Exploring abrupt climate change and pandemic induced by comets and asteroids during human history

Sweatman nails it

Authoritative and readable overview of the Younger Dryas Impact debate published in Earth Science Reviews

Program Note: Thanks for your patience with weird glitches here or there as we shakedown a newly installed WordPress engine. Big changes coming soon!


Indefatigable genius and digital friend of the Tusk, Dr. Martin Sweatman of the University of Edinburgh, authored a surprise blockbuster this week. Below from Earth Science Reviews is a peer-reviewed and fully accepted synthesis overview of the Younger Dryas Impact controversy since the very first paper in 2007.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: review of the impact evidence concludes — in the most appropriate and respected global earth science journal — that based on the published evidence, our modern world is indeed birthed of a horrendous global catastrophe (~12,827 years ago, Late June). It is a lengthy, detailed, fair and lucid tour-de-force in support of The Event based on Martin’s reading of the entire debate.

Martin is an example to the Tusk of how many, many people there are on Earth. You gotta have at least 8+ billion humans in order to have just enough brain matter and grit on the end of the bell curve to find one, well-qualified, unbiased, poly-curious scientist, so determined to find the truth that they will read every last word — and write every last word well.

Younger Dryas Impact fans and the newly curious will spend some time soaking in Martin’s piece. Its long, and intricate at times, but it’s far more readable to a larger audience than the technical literature it discusses.

One thing is for sure, if someone can only read a single peer-reviewed paper concerning the Younger Dryas Impact, Martin’s article is perfect. And if they can only read two? It will be a long wait for another to refute his conclusions.

Here is the entire in-press, pre-publication article at Martin’s website.

Martin’s 21-Part YouTube series on the YDIH debate

Younger Dryas impact review paper accepted by Earth-Science Reviews

May 13, 2021

This article is now accepted in the top Earth-Science journal, Earth-Science Reviews.

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: review of the impact evidence

 

Martin B. Sweatman, Institute of Materials and Processes, School of Engineering, King’s Buildings, University of Edinburgh, UK. EH9 3FB

[email protected]

Keywords: cosmic impact, Younger Dryas, platinum anomaly, impact microspherules, nanodiamonds, climate change, Clovis culture, megafaunal extinctions

Abstract

Firestone et al., 2007, PNAS 104(41): 16016-16021, proposed that a major cosmic impact, circa 10,835 cal. BCE, triggered the Younger Dryas (YD) climate shift along with changes in human cultures and megafaunal extinctions. Fourteen years after this initial work the overwhelming consensus of research undertaken by many independent groups, reviewed here, suggests their claims of a major cosmic impact at this time should be accepted. Evidence is mainly in the form of geochemical signals at what is known as the YD boundary found across at least four continents, especially North America and Greenland, such as excess platinum, quench-melted materials, and nanodiamonds. Their other claims are not yet confirmed, but the scale of the event, including extensive wildfires, and its very close timing with the onset of dramatic YD cooling suggest they are plausible and should be researched further. Notably, arguments by a small cohort of researchers against their claims of a major impact are, in general, poorly constructed, and under close scrutiny most of their evidence can actually be interpreted as supporting the impact hypothesis.

An excerpt from the concluding paragraphs:

Another common strategy used by opponents has been to make misleading spurious and fallacious arguments, leading, in one case, to the claim that the proposed impact scenario is unlikely to have ever occurred over the whole lifetime of the universe (Boslough et al., 2013). Of course, these statistics do not actually apply to the proposed impact scenario, but rather to a scenario invented by the opposing authors (Napier et al., 2013). Likewise, it is frequently argued that wildfires might produce nanodiamonds (van Hoesel et al., 2014; van Hoesel et al., 2013). However, there is no single case documented where this is known to have occurred, and, of course the counter-argument is obvious; if wildfires could produce nanodiamonds, they would be ubiquitous and abundant in sediments, as for charcoal. But they are not. Nor can wildfires explain the abundance of nanodiamonds in Greenland’s ice. Strangely, it has even been argued that cosmic impacts do not produce extensive wildfires (Holliday et al., 2020b), an obviously incorrect argument on physical grounds. Other fallacious arguments against the impact hypothesis include the occurrence of multiple black mats with a few similar geochemical signals (Pigati et al., 2012). But it is clear the YDB evidence must be considered on its own terms, and, in any case, multiple cosmic impacts, or unrelated volcanic eruptions, over a 40,000-year timespan should not be so hastily ruled out. Moreover, when attempting to reproduce purported evidence for a cosmic impact, it is important that similar samples from exactly the same stratum at the same site are taken. Daulton et al.’s (2010) search for nanodiamonds appears to be hamstrung by this issue, an error these researchers seem determined not to admit (Scott et al., 2017).

