Younger Dryas Boundary independently identified in Michigan and Alabama lakes; reconfirmed in Netherlands…..and another Cosmic Tusk?!?



Abstract Title:

Late Glacial fire and nitrogen dynamics at lacustrine sites in Alabama and Michigan: evidence of an acid rain event?

is part of the Paper Session:
Paleorecords II. Climate and Environmental History in the Eastern U.S.

scheduled on Tuesday, 4/8/2014 at 10:00 AM.

Click below for author bios:

Joanne P Ballard* – University of Tennessee
Sally P Horn – University of Tennessee
Chad S Lane – Chad Lane, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Zheng-Hua Li – NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Steven G Driese – Baylor University
Thomas V Lowell – University of Cincinnati

We analyzed stable nitrogen isotopes, total nitrogen, and macroscopic charcoal in sediments from three lakes in Alabama and Michigan to characterize temporal patterns in nitrogen cycling and explore links between nitrogen, climate, and fire across the late glacial in eastern North America.  We used cores from Cahaba Pond, Alabama, recovered by Delcourt et al. (1983, Ecology), and matched our isotope and charcoal analyses to their pollen stratigraphy.  Cores from Swift and Slack Lakes in Michigan were obtained in 2008.  Thin-section analysis across a 20-cm section from Cahaba Pond that encompasses the Younger Dryas shows a transition from mineral-rich to organic-rich sediments, with loessal silt aggregates. All three lakes recorded roughly coeval nitrogen perturbations at the onset of the Younger Dryas, when a dramatic shift occurred in terrestrial and aquatic vegetation at Cahaba Pond.  All three sites also registered fire events across the late glacial.  We explore the possibility that observed perturbations to the nitrogen cycle are evidence of nitric acid rain.  Such an event could result from nitrate production in the atmosphere due to shock waves from an extraterrestrial event as discussed by Prinn and Fegley (1987, Earth and Planetary Science Letters).  If our nitric acid rain idea is correct, it would lend support to the Firestone extraterrestrial impact hypothesis.  Concentrations of nitrate and ammonium in ice cores, and sudden eutrophication and shifts from alkaliphilous to acidiphilous diatoms in lake sediments, might also support a nitric acid rain event at the onset of the Younger Dryas.


Younger Dryas, Late Glacial, nitrogen, isotopesextraterrestrial, acid, rain, Cahaba Pond, climate, paleofirecharcoal, lake sediments, Slack Lake, Swift Lake



Ussello Horizon – not from new paper below

Quartz melt structures in European coversands may support Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis

The Tell Tale Tusk

  • E.P. Grondine

    Ah well, nothing like aggravation to make the fingers work –

    Dennis, have you ever heard of WISE?

    The taxpayer money spent on that search for Nemesis oould have been spent on SENTINEL.

  • Steve Garcia

    I would simply reiterate that the impact information is so minimal in that “impact” book that it comprises less than 2% of the endnotes and is only included in ONE out of 18 chapters. In addition, even in THAT one chapter only 1-2 footnotes are not self-referenced.


    And, NO, the references do NOT exist within the endnotes. I specifically went INTO the endnotes. It wasn’t that hard – they were all on one page. That is how I found the ONE or TWO references to ANYONE ELSE but you. In the rest of the book, NOTHING.

    On the other hand, the myths and legends you footnoted a LOT. An interesting balance for an IMPACT book by and IMPACT researcher.

    Yeah, right. Some “impact researcher”.

    Here is a hint: ANY time you put a number in a sentence – a number that you got from SOMEWHERE, you should footnote that number. People will want to know where the heck the number came from.

    It WOULD HAVE BEEN much more straightforward to find the above statistics from you book, except you didn’t even bother to index it. Then it would have been a simple matter of counting index references.

    A “science” book without an index. Wow.

    I hear NO rebuttal to the self-referencing that Dennis points us all to. Shall I go in and count the number of self-references in the endnotes, too? And then come up with a ratio of self-references to the impact references (all 1-1/2 of them)?

    You know, you opened yourself up to this by claiming to have written a primarily impact book and that the myths are just a minor part of it. The evidence is right there.

    And we might also ask where you go to sell the books? Is it to impact conferences mainly? Or is it to powwows?

    And does THAT tell us anything about the main thrust of the book? How many astronomers and geologists want to read about the history of the Lenape or the Natchez Indians?

