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, 9 months, and 30 days

CT Post Calendar

October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


Vindication: Critic finds Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas Boundary Claeys

Unbelievable.  Out of nowhere de-facto capitulation.  Phil Claeys, a co-author of the new paper Scribd below, is a persistent and rather snarky critic of the Younger Dryas Boundary theory, see here:

Supposed chemical evidence has withered under scrutiny, says impact geochemist Philippe Claeys of the Free University of Brussels. Claeys and colleagues probed YDB samples—both his own from Europe, and others from West—for claimed traces of an impacter. The targets included iridium, the exotic element that first put researchers on the trail of the dinosaur-killer impact. In a December 2009 PNAS paper, Claeys and colleagues reported their results: nil. “The geochemical story is finished; it’s over,” Claeys says. “There is nothing, no meteoritic signal. No one I know of has come to their defense.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1140.full September 3, 2010.

Phil Claeys

Phillipe — to his credit — apparently went a’lookin himself in the YDB, and what did he find?:

Our findings confirm, and in fact reveal more direct proof than the earlier studies, the existence of nanodiamond particles in the YDB layer.– Claeys, et. al.,PNAS, December, 2010

How about that?  Look and ye shall find, huh, Phil?

Lommel Diamonds in Younger Dryas Boundary Claeys

11 comments to Vindication: Critic finds Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas Boundary Claeys

  • E.P. Grondine

    “The sad truth is that science — and scientists — are shot through with petty jealousies, spin and politics. The story of the reaction to the published findings of the YD team is highly enriched by this environment. Apparently, these are people who will say or write anything if it takes someone who disagrees with them down a notch — and we see them do so time and again throughout this saga.”

    Its been an extremely vicious struggle, George. Mnay players, and nearly all of them very vicious. Someday perhaps it will make for a good book, but it will be somebody else who writes it.

    In my opinion, having been around this for too long a time, about the only thing that’s going to clean up NASA’s house and give this hazard the immediate attention it needs is firing Ed Weiler.

    Dr. Firestone and team deserve credit for keeping it on a scientific level, and for their ability to teach sceptics how to locate and process samples.

    Dr. Claey deserves credit for having the guts to go where the data took him, and for publicly admitting that he had made a mistake earlier.

  • This seems to me to be a good faith, fair report, painstakingly presenting cogent evidence, and correlating many streams of findings.

    It supports not a hydrogen bomb radial air blast model, but the more gradual, directed hypercomplex flow model shown by the Boslough supercomputer simulations five years ago, which in many example videos clearly contact the ground and generate relatively long-lasting circulation patterns — logically, there would be substantial geoablation of the surfaces, with materials shattered, melted, and vaporized, carried vigorously along in horizontal and vertical currents, and, cooling, becoming new complex layered rocks, and also surface glazes on surface original rocks in the gas glow and on the ground.

    Ground derived material would dominate the evidence.

    For two years, I’ve found copious candidate rocks for direct evidence of the Boslough model, within a 160 km radius of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    Can someone present a summary of the Boslough model that gives more information about temperatures, pressures, flow velocities, durations, percentage of ionization, spin flows, and probable geoablation signatures — any lightning, strong magnetic fields, EM radiation (microwave heating?) — would many impacts in an area create a joint storm system of considerable size, height, and ground pressure (forming what I call “pawprints”)?

    Especially deserving of close study are the shiny blue-black melt glazes on grey and red volcanic lava rocks of the Caja del Rio Lava Field, just west of Santa Fe — readily found in the many sites that I’ve visited, including melted vertical walls 1-5 m high.