 

41 Responses

  1. He did not mention the must-read Richardson et al. paper from 1998 on how object split during close encounters with planets.

    He also did not mention me, at all. Again.

    I found the craters. Others did not.

  2. There are plenty of papers he did not mention, it’s not possible to mention them all.

    Also, who are you? and where have you published your findings?

  3. Please do not think the response by “Casual Visitor” is mine. My Feb 2017 paper has the comet split into 5 or more frags during approach on a low angle trajectory from the NW & excavated deep craters in the Great Lakes (U.S.), splashing granite quartz crystals & hydrogen from the Moho toward the Atlantic Seaboard to make the Carolina Bays. Subsequent readvance of ice sheets erased crater rims.
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2017.72013

  4. I don’t see why the evidence is mainly geochemical. I see lots of comment about Carolina Bays and don’t understand why for what I have come to see as pretty good evidence of secondary impacts- if a person can just put dots together- “splash” impacts all up the Eastern seaboard and across the Texas Panhandle (Playas), Kansas, Nebraska (Rainwater Basins), Colorado and New Mexico (66,000+) which mirror image (Lidar) the elliptical shapes in the Carolinas and more squatty shapes in the Delmarva and New Jersey areas. Funny how these structures are a “mystery”. Is this “splash” pattern mere coincidence? Seems very plausible that big chunks of ice traveling at 3+km/sec. are responsible. (Watch Mythbusters and others explode water heaters)- vaporized expanding gas resulting from a collision with something from space hitting the ice sheet sending huge chunks skyward-although it may sound fantastic -seems obvious to me that there was at least one ET impact.
    Honestly- what would you expect to happen if indeed a kilometer+ sized object traveling at 20,000 km/hr hit the Ice Age ice sheet? Fire, flooding, earthshaking, devastation, flying ice, dents in the ground and a large crater in the ice- ok and glass melt, microspherules, nanodiamonds, and some exotic metals. Its right in front of our eyes and don’t get why some are so stubborn to not see it. My 2 cents.

  5. I am an expert in planetary defense, doing that since 2006.

    In 2012, due to Mayan hype, I decided to look for a crater. Took me 10 minutes to find the impact site, in the centre of the carnage.
    This find has been published in July 2013, before Petaev’s work, as a small note in my book ‘Space Settler’s Manifest’, basically a dissertation, which was presented on a conference in Italy. At that time I had no evidence of the age of the impact site. Later that month Petaev published his data, which made me certain of what I found.

    Over the course of next decade, this event was further investigated in details, and is now almost completely resolved. However, the details are classified material, open for analysis between the experts of planetary defense, but placement on the Internet is specifically forbidden.

    Bits and pieces, though, can be found in comment fields on various places. For instance, on this site in 2014 I claimed that Laacher See is an impact site, in coments over the Andronikov paper. This was one of the most popular pages on Tusk.

    On Sweatman’s paper I wrote a timely reply and submitted it to MAA journal, but they refused to publish it, because it was supporting Sweatman. after that, in comments to that article, on tepetelegrams (theGöbekli Tepe archaeologwer’s site), I pointed out the problem that he was using bad software, which puts the sun 2 degrees out of the path of the sun called ‘ecliptic’. This I was able to refine, reducing his +/- 250 error, to zero. The pillar marks the year 10,961 BC, the year of the Laacher See impact/eruption. Sweatman avoids to comment on it.
    I find this especially rude, considering that I was name called ‘Sweatman’s only supporter’ by his opposition. I was indeed the only one who made a subsequent follow-up research of his claims.

