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

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

Recovered from the libary fire 1/1/20



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

View Quartz melt structures in European coversands may support Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis on Cosmic Tusk

View The Tell Tale Tusk on Cosmic Tusk

75 Responses

  1. OT – does anyone know of a way to obtain a reprint of Baillie’s Celtic Gods, which seems to be a very obscure book (and way expensive)?

    Second question: Is there a reprint of Clube’s and Napier’s Cosmic Serpent available anywhere? Appears time to delve into the source documents. Cheers –

  2. agimarc –

    I don’t know about Baillie’s. But in looking, I found this: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_kw=Celtic+Gods+Comets+Irish+Mythology

    It has two copies for around $39 US with 4 days left to bid on eBay. Since Amazon has it at nearly $400 US, those sound like bargains, if you can sandbag it till the last hour and pick it up for about $50 US. I’d do it myself, but shipping to Mexico here is god awfully expensive.

    WOW – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celtic-Gods-Comets-Irish-Mythology/dp/0752434446

    They say they have 6 used copies for 34 pounds ($57.09 US) in stock. I’ve bought from them before, and shipping was not a whole lot more than shipping out of the U.S.

    You can buy a used copy of Cosmic Serpent on Amazon.uk for 45 Pounds ($75.56 US). It says 5 copies available. You might be able to ship together, but probably not.


  3. The trouble with Celtic Gods, and New Light on the Black Death is that only 1000 copies were printed by the publishers. This is why people are selling them at such high prices online.

    Regarding Cosmic Serpent by Clube and Napier, their follow up book The Cosmic Winter is more informative and covers much of the same.

    If you cannot get copies of them though, go to your local library and request and Inter-Library loan for the books in question.

  4. Hi Johnny –

    Other authors tell me that e books and print on demand are the way to go – I have not done that yet, as I am working on some details, and lost most of my computer technical abilities in my stroke.

    Personally, I am very pleased at the prices used copies of “Man and Impact in the Americas” are getting. Also, my infamous “blue binder” is unobtainable at this time.

  5. Yeah, these options are becoming more prevalent, but the issue may be that publishers of books that have already seen print hold the copyright meaning one may not be able to ebook or print on demand with it, even though that publishing company no longer prints hard copies anymore.

    Certainly for niche material, the ebooks and print on demand is a way to keep your work in circulation. Personally though, i am not a lover of ebooks, as i much prefer the feel of paper and a proper book opposed to reading off a screen.

  6. I agree. Welcome to the grouchy old guy club.

    Just to show you how backward I am, I’ve never even owned a cell phone. But have you seen the youngsters with their games and pads?

    Pint on Demand satisfies the desire for paper.
    As far as the legals go, I suppose one could just do it, and then wait to see who shows up to complain.

  7. Sorry Ed, at 36 i dont consider myself to be an old man just yet. And yes, i happen to be watching my wife play my PS3 right now as I type this on her iPad.

    I have nothing against technology, i just like physical books over digital books.

  8. I am glad to see at least some of you finding an interest in Baillie. Incidentally, Jonny shot me a new paper from Dr. B himself — and Jonny — which lowers the flag on the 540 event. Looks like a volcano for some pretty complex reasons. I will post soon but wanted to read it a time or two.

    As for the texts, I have owned. Still have a Celtic Gods and a Black Death, but to my great dismay I gave out my dear copy of Serpents and it was not returned. I think I know who I gave it to, but the one time I asked he had no knowledge. (He was a “hard sell” PhD that used to work for RS).

    Anyhow — now is the time to buy — Origin of Species never dropped a penny. I should add that Grondine’s book “Man and Impact in the Americas” will be right with it….kind of a Bartram’s Travels to the Darwin text (sans the flourish and beautiful author art).

  9. For the record, I have two 27 inch iMacs, four Macbook pros, a Macbook Air, an iPad 3, two regular old iPads, two iPad Minis, two iTouch 5’s, Apple TV, and an 80 inch Sammy under the Tusk. Welcome to the future, baby.

  10. George,

    Apple appreciates your financial support and advertising endorsement.