    As I said: BUSTED

  • Ed said:

    “Dennis, I simply pointed out to you that your initial HSIE extinction scenario agreed neither with the archaeological record nor species survival. For scientists, this failure to agree with the data is enough, and they don’t used failed hypothesis as a platform to engage in slander.”

    We weren’t talking about me, or my work. And I’ve never written anything called an "HSIE extinction scenario", and as usual, your non sequitur, off topic comment fails to present a link to anything specific I’ve actually written; much less the actual "data" you are arguing from. So there is nothing real to respond to.

    We note that in every thing I’ve said so far, I’ve not attempted to present my own work, or theories. In fact, I’ve not attempted to make the case for my ideas here in anyway. In every case where my work has come up, the subject has been brought up by you. And just like this time, it’s always a completely off topic attempt to deflect the subject of the conversation because you really don’t have anything on-topic, or intelligent, to answer the argument with. So you summon up your bizarro comprehension of what you imagine I’ve written somewhere, and attempt to make it about your low opinion of your imaginary image of my work. The simple fact is that every time the subject of my work comes up it is always by you, and always under the very same circumstances.

    This is extremely typical of you; every time you have no valid answer, and you’re loosing the argument you resort to exactly the same behavior. You’ll plop down a non-sequitur, off topic response, usually a personal ad hominem, with empty, and meaningless words that are devoid of anything specific, or intelligent that can be responded to. And then you bask in your self-assumed, and imaginary superiority. I imagine that in the past that trick has been pretty effective in reinforcing your sense of self-importance by making sure that you have the last word.

    No one used a “failed hypothesis” to slander anyone. There’s never any need to. You always provide plenty of ammunition yourself. And if rubbing your nose in your own errors, and undeniable failings like questionable reading comprehension skills, and/or intellectual integrity to illustrate the simple fact that you ain’t all that when you waltz out here pretending to be the all-knowing, all authoritative lord of impact science is slander, get used to it.

    What you’ve failed to get into your head is that have since you have no academic standing whatsoever, and since I can , and have, repeatedly presented compelling evidence of a complete lack of academic, or intellectual integrity on your part, (We note that that’s where you had no answer, so you tried to change the subject to make it about me) your non-specific, mock-expert, opinions of my work are meaningless.

    And actually Ed,

    I do know what scaling laws are. That’s just another one of the weird assumptions you picked up, and got obsessed about, back when you were still basing 100% of your imaginary comprehension of my work on a single comment on the Meteorite list. Back when you got that idea into your head, and at the time that argument came up, it would still be years before you stumbled upon my actual work on a different blog, and accidently read it.

    The thing is, applying scaling laws has no logical connection to this conversation, or anything I have actually written. It never has. And after years of hammering on it Ed still hasn’t directly quoted a single sentence, or paragraph in my work where it does; much less, an actual reference to anything that shows how.

    Now if we want to see what literature Ed studied on the subject, and that he bases his own self professed expertise on, he tells us that if we want to read his references we’ll find them in his book. But when we turn to his book all we find for a ref on scaling laws is a thin, and watery reference to, “Entire books” on the subject. But he never gives us the name of one of those books.

    Ok, since you’re so obsessed with scaling laws, why not give us the name of one of those “entire books”?

    Hmmm… Come to think of it the only time you have ever used scaling laws in a sentence here has been to use it as a club, or weapon, in a personal ad hominem attack telling me that I know nothing of scaling laws. The thing is, you yourself have never used “scaling laws” in the context of a technical conversation that indicates your own comprehension of the subject goes beyond what you think you learned while lurking on the boards, and blogs, eavesdropping on highly technical conversations between folks you think are smarter than you. Even in your book you fail to provide a reference that indicates just exactly which book, or literature your much vaunted, and self proclaimed expertise comes from.

    And in telling us that you can’t tell who you learned from because you don’t want them to be bothered, you pretty much saying that we can’t count on your teachers to confirm your advanced knowledge either.

    So, regarding scaling laws, where is the real evidence beyond your own self-proclamation of expertise  that you yourself have even the remotest clue what you are talking about?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hello Dennis –

    When you first showed up here at the Tusk, you were SCREAMING your hypothesis that airbursts flattened most of the West, and led to the immediate deaths of the mega-fauna, along with your imaginary astroblemes.

    You demanded that I provide you with scaling laws, and kept pointing to Boslough’s imaginary scenarios.

    This was followed by your using the Tusk to repeat Morrison’s slanders, and that pattern continues.