    The impact on Laacher See happened on June 29, 10,961 BC, Gregorian calendar, during a grazing encounter with Earth of a comet.
    The main impact happened on the subsequent return, on Aug 29, 10,950 BC, Gregorian calendar.

    The comet was hence in 11 years orbit, so not a part of the Taurid stream, but a separate comet. I emphasize again and again, that you MUST read the Richardson et al 1998 paper on how objects split during close encounters with planets. This is essential literature for this event. Other than that, hat down to Zamora. He is right.

    Trump established the space defense forces on Aug 29.

  6. Maybe you should work on sounding less like a lunatic if you want serious scientists to reply to you.

    “Casual Visitor” as a name means nobody knows who you are, and when asked you still did not disclose your name. How are people supposed to credit an anonymous person whose work is supposedly hidden behind classification, who is so smart he can supposedly pinpoint and date an impact crater to the YD in 10 minutes of looking while hundreds of scientists are looking for them.

    The fact you think your 10 mins on Google is enough to tie an impact crater to a specific time period make you sound insane and non credible.

  7. Also, the comet did not disintegrate through interaction with the earth. It did not break up because it entered the earth’s Roche limit like SL-9 with jupiter. Clube and Napier’s model of disintegration is much more relevant to the YD impact.

  8. Also, MAA journal editors like Martins work so your paper being refused was likely not for that reason. The MAA editor is just as insane as you, publishing a paper in support of Michael Jayes unhinged take on the YD impact.

  9. And Zamora is not right. The bays are not from the YD. This has been extensively debunked.

  10. I should correct my statement earlier. Thinking you can look at a crater on Google then read a paper and tie the crater to the date in the paper makes you sound insane.

  11. Note to Anon, if you wish to debate, please put arguments, not unsubstantiated statements. Also, please not make hasty statements. Behind my claims is a decade of research. Also, an expert can resolve something by only a brief look, because of extensive background knowledge and experience. Also, I never said that the comet broke like SL-9. Please read the Richardson paper. There are 4 possible modes of disintegration.

    Many works of art have been done under pseudonyms, where people thought that the name stated was a real name of the author. In all such cases proper crediting goes like ‘Casual Visitor’ stated that on that occasion (link to a page). For instance you might say that I was the first to claim here on Tusk that the Laacher See is an impact site, or that I claimed on tepetelegrams that I have refined the Sweatman’s calculation as soon as he published his paper.

    You cannot claim to know what was the personal communication between me and the editor of MAA journal, much before he published the Michael Jayes’ paper, at the time when Sweatman published his work. Yet, it is a fact that nobody refined the Stellarium computations, which Sweatman used as a basis for his claim of 10,950 BC +/- 250 a. Sweatman later went with the wind and altered his original claim to the one obtained by Bayesian analysis, 10,835 BC +/- 50 years, but that one is entirely wrong. YD triggering impact and the onset of the YD are not coincidental, due to high thermal inertia of the Earth system. Bayesian analysis nailed the onset, but not the impact event.

    If anyone wishes to argue, let us please start at the beginning, with the Laacher See event, which I claim to be an impact which occured on June 29, 10,961 BC, Gregorian calendar. Thank you.

  12. Sure, let’s start at the beginning. Please provide your evidence or sources for the Laacher See event being an impact.