  11. Well the reasons are not that complex. We argue that the ice cores have been wrongly dated before the 8th century, and when you correct for this error we find two large eruptions at AD 536 and 540. The complexity comes from trying to work out how the error was introduced to the cores.

  12. George,

    How about a post of “Tusk-ish” books like “The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture” by Richard Firestone, and the ones on other past impacts?

    Having that “library reference post” as a pointer — and perhaps as an amazon affiliate site member? — will help publicize the background material on past cosmic impacts.

    Hell, straight up book reviews here of those “Tusk-ish” books attached to amazon pointers would be very useful.

  13. What? No Sony 4K HD, George?

    Thanks for the plug for my book. I am certain that you are absolutely right that copies of the first edition are a very good investment.

    Someday I will have to tell you the story of how I saved Apple.

  14. By the way, re: events for the 540 CE Encke pass, see my CC essay on the destruction of Bazas.

  15. I have read it Ed, and to be frank, much of the interpretation of fragmented comets, such as suns around the sun in 537, sound like parhelia due to atmospheric ice crystals from volcanic cooling. Similarly for the events circa 577 (we have a massive volcanic eruption at around 574) giving rise to truly meteorological phenomena such as moon halos and parhelia. Even the sea rising can be explained through storm surges due to aberrant weather conditions, perhaps coupling with spring tides, which is something the UK has known about over this last christmas. This year, america was locked in cold due to the polar vortex, which meant that the UK was battered by jet stream powered storms, with storm surges coinciding with spring tides. Injection of sulphates into the stratosphere can ultimately heat the stratosphere, meaning that there can be a large temperature gradient from pole to equator, which causes polar vortex diversions.

    Now the important thing about our study is that we show that there was indeed massive eruptions in 536 and 540, which explains the environmental effects we see in trees, and recorded in history. Given that the original impact hypothesis for 540 was proposed due to the lack of volcanic evidence, then by occams razor, we must conclude that the environmental effects are due to volcanic eruptions.

    Now this does not mean that something cosmic was not happening, and the sky may well have been busy, perhaps even increased minor impacts and meteor showers, but on a scientific basis, cosmic impacts, or atmospheric loading is not required to explain the observed climatic effects, now that we have identified a large, possibly equatorial, volcanic eruption.

    I was waiting for George to post the paper, but until then, if you are interested in reading it, it can be downloaded here http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/10/1799/2014/cpd-10-1799-2014.pdf

    I suggest though, that until George posts about it in its own category, that we hold off further discussion on it to avoid side tracking this thread further.

  16. Thanks for the pointers and suggestions, guys. Will replace head scratching with something a bit more productive.

    Any thoughts about converting the rare Tusk-ish books into pdf and posting them for download?

    Cheers –

  17. The problem with that suggestion is that it would technically be illegal as it infringes the copyright of the authors/publishers.

  18. Hi Jonny –

    The essay was simply my attempt to sort out the eruptions and impacts using some of the contemporary European observational data which survived from those times.

    It seemed to me at that time of writing it that one massive volcanic eruption had occurred at the same time as St Columba’s death, and could be used to refine the date for it.

    I am glad that this eruption is now confirmed. Its existence throws clear light on Adomnan’s sources, and refines the chronology for sub-Roman Britain and the Picts.

    I have held from the very very start of this discussion that dust load by impact does not rule out a simultaneous dust load by volcanic eruption. Not only is this possible, it is clearly shown to have happened by the data from the 1628 BCE events.

    As far as an impact mega-tsunami having occurred, we now have additional information on the disappearance of the fourth division of the Tuscarora people from the Atlantic coast. Their statements on this are very explicit and quite clear to those who have any working ability with their language.

    I never let theory get in the way of data, and thus “not required” does not mean did not happen.

    As I have mentioned repeatedly, there is a big difference between “could be” and “is”.

    I think that while withholding further discussion until then may be correct, but I do not know if I will be able to participate at that time. I am working on other materials.

    I will take a look now, but will not be posting detailed studies in the comments section here.

