW of Iceland is called the IRB – the Ice Raft Belt. It isn’t even in the zone of icebergs right now. See http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/2/123/F1.large.jpg.

    The thing that struck me was that the is in the same exact place as the Gulf Stream. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Golfstream.jpg (no idea why it is spelled that way)

    So far I haven’t seen anyone who has ruled out the Gulf Stream bringing the debris and depositing it into the Pleistocene sediments – much of which (but not all) is actually small enough to be carried by a good current.

    One of the things that the YDB implies, btw, is that materials WILL be ejected and be carried a long way – including the ocean. If there are markers across the Atlantic, there are markers IN the Atlantic. And perhaps the very cores that underlie the Heinrich “ice rafting” hypothesis have within them the same markers as are in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Syria. I predict that they will indeed be there, right alongside the micrometer-sized and mm-sized “continental rocks”.

    BTW, I was VERY unimpressed when I found out that most of the “strewn rock fields” are comprised of mostly such small dust particles. They DO include some rocks called dropstones, but the explanation for those is pretty weak – but consistent with Gradualism. They can really only say that the rocks (which in a way are a lot like erratics) came down vertically to rest on the bottom. The connections with icebergs is all speculation that fits the Gradualist meme, so it is readily accepted and repeated – ad nauseum.

    Boy, they can get away with any weak presentation or argument, as long as it isn’t catastrophic. The double standard is palpable. The YDB has to jump through hoops and run the gauntlet, but he ice rafting got a free pass. It fits gradualism? Then FINE, put it in!

    Personally I think the ice rafting, as the cause of the evidence called the Heinrich events, Bond events and D-O events, is a house of cards at this point. (The D-O actually only seems to show up in Antarctica ice cores, BTW so far, not in the N Atlantic sediments.)

    Argument 1: NO terrestrial forcings known to man can create the HUGE swings in 18O and temperatures seen in the pre-Holocene Pleistocene. They “suggest” and “offer” and “propose” and speculate various mechanisms, all over the place, and they know that nothing they are proposing is sufficient. And no sooner is one of the suggestions out there but someone else shoots it down, for good reasons. But those others have no solutions, either. And it won’t. The only force big enough does not exist in Gradulaism. And that force is out there in the shooting gallery known as the Near Earth region – comets and asteroids.

    Argument 2: If those fluctuating events are shown to be close in time to the YDB at 12,800 ya AND a huge swing in climate occurred at THAT SAME TIME, then it only makes sense that whatever caused one of that magnitude very likely caused the others, as well.

    Argument 3: One of the biggest reasons they fight the YDB so hard is because so much prior work will have to go into the round file. From every point except science itself, they are right to fight it. They certainly don’t want their careers to go down the drain. There would simply be too big of a change that will have to happen in academia. They have to fight it. Entire careers may have been wrong, and science be damned, they aren’t going to let their careers go down without a fight. (But who remembers the names of the cabrónes who stopped Galileo, or Copernicus, or Darwin? Or even Wegener?)

    Argument 4: Right now it seems like the closest historical parallel to the YDB is Wegener’s moving continents and plate tectonics. The thing that preceded Wegener’s hypothesis was so silly they don’t even talk about it anymore. (At least physicists have the ether and will talk about it!) Wegener’s ideas overthrew – for good reason – the shrinking, wrinkling Earth. The YDB threatens just as big of a thunderclap, but in a much shorter time period. This one is even bigger than Alvarez’s dinosaur killer. That was 65 million years ago, and everyone yawned and said, “So what? Like that makes a difference to us now?” (even though, yes, it did…)

    Guys, if the N Atlantic cores show impact markers, this whole thing will get a whole lot bigger – and nastier. The cores still exist. I wonder if they even have a black mat?

    I used to see those D-O 18O graphs on the climate change blogs I frequent, and I wondered about them, but thought mostly, “WOW! The climate sure changed a lot, back and forth and REALLY to the extreme!”