  13. Did the Laurentide ice sheet still exist at the start of the Younger Dryas event? The Oldest Dryas event was followed by a warm period of around 2000 years. I think there is also archaeological evidence of human activity in the Great Lakes region, although this is disputed. However, the Bolling Alleroed warm period was itself punctuated by a short cool period known as the Older Dryas event. This suggests the Taurid stream was active over a long period [and not just at the YD boundary]. The Younger Dryas occupied a period of around 1300 years – but some adjustment to this figure is sometimes reported. It was not universally cold. Some decades were warm but it was dominated by an average cooler temperature. It has been suggested a wobble at the axis of rotation may have been in progress and it returned to stability 1300 to 1500 years later. What then of the Oldest Dryas event. This is assigned a period of 3000 years [2 x 1500 years] from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago. Why would such a long cool period exist immediately after the end of the Late Glacial Maximum? Is a wobble again a possibility. Pole movement is a taboo subject so not much use homing in on that. It will be laughed out of court.
    The end of the LGM = 18,000 years ago. The glaciers should have been retracting from that point onwards, in spite of the Oldest Dryas. I think this might be an achilles heel in concentrating on a single event instead of the fuller picture. If the ice sheet had retreated significanly during the Bolling Alleroed and than some of the arguments put forth in the debate might be immaterial – but would apply to the fuller picture. The same might go for the Carolina bays. They may have been formed somewhat earlier – at the end of the LGM for example. I was reading a post on PhysOrg a week or so ago in which they decided a huge volume of water ran down the Mississippi valley at the end of the Ice Age and left a sedimentary deposit many feet thick not far from the Gulf coast. In this was a foreign body – a bit of rock from an earlier period. The geological author suggests it was gouged out by the volume of the water [that also appears to have been running both sides of the Mississippi river at the time]. That would suggest a rapid ice melt and a lot of water running through the Ohio-Mississippi valleys. It could only have ended up in the Gulf. A similar situation can be found in Europe. Huge volumes of water running through the Danube valley and emptying into the Black Sea. A rapid ice melt would be a certainty if there was pole movement. As that is out of bounds one can only wonder. Would a wobble at the axis of rotation [interspersing between warmish and coolish] melt the ice sheet?
    If you go back further we have a strange event around 40,000 years ago. There was obviously a huge injection of C14 into the atmosphere as carbon dating came up against a brick wall at this time. A recent attempt at moving it back by 5000 years using Bayesian methodology only highlights the difficulties involved in carbon dating at this time. Interestingly, from a catastrophist standpoint, there was a mass die-off of animals – and humans. The demise of the Neanderthals for example. We also have the strange Laschamp geomagnetic event – when the magnetic poles flipped over, righting themselves several thousand years later. What causes the magnetic poles to flip over? The Gothenberg geomagnetic event is dated around the time of the Oldest Dryas and the Russians have found lots of evidence of geomagnetic shifts in the past, very often at potentially catastrophic points in time. In addition, there might have been a follow up event as the disappearance of Australian megafauna is usually dated a few thousand years after the Laschamp event. Richard Firestone in his book ‘The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes’ attributed the 40,000 years ago event to a supernova somewhere in the universe. Presumably he was thinking of the injection of C14, associating it with cosmic rays outside our solar system.

  14. Anon, there has been a discussion here on Tusk, years ago. This should be a starting point to read it, but navigation on Tusk is no longer an option. So, I’ll repeat some of it, the weakest evidence first, strongest last, my habit. Excerpts from my notes:

    1.A unique feature that attracted volcanologists to study the LSE and its deposits is that the magma chamber of the Laacher See volcano was almost completely emptied during the eruption. (Schmincke, 2004) Emphasize: Unique. Worth checking. In case of impact, the reason for emptying is excess of energy and volatiles.

    2. Shape: General shape and orientation of the crater: NE to SW. Plume from impacts always goes backward, in this case it went to NE.
    2a. Impact craters are accompanied with a butterfly release of debris. So is the case with the Laacher See.