    PS – I do not know what caused the shift in the polar cortex. I sure do wish we still had TOMS data.

  19. Jonny –

    You are right, of course.

    At the same time. . .

    Something has changed. We used to be able to buy a printed book and then what we did with it after that was our own affair. Otherwise used book stores would never exist. We would have to take books to the grave. We could also loan books to friends or GIVE them to them. I am sire millions of copies of Harry Potter books got passed around as loans or sold as used. The cyber world is actually MUCH MORE restrictive on our options to share books.

    I’d actually like to see the current law on how generous we can be or not be with books on pdf or ebooks. Did they ever actually change the law? Or do they just go around roaring at us?

    As far as MOST academic docs, the dal that scientists make with the world is usually to get a good long job in acaemia with PUBLIC funds paying for their careers. But then when they actually LEARN something ON OUR DIME or that of endowment funds they get doallar signs in their heads, thinking that someone actually wants to pay upwards of $50 US of hard-earned money for mwhat they have ALREADY been paid handsomely for.

    I DO know this – that in industry if a scientist or engineer comes up with a great idea and patents it, the COMPANY owns the patent, not the actual inventor. Why is it so different with academics who decide to entertain all of a sudden with popular books? Why is it that the university (usually public) doesn’t own the discovery? And as such, when the university is public, why doesn’t the PUBLIC own the discovery? After all, like a corporation with inventions done on their dime, the public PAID FOR IT.

    And THEN they demand that we pay again.

    The scientists are plenty willing to do work with us paying, but when we actually want to see what it is we PAID for, they pull out the “intellectual properties” b.s.

    Well, normally those who pay for something own it. Ask any CEO.

  20. Jonny –

    Thanks for posting the link to the paper. I promise to NOT comment on it until George makes a blog post for it.

  21. Not at all, Steve, Jonny. Have at! I was thinking of dropping a link to it in comments in any case. As a matter of intellectual integrity I will post the fine paper nonetheless.

  22. First off, I want to note how much I miss having Benny’s services as a global clearing house for work in this area. His services provided for a quick and rapid clearing house, including a place for serious discussion well away from the natterings of idiots.

    The work on dust loads has immediate use, as we may likely be in the path of 73P’s dust load in 2022.

    I take it from your paper that absolutely no work has been done on retrieving cosmic dust from the ice cores, leaving you to argue that without a volcanic cause, an extra-terrestrial cause may be possible for the data seen in the tree rings globally.

    While I know I could extract those dates from those 22 pages, I’ve had a stroke. What “possible” dates do you now have?

    For myself, there was limited French regional archaeological material available at the University of Virginia after the piece was written. Those reports (of a villa excavation, if I remember) were consistent with the described impact.

    I have no idea who in the archaeological community is working now in the region of Bazas, or in the coastal areas of the Carolinas, or about the current geological work being done with the Carolina coastal cores.

  23. Thanks for the comments, guys.

    The crux of the matter is who really owns the copyright on the work and how do you convince them to dump the work on the public domain.

    Should we want to reproduce a limited edition of an “obscure” scientific work, at a minimum, we would need signed agreement of the author and followed by approval of the publisher based on the agreement signed to publish the work. Messy, but not impossible. For things that printed only 1,000 copies, approval should not be all that difficult to obtain (carefully adjusting Pollyanna hat). Cheers –

  24. Ed, We certainly have not looked at retrieving cosmic dust from ice cores. Our paper is merely concerned with reconciling the core chronology with tree ring chronologies. As has been evident, the Ice Cores have no major volcanic acid at 540 that could explain a 4-5 year environmental downturn as evidenced in world wide trees. It is for this reason that Baillie (in 1995) proposed an impact hypothesis in lieu of any volcanic evidence. However, as we argue, when we look at the time intervals between tree ring responses, as exemplified in bristlecone pice frost rings (which can be formed due to large explosive volcanic eruptions), we see that these spacings between tree ring events matches the spacings between volcanic markers in ice cores in the 6th and 7th centuries, but that the ice core dates are 7 years offset. This is evident with all ice cores linked to what is now known as the Greenland Ice Core Chronology (GICC05), which in turn is essentially derived from the original Dye3 ice core.