    I will never submit any of those who I associate with to your abuse.

    Now if you take pointing out your ignorance to be ad hominem personal attacks, that is too bad.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Steve –

    I did not pirate any impact researcher’s work. I know them and they would have brought it to my attention.

    Just because I ommitted to mention various “alternative researchers” (nuts) you may have met in Stelle and Kempton is neither my, nor our, problem.

    If a stroke had not intervened, my summary of Maya literature would have been fully footnoted to the primary literature.

    The Egyptian and European materials would have been moved to appendices.

    The footnotes were meant to be in-line, but with my stroke damage this proved impossible.

    If anyone does not want to read the traditional histories, that is not my problem. The First Peoples were the peoples who were here when the impact events occurred.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Once again Steve (David Childress’ss friend) and Dennis (David Morrison’s friend) have managed to turn the Tusk into a vehicle for their attacks.

    Nothing else matters to them.

    I have mentioned before the need for a public clearing house for impact research to replace Benny’s services with the Cambridge Conference.

  • Actually Ed, I don’t speak for David Morrison. To fantasize that my responses to you are are even remotely connected to him, or any silly conspiracy against you is a fine example of a paranoid delusion right out of a psych 101 textbook.

    And you are the one who did the attacking with your off topic, degrading, and non sequitur ad hominem crap from left field every time you couldn’t come up with something intelligent, and on topic to say that was relevant to the topic of the thread, or argument. And neither of us have used ad hominems against you at all. Just statin’ the facts Ed. We just responded to your own silly ad hominem attacks, and ridiculous self-proclamations of superiority with unassailable evidence that the Great Ed Grondine just ain’t all that.

    And I never once demanded that you “provide me with scaling laws”.

    All I have ever demanded from you on the subject is a valid reference to verify that you yourself have even the remotest technical comprehension of the subject
    since it was you who demanded that I go read up on imaginary literature you still cannot name and apply “scaling laws” to the delusional and fictional understanding of my work that you’d fabricated years ago from a single blog post somebody else made on the meteorite list. In spite of your repeated self-proclamations of superiority, and advanced knowledge on the subject, and numerous challenges to that imaginary superiority in response, we note that you have yet to respond with a valid reference to indicate that you are capable of using “scaling laws” in any other context, besides a personal ad hominem attack telling someone they don’t know anything about scaling laws.

  • Steve Garcia

    The missing endnotes are the missing endnotes.

    The missing sources in Chapter 2 have nothing to do with alternate researchers.

    Trying to deflect your poor attributions onto me doesn’t solve your problem of stealing other people’s impact numbers and not giving them credit for them. I hardly think you went out and measured them yourself, so you got them SOMEWHERE. Where? From WHOM? From WHAT BOOKS?

    Talking about “Mayan literature” is shifting the argument and making straw man arguments. There was nothing in what I said about missing endnotes about Mayan anything. The only aspect of “Mayan” that is pertinent is that Mayan literature is not “impact”, which is what you claimed the book was mainly about. You only make my argument stronger when you point to EXTRA myths and EXTRA twice-told tales. Where are the “mainly” impact facts filling your 327 pages of text? One chapter on impacts out of 189 does not constitute “Mainly.” That that chapter is abysmally sourced – well that is terrifically terrible writing on your part. Some might say the missing endnotes constitute plagiarism. Without attribution, they appear to come from YOU.

    More straw man arguments: Whether the endnotes were intended to be “inline” or not, it is the fact that the ones that should be there are simply MISSING – that is the issue on your plagiarism.

    More straw man arguments, skirting the issues: As to people wanting to read the “traditional stories” or not, if you take out the “traditional stroies” there is only one short chapter left to your supposedly “impact” book.

    You defend yourself not one whit. The book is about impacts – as you claim here – or it is not? Which is it?

    You CLAIM that the book is proof positive of your status as an “impact researcher,” yet where other than in Chapter 2 is there anything substantial about impacts?

    You CLAIM NOW that you HAVE “not pirated any impact researcher’s work,” yet WHERE ARE THE ENDNOTES GIVING THEM CREDIT?

    You dig yourself deeper and deeper…

    NOT an impact book – ergo NOT an impact researcher.

    NOT giving credit to impact researchers – ergo YES to the pirating of others’ work. Plagiarizing, if you prefer.

  • Steve Garcia

    Ooops! Typo! “189” should have been “18” chapters.