    3. Microscopic evidence: In the tephra all 14 rare earth elements have been enhanced by factors 20-30. These elements are abundant in space, but not on Earth. This is sufficient evidence for an impact, for it is otherwise inexplicable, or extremely unlikely, bordering phantasy.
    “Trace element distribution and implications in sediments across the Alelrod-Younger Dryas boundary in the Netherlands and belgium”, andronikov et al, 2016

    4. More interesting details: “Eruption dynamics of magmatic/phreatomagmatic eruptions of low-viscosity phonolitic magmas: Case of the Laacher See (Eifel, Germany), Peeters, 2012. Very detailed paper, from which I have dug out a lot of notes that corroborate the impact case.
    a. eruption much larger than typical for that field (extra energy)
    b. ductile fragmentation, instead of brittle, implying higher temperatures and pressures, perhaps from the outside.
    c. more tephra in distant areas, implying high explosive
    d. p12: difficulties to explain the odd compostion of tephra (‘unrealistic’ is being mentioned)
    e. heavily debated trigger: a large earthquake in the vicinity of the volcano, not accepted. Impact not even considered, as is usual.

    5. Petaev paper hints on impact by the abundance of Pt. Most likely source for Pt: impact.
    5a. One large peak, preceded by a medium one, 11 years apart, and few minors, imply a resonant orbit of 11 years.
    Possible coincidence of the medim peak, as judged by the scale of it, with the Laacher See event.

    This concludes the weak evidences, accumulated by others. I found them convinving enough to justify further investigation.
    At this point, my work actually begun.

    I ask for your opinion about these evidences. What would be the next step ?

  15. 1. That is not true. It is not a unique occurrence for the magma chamber to be completely emptied during an eruption. I learned about this in my intro to geological processes class, and a cursory google search with the keywords “volcanic eruption completely empty magma chamber”. It may be a process not well understood by scientists, but that does not make it unique in the sense that it has only happened with the LSE. Unless you propose all those other volcanoes were also hit with cosmic impacts. Perhaps one impact on a volcano could be plausible, but dozens??

    2. I’m not sure what you mean by “the plume from an impact always goes backwards”. Do you have any material I could read to support or explain this?

    3. The abundance of “all 14 rare earth elements” being elevated in a supposedly Younger Dryas crater is irrelevant unless that same geochemical signature is associated with other known impact sites. Only Pt has been found at all tested sites, with elements like palladium, iridium, gold etc being slightly elevated at some sites and not others. This elevation could be the signature of the LSE and not the YD impacts, which occurred around 100 years apart (Kletetschka et al. 2018), and the sampling resolution of those sites may have caused both signals to become intermixed. If those other rare earth elements were an impact signature, they would show up at other sites, especially greenland.

    4. All of these notes are known to occur during other eruptions. Again, did impacts cause those also?

    5. I don’t see how a recurrent cycle supports the idea of an impact rather than volcanic explosion. If anything it works against it. The laacher see eruption happened 100 years before the YD impact and onset, so how does it coincide with the medium spike in Pt?

  16. 1. Examples please. Which other cases are known ? tell me a few.

    2. An impactor goes through the air at a cosmic speed, 17 km/s on average for asteroids, but a value higher for comets. 25 km/s in this case. it pushes the air in front and leaves a vacuum tunnel behind, soon to be refilled by the air. At the momemt of explosion the gasses would have a bow schock or land in case of impact in front, normal air pressure sideways, vacuum behind, thus the path of lowest resistance, which means that they would rush backward. Impact plumes always do. In a similar manner, mushroom clouds of explosion form because upward is the path with least resistance, in air mass that has to be pushed. This is a classic effect.

    3. This is highly relevant, because those elements are abundant in space, not on Earth. Pt would have been relevant in case that the impactor was a metallic asteroid, as supposed by the Petaev, a body of about 0.8 cubic km of Fe would justify the amount in ice. But, the impactor was a comet, of unknown composition, where Fe/Pt were only trace elements. Presence of 14 rare Earth elements indicates an impactor from space, yet a volume 3 orders of magnitude greater in total. We are debating here whether LSE is a YD impact site. I am not aware of the quantities of rare Earths elsewhere, but they are present in tephra of the LS, and are a sign of an extraterrestrial compostion. Are there any other volcanic eruption known that show such elemental oddity ?