    Getting the chronology correct is important. There is no point looking for a particular effect in a piece of ice if it is mis-dated. Say you wanted to know what the ice core is saying in AD 542, if you look at the GICC05 date of 542, you would actually be looking at AD 549 in real time.

    With our paper we do not list any “possible dates” for dust loading or impacts. The reason being is that we do not have any evidence in these ice cores of that (by we, I mean Mike and myself, I have no idea if the Ice core workers of these cores have any, but I presume not).

    So what our work shows is that by moving ice core dates forward by 7 years, in the 6th and 7th centuries, we get an extremely coherent story regarding large volcanic eruptions and tree-ring response, and have tried to identify the cause of this 7 year error (which could lie with the mus-association of acid at a depth of around 780 metres with Vsuvius). Indeed, we argue (as mike did in his 2010 paper), that in the early 1980’s the ice core workers had two volcanic acid markers in their core one around 50-40 BC, and one between AD 80 and 90, and they knew that there were two historical volcanoes in this region 44 BC and AD 79. When making a choice they chose Vesuvius at 79 AD as a marker date, meaning taht the earlier date would be around 51 BC. Now we see that there is a frost ring at 43 BC, and whats more, and that given that the 6th and 7th centuries are wrongly dated (and presumably everything below it) by 7 years, then 51 BC should be 44 BC, in accord with the historical eruption and recorded dust veil, AND the 43 BC frost ring. This means that the “Vesuvius” date is actually 86 AD and so cannot be Vesuvius.

    But back to the impact hypothesis. GICC05 gives volcanoes at 515, 529, and 533, and 567, 619, 674, 678, and 686 (approximately) and we have frost rings at 522, 536, 540, 574, 627, 681, 684, 694, we can see that there is a 7 year offset between the two data sets (possibly only 6 years in the late 7th century going purely with GICC05, and not antarctic cores). So if this is correct, then the implication is that the large eruption at 540 was responsible for the environmental effects after AD 540. Furthermore, given that the impact hypothesis was proposed to explain this environmental event due to (at that time) a lack of volcanic evidence (which we now see is due to mis-dating), then when confronted between the two hypotheses, we are forced to go with the volcanic one as the correct one. Or one could ask this. If the revised ice core dates had been given initially (i.e. a volcano at 540), would it then have been necessary to look for a cosmic source as the origin of the 540 event?

    Does this mean that there was no impact around 540? It doesnt. But it does, at this moment in time, lessen the importance of any impact in causing the 540 environmental event evidenced in trees. If we look at myth and historical records, there is a lot of strange events being recorded. As I pointed out, some of it is likely atmospheric effects due to volcanically forced cooling (parhelia, moon rings etc). There were records of comets, and aurora, and falling of stars etc over the 520-550 period (give or take). So perhaps the celestial sphere was busier than usual, or perhaps one could argue that given the environmental stress from volcanoes in 522, 536, 540 people were looking to the skies more for omens (good or bad) to aid them.

  25. Hi Jonny –

    IMO, the two of you need a really good writer to explain the science. Your paper rambles.

    Before my stroke, this would have been an afternoon’s work which I would happily have done for the two of you for free.

    You glide by the very important point that no work is being done to recover dust samples from ice cores. You do not know how much cosmic dust may have added to the effects of volcanic dust in 540 CE. This is a poor performance, as there are many people who are intentionally trying to suppress work on impact.

    It is apparent that well dated historical writings might play a large role in clearing all of this up. As you know, these writings are “rare” because of the chaos of those times.

    Otherwise you and the ice core folks could simply agree to split the difference. :P)

    I did my best to retrieve writings from the sub-Roman period. Sadly, I can be of no help now in retrieving Mayan records.

    I prefer to focus what limited resources I have on locating astroblemes, such as those at Bazas and in the Carolina Banks.

    But the central issue now for many people is finding undeniable astroblemes from the HSIE.
    That is the only thing that is going to end the “debate” over the dust markers for the HSIE.