    Then someone in a comment on WattsUpWithThat.com ridvculed the YD impact idea, saying that if we thought a comet caused the Yuonger Dryas, then what about those other sharp declines and inclines, back through 100,000 years or so? I thought he was insulting us, but really his point was valid.

    If the YD onset was from an impact then we can’t NOT look at those other dives in the climate. What caused them?

    The reason the YD stadial is studied so much isn’t because it nosedived, though that is most people’s focus. The thing that makes the YD stand out and be studied is that it lasted as long as Islam has lasted – 1300 years. The YD end was JUST LIKE THE OTHERS. But WHAT forestalled its recovery? And once established as a cold regime, WHAT made it recover so fast, like the others?

    If we answer one, we answer all of it.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Steve –

    The Younger Dryas is related to the drainage of a glacial melt.

    The Holocene Start Impact Event is related to the beginning of that particular glacial melt.

    They are different events separated by a large number of years.

    Please stop confusing the two.

    PS – I “believe” in ice rafting. I am interested in its cause and its periodicity.

  • Steve Garcia

    Ed -

    That drainage of the Laurentide sheet as the CAUSE of the Younger Dryas is commonly asserted. But they point at that as not only the cause, but as tied to the Oceanic Conveyor, which I argue is not proper physics. Read Rodney Chilton’s book to see how many holes that drainage idea has in it. The timing of the ice dam break is wrong; the Great Lakes were not freed up in time, plus the scablands-like great flood evidence just ain’t there. The latest pathetic idea (and it IS pathetic) is that the thing drained out the MacKenzie River up in the far northwest of the Yukon. How they expect THAT to affect anything in the N Atlantic boggles the mind. But they are clinging to that idea, even though it won’t hold water. All puns intended.

    Be aware that the entire IDEA of that melt surge at that time is simply speculation. Read Rodney’s book. The backed up water behind the ice dam? It’s a pipe dream. But they NEED that fresh water in the N Atlantic because the oceanic conveyor idea is the centerpiece of their rapid climate change thing. Remember: They don’t accept the impact, so they have to crowbar something in as a cause. They have the oceanic conveyor shutdown, but that is a crock. Water sinking from convection is FAR to small a force (and is omni-directional) has NO capacity to selectively draw water from the the lower end of the Gulf Stream. It’s the stupidest idea since global warming.

    No less a scientist than Carl Wunsch has this to say about that:

    I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could “shut off” or that with global warming Britain would go into a “new ice age” are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality.

    I am not stopping you from “believing in” ice rafting. It happens, yes. Rocks and dust are ground into glaciers and are carried into the ocean on icebergs. There is no denying that.

    But does it happen as a significant part of the HUGE variations in temperatures seen in the record? Like 20 times as great as we’ve had since 1900 – only in the other direction?

    If the ice rafting happened at the same time (see just below) as the YD onset, then as an impact man you seem to be saying that TWO mechanisms put debris into the ocean at that same time – icebergs and the YD impact. That is a big coincidence.

    As to the HSIE and the glacial drainage being at the same time or not:

    Wiki: “Some (Broecker 1994, Bond & Lotti 1995) identify the Younger Dryas event as a Heinrich event, which would make it H0.”

    Broecker is THE guy who invented the ice dam idea and the oceanic conveyor. HE thinks the two are the same and NOT disconnected in time. He ALSO has backed off on the Laurentide draining via the St Lawrence.

    And his THC and its potential to shut down – that is EXACTLY the thing Wunsch above is talking about.

    So, basically I respect Broecker for admitting the drainage things is a bust (unless he can show how fresh water up in the Yukon can not dilute before it makes it past Baffin Island and that archipelago). But Wunsch calls Broecker’s THC shutdown idea “scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline.” OUCH!

    So BOTH of Broecker’s hypotheses are untenable.