    [Irony of ironiesAcross the depths of time and space!!! — In the “CAPTCHA for this comment, one of the string of characters is “Macmillan” – which, if I am not mistaken, is name of the textbook publishers – the original publishers of Velikovsky – the ones who dumped his book under threat of astronomer Harlow Shapley, the threat being that Macmillan wouldn’t sell another textbook, because Shapley was going to blackball them.]

  • Steve Garcia

    Benny Peiser has long since moved on. The now unbelievably antiquated Cambridge Conference is no more. It’s 1982 interface was so out of place on the real internet.

    WHEN OH WHEN will we hear the last of the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth about its ending? When oh when will someone come out of the 1990s and into the 21st century?

    How many times have we heard it? 100? 200? When will it ever END?

    It is a broken record.

    Ever heard of blogs? Ever heard that they are FREE? Ever heard of “If it is so important to you, why won’t you just start your own and invite everyone? Including Benny?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Dennis, you still do not know scaling laws.

    I have no intention of inflicting you on anyone I know.

  • Steve Garcia

    The rule of thumb “scaling law” is 20:1, with variations that don’t amount to much.

    Can we all remember that? 20:1

    Class? “20:1, Mr Garcia.”

    I can’t recall seeing any crater:object ratios other than 20:1. I keep LOOKING for someone to use some other ratio – haven’t seen it yet.

    It’s REALLY complicated —- TWENTY TO ONE. Four numeric characters or twelve alphanumeric ones including spaces.

    Now that we’ve actually ADDRESSED Benny Peiser and his never-to-be-resuscitated Cambridge Conference (unless someone here does it), and now that the scaling law ratio is OUTED, can someone PLEASE stop with it! How many times do we have to hear the same whining?

    So, put up or shut up:

    1. Make your own Cambridge Conference blog on

    2. If the scaling law is other than basically 20:1 tell us, oh great seer of the Lenape!

  • This is just too hilarious. I said:

    “In spite of your repeated self-proclamations of superiority, and advanced knowledge on the subject, and numerous challenges to that imaginary superiority in response, we note that you have yet to respond with a valid reference to indicate that you are capable of using “scaling laws” in any other context, besides a personal ad hominem attack telling someone they don’t know anything about scaling laws.”

    Ed answered:

    “Dennis, you still do not know scaling laws.”

    Do you see what I mean folks?

  • E.P. Grondine

    They see exactly what you are trying to do.

  • E.P. Grondine

    By the way, who I know in the nuclear community is neither you nor Morrison’s business.

  • So what? You are far more insignificant to Dave Morrison, or myself than you can possibly imagine. He and I both struggle to ignor you. Although, when you come at me like that all sideways, off topic, insulting, and non sequitur spitting hate out the side of your face at me with exactly the same repetitive set of off topic personal ad hominem insults, and bullshit, you’ve been regurgitating without variation to hijack conversations with for five years now, I can’t resist taking the opportunity to entertain myself a little by polishing up the same tired old responses. I’ve been trying to change them up a bit this time though to give them a little more pizzazz. And since all those insults I’ve been answering your off topic, non sequitur ad hominem attacks with were all carefully crafted from the truth to produce maximum discomfort, emotional pain, and outrage, I am delighted to read that you perceive them as abuse.

    I can’t really speak for Dr. Morrison but I am pretty sure that like me, he doesn’t give a rats patooty who you know in the nuclear community either.

  • E.P. Grondine

    One at a time-

    There ARE some simplified model equations for crater size and impact energy, hence impactor size, and there certainly are some quick and rough ones.

    [Note: I stole this from the very best sources…]

    Consider a 100-m chunk of asteroidal material
    encountering the surface of a rocky planet at a speed of 20 km/s. The kinetic energy density of the impactor is 1/2 (2 x 10^6)^2 or 2 x 10^12 erg/g. The energy required to crush a typical rock is a little above 10^8 erg/g. [A joule is 10^7 ergs]

    To heat it to its melting point requires about 10^10 erg/g and to vaporize it requires less than 10^11 erg/g. Thus the impactor carries enough kinetic energy to not only vaporize itself completely, but also crush up to roughly 1000 times its own mass of target rock, melt roughly 100 times its own mass, or vaporize
    about 10 times its own mass.

    Alternatively, it carries enough kinetic energy to accelerate 100 times its own mass to a speed of 0.1 times its impact speed.