    I am headed deeper into the field for a few days, and will pick this up later on.

  26. Hi Ed,

    I am sorry if the writing is not to your satisfaction. Perhaps our peer reviewers can point us in the direction of improving it.

    I do not glide by the point of cosmic dust, as I stipulated I do not know if anyone has performed, or is performing any measurements on cosmic dust within these cores. Yes we do not know how much cosmic dust there is in the ice cores at that time, and do not have any data upon that.

    Also this is not a poor performance as you put it. Mike and I are scientists, Mike a dendrochronologist, and myself an experimental physicist, so we are guided by real empirical data, and base our conclusions upon that data, no matter where it leads. Of all people, we are not trying to suppress any work on impacts, but speaking for myself, we must be objective in what the data is telling us. Hence why Mike proposed an impact at 540 based upon the data that he had at the time. Now after almost 2 decades, re-evaluation of that data as well as the provision of new and further data, has resulted in a volcanic explanation for the environmental event that required the proposed cosmic impact to explain. This is not playing into the hands of “the enemy”, this is real science. We cannot sit or ignore conclusions based upon what others reactions will be, or how it will be viewed by them or whether it aligns with their viewpoint or not. We as scientists do not, and cannot ignore conclusions based upon our belief or desire for it to be one effect or the other. We are merely interested in finding the cause of a particular event, whatever that may be, as well as reconciling different chronologies. Indeed, while the unsaid implication of our paper is that the environmental event may not be cosmic (and the implicit conclusion is it is volcanic), the conclusion does not extend to the cause of an other environmental event either cosmic or volcanic origin, i.e. just because we show a volcano at AD 540 which coincides with an environmental downturn, does not mean that the environmental event at 1159 BC is also volcanic in origin.

    As I have said, there may well be something cosmic going on, and it may or may not have contributed to the downturn event. As a scientist, I cannot ignore that possibility, but the principle of least astonishment based upon our paper tells me that at this moment in time, having a large volcanic eruptions at the beginning of each tree ring event means that the tree ring event at AD 540 was caused by a massive volcanic eruption, with no requirement for the introduction of a cosmic vector.

  27. Right, Jonny. You have to go where the evidence leads. If new evidence leads elsewhere, as it did for Mike, hey, it leads elsewhere. What can you do?

    In my other interest – being properly skeptical about global warming – it is amazing how often this dictum is violated, how many times interpretation leads evidence. I think it happens on both sides or the discussion, but when it happens on my side I cringe for science. It’s happened so much on the “alarmist” side that it seems the norm. Sorry, if this momentarily was off topic.

    When I read pretty much ANYTHING about good scientific puzzles – and mark my word, what we are all involved in here is a scientific puzzle – it is clear for good long swathes of time that no clear conclusions will be possible – yet. The fact, by itself, that alternate explanations are possible means the evidence is too incomplete. All interpretations at such times MUST be tentative and flexible – and really should be presented clearly as such, for all to see. And all researchers and observers need to remain flexible – because the next piece of evidence can (and not infrequently DOES) lead down another path.

    As an interested observer who has prioritized the overall of what I’ve seen as ET – including the 540 AD puzzle – I am disappointed that this new evidence leads toward volcanoes, but what can I do? Be skeptical? Yes, it has to pass SOME vetting process in my head for me, and sometimes I can pick enough holes in new papers, but this one so far (not done yet) is properly romping on my skepticism. Can I hope that maybe a mistake has been made? Doubtful. I haven’t had much chance to see enough of Mike’s work, but what little I’ve seen directly is good and sober science. And you, Jonny, I have never seen you put down one phrase that wasn’t sound science. So, abandon hope, all ye who enter into skepticism of this paper… LOL

  28. BTW, mechanical design engineering is also an “go where the evidence takes you” endeavor. It is amazing how, even in such a SOLID applied science, where so MUCH is quantified 99-100%, when design time comes it is necessary to simply follow what the goal and the givens will allow. I call it “Listening to the machine.” Going in with too much ego or insistence on one direction can really be an exercise in humility. Flexibility is a good quality to have, probably in all the sciences.