    Kletchka is wrong, for I claim that the impact occured on very precise dates, 11 years apart, but we have yet to come to dating, which is strong evidence. We are to discuss the weak first.

    4. All these are hints of excess energy. There are volcanic eruptions which were more energetic of course. Yet, these are hints that this could have been an impact on a volcano, not a definitive proof. Weak evidence, as I said.

    5. Dating of the LS and YD is part of the strong evidence. What is your evidence on dating the LS and YD as being 100 years apart ?
    My claim is that they are one and the same, where a comet had a grazing skirmish on June 29, 10,961 BC, Gregorian calendar, resulting in the LS event, followed by a main impact on Aug 29, 10,950 BC. In Petaev’s data peaks are regularly spaced with 11 years interval. This hints on the orbit of the impactor, as a rogue centaur which had had a close encounter with Saturn, that put it on a resonant orbit with Earth.

    6. If you are a volcanologist, how can you discern whether an eruption have been caused by an impact ? What would you expect to find ? This is not in literature. You did not answer my last question. What is the next step ? Are these clues justifying further investigation ? How ?

  17. Perhaps I should reformulate my questions:

    a. Are there any other known cases in volcanology where all these tell-tale signs of an impact (extraterrestrial composition of elements in tephra, backward plume, butterfly shape distribution of debris, atypical high-energy release for that field, full emptying of the magma chamber) present ***simultaneously *** ?

    (Please note that the stated list of impact effects is not exhaustive.)

    b. What are the statistical chances for the occurence for any of these effects individually ?

    c. What is the cumulative likelihood of the simultaneous occurence of these effects, therefore of this event ?

    d. What is the likelihood of an impactor hitting a volcano and triggering an eruption ?

    e. How these values correlate ?

  18. See Kletetschka et al. 2018, accessible in the YDIH bibliography hosted on this site. They are proponents of the impact theory, and they have physical micromorphological evidence that is dated both absolutely and relatively. Laacher See Tephra layers are 2cm below the YD Onset that contains impact glass and Microspherules.

    If you want to say he is wrong, you’ll have to go and get some ground truth rather than nay-saying from your rocking chair

  19. In order to ascertain whether these clues justify further investigation, we must work through them and make sure they are actually clues and not just the ravings of an unhinged narcissist.

    I will respond further to your points in order later, I need to go in the field for the day, but a couple of volcanoes that completely emptied their magma chambers include Þríhnjúkagígur in Iceland, and any volcano that has formed a Caldera, as this is how Calderas form; the emptying of the magma chamber to such an extent that the whole thing collapses in on itself because there is nothing to bear the weight. As I said, just a quick google will tell you this.

  20. Regarding the background levels of rare-earth elements, let me take you back to geology 101.

    Rare-earth elements are of wildly varying abundances depending on a variety of factors. They can vary locally and regionally at the surface, they are different on the surface compared to the deep crust, and they are different in the crust to the mantle, and magma. Magma has higher levels of rare-earth elements than are typically found in the crust. The fact that the Laacher See is a volcano is why you might see elevations in all rare-earth elements, not just the element/s that are signatures of the YD impactor stream (Pt, Ir in small abundances). So to answer your question regarding whether other eruptions are known to have oddities in rare-earth elements: Yes. Many of them.

  21. In fact, the source you cited, Andronikov even says this.

    “The presence of a volcanic component and a component resulting from extensive biomass burning in the sediments of c. 12.9 ka BP are indicated on the basis of trace element features. The volcanic component may be related to the Laacher See volcano eruption, whereas the cause of the extensive biomass burning remains unclear”

    They attribute the trace elements to the Laacher See eruption, because they passed Geology 101 and they understand that magma has higher concentrations of rare earth elements than the crust does.

    They do not find this signal odd, because it is expected, and thus they do not need to make insane claims to explain it.