    Impact melt formation by low-altitude airburst processes,
    evidence from small terrestrial craters and numerical modeling,
    H E Newsom & MBE Boslough 2008 Mar 2p abstract:
    Rich Murray 2010.11.17
    http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.htm
    Wednesday, November 17, 2010
    [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/75
    [you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]

  • Hello

    Carbon should be commum in comets, like as an ice cream flavor elements carbon added to heat and pressure …

    http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/library-of-resources/annual-reports/2008/gsfc/projects/composition-of-parent-volatiles-in-comets-oxidized-carbon/

    regards
    pierson

  • carol phillips

    Concerning the YD, its ending is equally baffling as the climate warmed up very quickly. Is there any mileage in the forgoing? Paul Dunbavin, author of ‘The Atlantis Researches: The Earth’s Rotation in Prehistory’ and ‘Under Ancient Skies’ said, ‘the 20 year period of climate instability at the close of the YD event, as noted from ocean cores, is in my view clear evidence of the decay of the Chandler wobble and the 7-year rhythm following a pole shift, or an impact event that changed the axial tilt (not the same thing)’. He also speculated there was also a core wobble with a longer duration – possibly between 2000 and 5000 years (core mantle precession). Could it be that a climatic episode such as the YD be a core wobble event, in between periods of stability? Just asking a question. No particular point of view.

  • Han Kloosterman

    Han Kloosterman, Amsterdam, 26/12/2010.

    I’m feeling happy, this is a nice end-of-the-year present. Six years ago, in December 2005, when I took samples at the Lommel exposure in order to send them to Allen West, I nearly froze to death. Once more I survived, and I am glad to be able to see the results.
    Congratulations to Phillipe Claeys.

  • Something for folks to think about, and that’s supportive of what Rich is saying, is that Impact melt is frequently mistaken for volcanic tuff. Simply put, until now there have only been two classifications of ‘clastic’ rock, ‘impact melt’, or ‘volcanic tuff’. But there’s a new kid on the block.

    While some of us has been talking about airburst melt, and pointing at, and hollering about, suspected formations of the stuff, for a couple of years now, we are only now beginning to see it acknowledged in refereed literature that such exogenic materials should be expected to exist.

    But geo-ablative airburst melt should be placed in a third classification. And there is a very dramatic, and distinct, difference in the patterns of movement, and flow, in a pyroclastic density current of geo-ablative melt, where the motive force was atmospheric pressure pushing the ablated materials from behind, like the froth on a storm tossed beach. And the patterns of movement produced in the emplacement of a pyroclastic flow from an explosive, volcanic eruption where gravity was the motive force pulling the material down, and away, from a vent, after the collapse of a Plinean ash column.

    As far as I know, there is nothing in refereed literature yet that considers the physics, or fluid mechanics, of a pyroclastic density current of flash melted stone, where atmospheric pressure is the motive force, not gravity. And where the heat comes from above as well.

    But, if there is such a thing as geo-ablative airburst melt, and there are formations of it in North America from large, extinction level, airburst events in the recent past, then every last pebble of such materials have been misidentified by geologists of the past as volcanogenic. Because they believed that only terrestrial volcanism could melt the rocks of the Earth, and they could not conceive of such heat, and pressure, coming from above.

  • George Howard

    Thanks for checking in, Han. As the godfather of the Lommel layer\Usselo Boundary, please elaborate for us. Give us your impressions of the new work on your dirt. I would be happy to make any observation further observations into a post or guest blog if you like. Merry Christmas! I bet Belgium is mighty “Christmasey”.

  • [...] Vindication: Critic finds Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas Boundary Claeys [...]

  • [...] am interested to see how they treat the fact that three scientists, including a fellow-traveler to some extent, Phil Claeys, found peaks they say belo…. They were so embrassed they found something, they had to give their paper that cute and misleading [...]

  • [...] PNAS, “Nanodiamonds do not provide unique evidence for Younger Dryas Impact.” Covered here in the Tusk. And previously found by Schryvers, et. al. in at least two European locations. [...]

  • Fernandes-Moça

    A carbon layer crushed by a meteorite impact might suffer enough pressure and heat can produce diamonds or nanodiamonds.

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>