    In reality, an impact does all of these things to some degree and divides its energy over all these possible outcomes. Thus an impactor may crush 1000 times its own mass of rock, melt 10 times its mass, vaporize a few times its own mass, and eject 100 times its mass at speeds of tens to hundreds of meters per second and still give off a substantial amount of energy as seismic waves and radiation from the fireball.

    Crater sizes are of course generally related to the kinetic energy content of the impactor.

    For relatively SMALL impacts the critical factor in determining the target’s resistance to the explosion is the strength of the material, S (dyn/ If S > density x g x crater
    diameter at the level of the target surface, then the crater excavation process is strength limited (the “g” equals the surface gravity of the planet; in the case of Earth, g = 1).

    In this case, the diameter scales as:

    D (km) roughly equals the cube root of W,
    where W is the explosion energy in units of millions of tons of TNT equivalent (megatons; Mt).

    For very large impacts, no material has enough strength to matter, and the cratering process depends only on the gravitational environment in which it occurs:

    D (km) roughly equals the fourth root of W/g

    For a rule of thumb for craters from a few kilometers up to 100 km or more with impactor speeds of 25-30 km/s, the crater is NONE OT TEN TIMES the size of the impactor,

    If you find a 100-km crater on Earth, you can figure the impactor was 8-9 km if fast and 11-12 km if slow,
    and delivered 100 (crater diameter) ^ 4, or 100,000,000 megatons.

    Chicxulub, in other words.
    You can do that much with a thumb…

    S. K. W.

  • E.P. Grondine

    God must love fools, or He would not made so many of them.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Dennis –

    anyone who can read can see who attacked who here.

    I was having a nice discussion with Jonny pointing out how poorly written his paper with Baillie was, and then…

    If your benefactor Laura wants to start her very own nu-age cult, leave me out of it.

  • Steve Garcia

    And then you went and claimed something that was easily falsified.

  • E.P. Grondine

    John Moss is still dead.

  • A self taught amateur whose book is as poorly written as yours, and with such demonstrably poor academic, and intellectual integrity has no place criticizing the work of real scientists.

    And yes folks most certainly can see who tried to hijack the thread to make it about your hatred of me when you didn’t have anything to say that was relevant to the argument, and that you didn’t get away with it. They can see that when I pointed out that you were not the all knowing impact expert you claim to be. You tried to change the subject and make it about me by dredging up a five year old of off topic, ad hominem attack that you’ve tried many times before and got your nose rubbed into your own crap every time you did. It did not go so well for you this time either.

    It’s like your brain is locked in an endless loop and you’re stuck on a single argument from five years ago. So, just like this time in an off topic attack you’ve tried again and again, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread, each time you try this crap you’ll plop down some ridiculous off topic, non sequitur comment about my work without quoting a single word of anything I’ve actually written, or any relevant literature to support your argument. You always word those meaningless attacks so that there is nothing in them that can be responded to so you can have the last word, and then you complain that I keep bringing up my work when I stuff your ad hominem crap down your throat. And every time you pick a fight and get beat up, you start whining about abuse.

    You have been trashing me with your blind hatred like this for five years now. And since you always use exactly the same set of insults it’s not much trouble replaying the same old rebuttals to make you look like an idiot once again.

    I for one have had enough of your abuse, and replaying exactly the same argument. When you quit shitting on me, I will quit rubbing your nose in it.

  • Dennis; I’ve finally gotten to acid test that stone zI have and it isn’t even remotely reactive to HCL. So now I have glazed chert, if that is what it is. Most of the cherts I have looked at are fairly homogeneous inside and out. These pieces are smooth outside except for the pin holing and rather fine cystaline structure on the inside. Any more ideas I can chase?

  • George; Today I was reminded of an event that occurred in my past. A friend of mine and my self were knocking around the local ship canal when we came across an exposed layer of what we thought was peat. so we got all excited and dug up a bunch of it and brought it home to our respective families gardens thinking this would and much nutrient to the soil. We were way wrong, nothing grew where we turned this in. Now years later it comes to mind and I wonder if this could be a YDB layer. The layer was about 6-7″ thick and ran back under the blue clay in that area. I would think that the soil above the “peat” was about a foot of black dirt and a couple fee of blue clay then the “peat” them more blue clay down to the lime stone bed rock. Does this sound like a possible candidate?

  • Joanne Ballard

    Hi Jim Coyle,

    Where was your canal?