  22. Please read page 12 of the Peeters’ paper, where he mentions this level of enhancement as unrealistic. Or, the Andronikov paper where they argue that enhancement of some elements is possible, but all of them simultaneoulsy, and at those levels…

    Some clarifications: Ir++ is considered as a signature of a stony, differentiated Main belt asteroid. Pt++ of an Fe impactor. Rare Earths++ is a sign of an ordinary chondritic (undifferentiated) composition, but the composition of comets is still an almost complete unkown, except fort he fact that they are half water, and the rest mostly super volatile ices, with an admixture of everything else.

    The point here is not whether there is an oddity in a single rare Earth element, or a few, but that there is an enhancement of all of them. There are hundreds of volcanoes in the Eifel region. Please find a single case of an eruption in that area where all rare Earths have been sumultaneously enhanced to such extraordinarily high levels. Reference, please.

  23. The rare Earth elements were enhanced at the top of the chamber, which requires 3 differentiation stages, and they have troubles explaining it. On the other hand, an impact would inject these elements at the top of the chamber. This is not an insane claim. It is entirely possible event.

    You, however, avoid the key question: how would you discern an impact-triggered eruption, from an ordinary one, if not by simultaneous presence of numerous tell-tale signatures of an impact site ?

    If you dare to calculate the likelihoods, occam razor is on my side, I suspect.

    And, if the simultaneous presence of numerous impact signatures is insufficient for you to justify further research, then please say what is ?

  24. I am good thanks. I have better things to do than arguing with randoms who think they are entitled to my time. We’ve been at it three days, you have wasted my time with mal-formed evidence you refer to as “the weak evidence” without ever getting to the strong evidence. You are catastrophically incorrect in your most base assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge actual physical high-resolution evidence from only a few hundred kms from the actual site that shows unequivocably that the Laacher See Tephra is very distinctly separate from the YD onset and cosmic impact. This evidence is fatal to your delusions, but because you looked at Google Earth for 10 minutes, you can’t be wrong!

  25. I would distinguish an impact-triggered eruption from an ordinary one by the presence of impact products in the “tephra layer”, of which there is none for the LSE. They are clearly separate. Therefore, the impact did not happen at the same time as the eruption.

  26. I am not a statistician, I am not going to devote even a second to calculating the likelihood if your insane theories. Even if I was to, a statistical argument is moot when confronted by fatal physical evidence.

  27. LS minor impact and main impact indeed did not happen simultaneously. They are 11 years apart. Also, these events are of vastly different magnitudes. I remind you that this article is about Sweatman’s paper. He is a statistician.

    I agree with you that this conversation should stop.

  28. cp: Did the Laurentide ice sheet still exist at the start of the Younger Dryas event?

    Reply: The LGM ended at about 19kya, at which time the sea levels began rising (much faster than now, e.g.). At about the beginning of the Bolling, sea level rise increased to about 1100mm/century (almost 4 times present sea level rise). This rate held steady until after the Hocolocene boundary (10kya). This rise had to come from melting ice from somewhere. My best reasonable guess is that it was the Laurentide Ice Sheet melt-off – even during the YD stadial, which made barely a blip on the slope of the curve. I make no comment here on the Meltwater Pulse A or B.

    Source: 2011 Stanford et al – Sea-level probability for the last deglaciation — A statistical analysis of far-field records

  29. cp: “The Oldest Dryas event was followed by a warm period of around 2000 years. I think there is also archaeological evidence of human activity in the Great Lakes region, although this is disputed. ”

    Our research into this includes the Mason-Quimby line, part way up the LP of Michigan. There have been found bones of megafauna north of where the LIS extended at 13kya. Based on our best info of that LIS advance/retreat line. IMHO, this area is inadequately unresearched for me to come to conclusions.

    We see two possible LIS impact points – Saginaw Bay and the center of the Michigan Basin a bit WNW of Saginaw. The LIS thickjness there is a wild card. Every map of the LIS at ANY date is different from every other such map, so impact point ice thickness IMO could be anything from zero meters to perhaps 400 meters. As I said, it is a wild card.