  29. agimarc –

    There is an ongoing tug of war on who has the right to data from work done on the public dime.

    Mike Baillie, in fact, was on the losing side of data he had collected and collated on Irish bog oaks, something that REALLY did not set well with Mike. Because of the particulars of his arguments, I agree with Mike, but only because of those arguments. I see his case as being unique, but the UK FOIA board did not agree with him. Mike’s argument (if I can summarize it and not get it wrong) was that measuring tree rings for dating is one thing, because 1 ring = 1 year (normally). But dendroCLIMATOLOGISTS were taking his measurements on ring widths as if there was no uncertainty to any of it – just grabbing numbers and thinking that is the end of it. Mike was NOT HAPPY about them doing that. His arguments about anyone having that data and using it willy nilly were well presented but not successful. He argued that it was not the same as thermometer readings, but took a lot of finesse to understand what each ring to mean – much less thousands of such rings. So now climate people all over the place will use Mike’s data for a reason for which it was not intended – and almost certainly getting some things wrong. I see Mike’s basic position as trying to prevent bad science. How can anyone disagree with that?

    I hope I got Mike’s arguments right.

  30. Hi Steve,

    Skepticism is a good thing, and healthy, as only through skepticism can science progress. Indeed, by trying to pick holes in things can you either expose the weakness of an argument, or you ultimately make it more robust. Either way, science benefits from it. I admit i too am disappointed that AD 540 doesnt look cosmic, but I still remain open minded to the possibility that we could be wrong. Would being wrong be bad? ultimately no, if it forces the ice core community to tidy up their work, and make their chronology more robust, plus we still have a puzzle to solve. And as I have pointed out to Mike anyway, he is in a win-win situation. If the redating is correct, well that’s obviously a good thing. If he is wrong, and AD 540 is cosmic, well thats good too as he was the one that first proposed it!

    I dont follow the whole climate debate since it has become extremely politicized, and politics bores/annoys/frustrates me. With regards the FOI though, I have strong feelings on this being an experimental physicists. I have generated and measured a lot of data points in my time, which I view as my own intellectual property, but to have someone FOI it for their own “research” on the basis it was funded by grants that are paid for from taxes, is infuriating. after all, the general public give their money to the government who decide how best to use it, and what goes to science. Then through awards through competitive grants from research councils, it is given to researchers to use for their proposed projects, which of course is outlined by the researchers. So ultimately it is the scientists who decide which measurements to make, and who perform the science, interpret the results, and disseminate it to the community, and/or public. At no point does the public step in and say, hold on, I would like you to measure capacitance of capacitor at 100 kHz, not 10 kHz, or I think you should use BaTiO3 instead of SrTiO3 as the dielectric medium in order to investigate domain wall pinning of oxygen defects. So why should they then turn round and say “thanks for doing all that, please give me your data that I paid for, so I can use it for my research”.

  31. Hi Jonny –

    In my view, the way to lay out this paper is as a narrative running through time. Explain how you made a mistake based on what was available, introduce the new data, provide new synthesis. As the paper now sits, these are mixed up.

    (By the way, the first time I glanced at the HSIE, I set it at 8,350 BCE, based on a firm local date. There were an abundance of dates, usually because of the crappy 14C dates. But then at that time Firestone was looking at supernova with no impacts. The paleo-archaeologists were scattered an working in isolation.)

    I know its not your fault that there are no cosmic dust studies. But you need to point out that lack, or else people will be misled into thinking that all of the dust load is volcanic dust, and you and I both know that it has not been. The consequences of this rather intentional ignorance of theirs will be profound for others.

    Also due to their intransient ignorance, one is left making estimates of cosmic dust loads based on tree ring records.