    I am just waiting for him to agree with Wunsch and tell the world the THC shutdown is wrong, too.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Steve –

    Once again, as the HSIE precedes the YD by many years, it would help if you would use the correct terminology.

    I have read Rod’s book.

    I am interested in the data, not the climate models, nor your thoughts on either them or global warming.

    In particular, I am interested in the data on the Pacific Current ca. 10,875 BCE.

    That inclues any data on possibe northern drainages occuring shortly afterwards.

    The melt and the drainages are geological facts, though still poorly understood and dated.

    If you compare the Pleistocene-Holocene transition with earlier glacial cycles, you will notice that the most recent transition is clipped, has a flat top well below the earlier maxima.

  • Steve Garcia

    Okay, Ed -

    You lost me there. You seem to be keeping a secret. Explain please what the difference between your HSIE and the YD onset are. If they are different it is new to me. Since you are the only one on the entire internet that uses the term HSIE (I looked), maybe you need to specify how you are using the term.

    Every source I have read states that the onset of the YD is the start of the Holocene. Are you keeping a secret from the rest of us?

  • E.P. Grondine

    No secret there.

    Take a look at the DATES, Steve. The drainages come well after the impact event.

    Aside from that, temeperture proxies for Europe have little to do with the temperature proxies for the glacial areas of North America, or for those of the PACIFIC CURRENT.

    The artic drainages to the Pacific Current are important, particularly any as regards the MacKenzie River, as well as other possible routes.

    Steve, I know you are just beginning to learn about impact processes. Forget what others wrote, and take a look at the raw data on the DATES.

  • Steve Garcia

    Ed -

    The drainages – I agree, except that the drainage never happened like they wanted it to. that is what Broecker had to admit, that the drainage couldn’t have happened when he needed it to happen. But then nobody could find the evidence of the drainage, either. THAT is why they are considering the MacKenzie River outlet: It never DID drain down the St Lawrence like they thought. Yes, there was NORMAL drainage later, after the impact, but that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

    I would also agree with your second thing about temp proxies. Right on.

    If you want me to look at data on dates, I need you to point me to some of them. I’d love to look at them. But so far I haven’t seen any except one here and one there, deep in a paper somewhere.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Steve –

    The drainages of glacial melt water are geological facts, whatever you might want to believe.
    There appears to have been a path to the Atlantic running down the Mohawk River and Hudson River.

    Your focus on Atlantic Circulation and the Younger Dryas drainages is irritating to me, as it shifts focus from the Holocene Start Impact Event.

    I have a candidate possible impact structure from the HSIE, but it will take $10,000 to find out “yeah” or “nay”.

  • Steve Garcia

    Ed -

    The hoped for ice dam break was out west of Lake Superior. No one is arguing that water didn’t come down in the rivers you talk about, but the big surge that would have happened with an ice dam out west of Superior has NO evidence for it. They looked for the water surge evidence out west of Isle Royale, and there is ZERO evidence of it. That is what the evidence is. The eastern thing is a nothing, a runny nose. No capacity to dump the volume of water they conjectured. Broecker himself admitted that, and it was HIS idea. None of this is my invention. This time YOU look it up. I’ve stated this several times. THESE are the facts. The eastern thing is a non-factor — way too small.

    This is irritating you? This is the freaking competition, and we all need to know what they have and what they don’t have.

    The fact that they DO NOT have this should be good news to you. And my initial comment wasn’t addressed at you alone. It was informative, and then you challenged it. The facts are that there WAS no ice dam break. Especially regular as clockwork every 1470 years. No terrestrial cycle can do that with such regularity, and no cosmic event happens with that frequency. That was my contribution.

    Score one loss for their side. That doesn’t necessarily make it a win for our side, but if their options go down one by one, then even THEY might some day admit that an impact is the only thing that makes any sense.

    If you choose to be irritated, I can’t help that, Ed. There are more things being discussed here than what you can control. I can bring in what I want to bring in. You bring in what you want to. I respect your efforts, so please respect mine.