  30. c.p. “However, the Bolling Alleroed warm period was itself punctuated by a short cool period known as the Older Dryas event. This suggests the Taurid stream was active over a long period [and not just at the YD boundary].”

    Didn’t Napier peg the Encke progenitor to 50kya? And isn’t that the start of the Taurid stream?

  31. [NOTE: My previous comments had Phillip Clapham’s initials backward. Apologies to Phiollip. Sloppy as helll on my part. No insult was intended.]

    p.c. : “The Younger Dryas occupied a period of around 1300 years – but some adjustment to this figure is sometimes reported. It was not universally cold.”

    Stanford’s compiled sea level curves show two linear curves indicating warmups within the YD stadial. One upslope lasts about 900 years near the bottom of the cold. The other is steeper immediately afterward and lasts till the end of the YD stadial at about 11.5kya. The warmup was NOT one sped-up warming from the bottom of the YD cold, and your assertion has some support.

    But that was NOT the end of the warming. Another, slower, warmup continued all the way to 8.2kya. (Over 3,000 years.) Into the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, when climate was warmer than it is now. The Holocene Climate Optimum lasted until about 4.0kya. (Interestingly, 8.2kya is the time of another climate discontinuity.)

  32. p.c. : “I was reading a post on PhysOrg a week or so ago in which they decided a huge volume of water ran down the Mississippi valley at the end of the Ice Age and left a sedimentary deposit many feet thick not far from the Gulf coast. In this was a foreign body – a bit of rock from an earlier period. The geological author suggests it was gouged out by the volume of the water [that also appears to have been running both sides of the Mississippi river at the time]. That would suggest a rapid ice melt and a lot of water running through the Ohio-Mississippi valleys. It could only have ended up in the Gulf.”

    The southern 9– km of the Mississippi River is in a region known as the Mississippi Embayment (ME). This extends all the way north to inside the city of Cape Girardeau, MO. As a geagraphic entity, this area is also called the Mississippi Delta. Not to be confused with the Mississippi River Delta SE of New Orleans. This region is, as far as I have been able to determine, one single unconsolidated deposit. Meaning it was all laid down at the same time. NO LAYERS. And not only that, but the overlapping meanders of the Mississippi River indicate that the region has been extremely low slope for a very long time.

    On the eastern edge of the ME lies the Appachians, and on the west, are the Oachita Mts and the Ozark Mts. The geologic map of these areas show that the geology of the mountains has been severed on a line running SW to NE.

    The ME is all loose soil that would have been severely scoured by MWPA and MWPB had there been a Scablands kind of outflow. There is no such scouring apparent. Ergo, there was no rapid water running down the Mississippi. The lack of scouring argues against it. Yet the deposit was a one-off. Where did the 900-km long single deposit come from?

  33. p.c. “A similar situation can be found in Europe. Huge volumes of water running through the Danube valley and emptying into the Black Sea. A rapid ice melt would be a certainty if there was pole movement. As that is out of bounds one can only wonder.”

    Tell me about it. A pole shift might solve a few of these conundrums. But that, like Noah’s Flood, is not allowed. Much better is a Roman Legion;s worth of crowbars to force uniformitarianism into every catastrophe.

  34. p.c. “Would a wobble at the axis of rotation [interspersing between warmish and coolish] melt the ice sheet?
    If you go back further we have a strange event around 40,000 years ago. There was obviously a huge injection of C14 into the atmosphere as carbon dating came up against a brick wall at this time. A recent attempt at moving it back by 5000 years using Bayesian methodology only highlights the difficulties involved in carbon dating at this time.”

    Firestone laid out this problem in his book. Dates in that window are pretty elastic.

  35. p.c. “Interestingly, from a catastrophist standpoint, there was a mass die-off of animals – and humans. The demise of the Neanderthals for example. ”

    For my money, consider the dating of the Neandertal demise up in the air.

    Given that the YDB is being shown to have been ET related, those dozens of earlier spikes in the Greenland ice cores may some day need to be reconsidered. I.e., the YDB may not be a one-off.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 
Subscribe for Updates
Latest discussions