  32. Hi Ed,

    I think you have misunderstood the point of the paper. The point of the paper was not to prove or disprove the cause of any particular environmental event, but rather attempt to reconcile different chronological records into one coherent story. The story is driven by the ice core data which is constructed by layer counting of annular signals within the ice cores. Unlike most tree ring chronologies, the ice while highly stratified, does throw some interpretation issues regarding some layers, and so uncertainties in the dating can creep in. To short circuit these uncertainties, the ice core workers look for a zero error dates to anchor the events to real time, and so they use volcanic signals within the ice to match to known historic volcanoes. So we have used tree ring chronology to highlight a mis-dating in their cores before AD 700, therefore allowing for a better dated ice core.

    We do not need to explain how we made any mistake (presuming you mean with respect to Mikes Cosmic Hypothesis of AD 540). The cosmic hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis to test, not a mistake in calculation, or error in an equation that lead to inaccurate results or predictions. What we have presented in the paper is also a hypothesis, one which we back up with the data, but ultimately one to be tested further with independent data. Yes we do think our stance is correct, but it is not a matter of us being right or wrong, it is a matter of the hypothesis being valid or invalid. that may seem semantic, but it actually isn’t.

    The paper as it stands is expressed for the audience for which it is primarily intended, i.e. the ice core workers, and dendrochronologists, not catastrophists like ourselves. This is why there is no mention of the cosmic hypothesis, and why we review the pertinent literature pertaining to linkages between volcanic eruptions as recorded in ice cores and tree ring effects. This is also why we chose the particular journal to publish in, since it is a journal that ice core workers read, and indeed two of teh top ice core workers whose work we are discussing, are editors of the journal itself. To talk about potential links with cosmic events is an unnecessary digression for the goal that we were aiming to achieve.

    Another point worth clarifying that I think you have misunderstood from the paper is that we are not discussing any sort of dust within the ice cores. We discuss VOLCANIC ACID as measured in the concentration of deposited sulphate compounds, as well as in some cases Electrical Conductivity Measurements as a proxy for acid concentration. Again we do not need to point out about a lack of cosmic dust studies of the ice cores, within the context of our paper. To reiterate, we are linking chronologies based upon two observable features… frost rings in bristlecone pine (an accepted proxy for explosive volcanism) and volcanic acid. Using only two variables to correlate two sets of data with is far more robust than using multiple different variables, which we have argued the case for in the addition of narrow ring events in bristlecone pine. The more variables one introduces, the less robust the work, since you essentially have more data to pick and choose from to “justify” your work. No, it is best to keep the number of correlates to an absolute minimum, since if you can obtain a good correlation with the minimum of variables, then the significance of the result is much harder to argue against.

    And to give the ice core workers their due, in my opinion it is completely unfair to call them ignorant even to accuse them of being intentionally so. We are each entitled to our personal opinions, but lets remember that the ice cores were never intended to probe the environmental and climatic history in modern times at annular level. They were more interested in the broad change of things over decades, centuries and millennia. Also, the ice core workers have done a phenomenal job and should be commended for their efforts in obtaining many miles of ice from some pretty damned inhospitable regions of the planet, and their attempts of interpreting the past. If I were to choose a word to describe them it would be stubborn or tenacious, which likely spills over to their stance upon their data, and why shouldn’t they be with regards work that they have been doing and building upon since before I was born? We are not privy to their internal policies, nor how the data is handled, so how can we truly say if they ignorant, intentional or not… Further more, calling them such is ad hominum, and has no effect upon whether their chronology is correct or not.

    And lets not forget, the hypothesis of our paper could be wrong, and they may be able to show exactly why their chronology is correct.

    And let me ask you this, how does one make estimates of cosmic dust loads based upon tree ring records, if one does not have a correct ice core chronology to account for atmospheric loading from explosive volcanism?

  33. Well said Jonny! I’ve been away a couple of days and the scenery sure does change quickly here. As a thought: Could this volcanic activity be the anti-podal effect of a cosmic impact? Were the majority of volcanic events located in Europe or is this a global event over a couple of centuries?

  34. Jonny –

    I agree with your points made in that last comment.

    I LIKE the ‘gap” approach you and Mike B. took. When I saw the same kind of timing mismatch in climate spaghetti graphs, it was in graphical format. May I ask if that might be possible in yours, too? Showing how the gaps actually line up in the before and after of what you are proposing – out of phase a little bit in the first place and then showing them with your rectifications with the phases brought into alignment?