  • chicken little

    way to small? 6ft of the moons crappy gray very unique sand , then a burn layer then 4 ft of sand deposited .
    so There is NO evidence of drainage?

    Those CB had to happened in water and LOTS of water! and there is CB’s on Africa and South america , plus throw in a few salted prairies with No plants on them obviously that prairie has not had billions of years to make a forrest , it hasn’t had thousands of years to make a forrest, it barely had hundreds of years to make grass .
    OR LIKE with a grand canyon that had to have been cut up hill. or how we have shark teeth at the top of our mountains . and a few million things no one wants to explain or they aren’t smart enough too or have some stupid goofy explanation for them, which always involves billions of year they don’t have and they can’t prove!

    or then throw in concepts like how come Polar bears have Irish bear mommies not siberian bear mommies for starters .
    So then add like zillions of tons of mammoth bones in the Atlantic or and for that matter instantly frozen mammoths who seem to have been ice surfing in the Atlantic looking for fish dinners . and the clear record of the Atlantic being a ocean of MUD.. why would a ocean turn to mud? how could a whole ocean turn to mud? where is your fresh water?

    or why are the ancient places all above 1200-2000 feet or higher and why do ancestor worshipping people go up there to worship their ancestors?

    SO when scientism find the bones and tools out in the Atlantic. Scientism of course concluded that water levels were once lower. which nothing can farther from the observed by human records thus truth. According to real observed truths the Oceans were once not there at all or way they way way higher , both of which is provable .
    All this and more sure makes me suspect that Scientism sure don’t know much about water and water movement or ice and or Impacts especially of very very large and relatively slow moving objects and what the horrific static storms created by one very large slow moving object might look like , act like or feel like !

    but they have only proven that they sure know how to create time! and they know how to WIN a game they created and make the rules up as they go and don’t let anyone else play! but they know how to use putty and make posters in buy and influence people ! because what is obvious they don’t know how to see what is there . and they can’t explain what was seen or OBSERVED by any people!

  • Steve Garcia

    A C-rich layer, exposed in many sites in North America and Europe at or near the YD boundary, is enriched in magnetic grains with Ir, magnetic microspherules, char-coal, soot, carbon spherules, glass-like carbon with nanodiamonds, and fullerenes with extraterrestrial He.

    Yes, this is the crux of it all, the SUITE of forensics that continue to roll in. But don’t forget the Pt, either.

    It’s not enough for the Daulton Gang to cherry pick at one or two, as they’ve done, back-slapping each other at their minuscule, kibitzed successes that later turn out to be anything but.

    But in their pea-brained, iota-pickings, they – as they full well know haven’t taken on the full suite. Like starving wolves only capable of sniping at the edges of a herd, only capable of taking on the weak and the very young, they nibble at the edges and never even ry to assault the heart of the matter.

    Do they honestly think that the researchers even in 2007 would have signed on if there was only one line of evidence for the impact(s)? How DUMB can the skeptics BE, how juvenile their thought processes? People are swayed by the preponderance, not the individual gum wrappers the skeptics have clothed their slivers of attacks in.

    And then, even when they cherry pick, they lose and lose badly, because they only encourage the YDB team to solidify their evidence.

    George should at some point blog a THANK YOU to them for their contributions AND ESPECIALLY for their keeping the subject before the public. The old adage reads: “ANY ATTENTION S GOOD ATTENTION.”

    Duh.

    As in Duh Bos.

  • Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after going through many of the posts I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyways, I’m definitely happy I came across it and I’ll
    be book-marking it and checking back regularly!

    Have a look at my webpage :: szybkie kredyty dla zadluzonych

  • Han Kloosterman

    What is the Boelling-Alleroed- YD transition period??

    Does the Palaeozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic transition period also play a role in your geology?
    Or the Precambrium-Perm-Pliocene transition period?

    Please note that we use in geology a linear concept of time, even if that is a mere working hypothesis.

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>