  35. Hi Jim,

    I am aware that there has been the suggestion of linkages between impacts and volcanism, the idea being that the impact shock upon the crust can change alter the stress profile of the crust inducing earthquakes and volcanism. I am not aware of any detailed modeling of these effects, so cannot comment upon the validity. I know that there has been the suggestion that the Deccan traps were caused by the anti-podal impact of the K-T asteroid, and indeed the Tharsis region of mars was uplifted by an anti-podal impact on Mars. But in each of these cases, the impacts were extremely large, extinction class impacts, so the question is, if this mechanism is possible, then what is the minimum impact energy required to induce an anti-podal eruption, or induce more localised effects?

    The problem with the volcanoes at 536 and 540 is that we do not know which volcanoes are the culprits. From the ice cores, it is likely that AD 536 is a Northern Hemisphere volcano, with AD 540 being equatorial, with effects from AD 540 being truly global (and 536 being at least hemispheric). So in all honesty it would be a shot in the dark to suggest an anti-podal impact as a cause for the volcanism, considering we dont know where the volcanic eruption was. Certainly Krakatoa has been blamed for AD 536, but I am skeptical of it being the cause, but cant say that it isnt. Ilopango may be another culprit for either 536 or 540.

    Also to clarify, we have no idea where any of the volcanoes are in the 6th and 7th centuries, but they are likely not all in Europe, though their effects may have effected the climate of Europe.

  36. Hi Steve,

    the gap appraoch really is quite a robust way of comparing the two chronologies. I had attempted a form of “graphical fitting” where I would slide one chronology past the other, and make a note of the number of correlations between the two chronologies. While this showed that there was a far superior fit for a shift of 7 years, it resulted in smearing of the data. The gap method was far more convincing.

    Also, when trying to figure out a way to I did play around with trying to show the before and after results graphically/diagramatically, but while it looked reasonable and conveyed the sense of what was going one (especially if it was a for a presentation talk or poster), it just wasnt giving the information in enough detail or transparency, and while it was all to scale, it could have been argued that perhaps some obfuscation or sleight of hand was happening. At least with the tables, while they are not visually striking, present all of the information for anyone to inspect and check for themselves, and know that we are not playing any tricks.

  37. Hi Jonny –


    While you get to the point in this post, I think you have missed the point in your paper. Establishing chronologies if an on-going process.

    It will be easier to get the ice core researchers to admit error if you describe how you made your own.

    I am not a “catastrophist”. I research impact events.
    What hit, where, and when.

    I suggest not using the word “catastrophism” at all, as it usually includes a lot of idiot garbage, and obscures the data.

    Those ice core workers are the ones who will be conducting dust studies on those cores. I did not mean to call them ignorant.

    “And let me ask you this, how does one make estimates of cosmic dust loads based upon tree ring records, if one does not have a correct ice core chronology to account for atmospheric loading from explosive volcanism?”

    A very good question, and far beyond a post at the Tusk.
    Let’s stick with the issue of how poorly this paper is written.
    Moving on, there is a lack of graphics….

  38. Meanwhile We might note that the only person who is complaining about the way the paper was written is someone who is not a scientist, has never published anything at all in a peer reviewed publication, and possesses no degrees, or academic credentials whatsoever. Indeed, his only publication is a self-published, self-referenced paperback.

    He states:

    “I am not a “catastrophist”. I research impact events.
    What hit, where, and when.”

    Yet in fact, in spite of claiming for years to be able to go right to the astroblemes of the YD using Amerindian oral traditions as a guide, he has never identified or proven a single impact structure.

  39. Hold it right there, Dennis.

    “Man and Impact in the Americas” is referenced to peer reviewed publications.
    I referenced known and documented impact structures and excavations in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

    You have also conveniently left out of your slander the fact that my essays for the Cambridge Conference were circulated to the all of the impact specialists working in the field.

    As far as using traditional histories (and that is the exact and correct term for what you are trying to describe) to locate other impact structures goes, or any archaeological data, those traditional histories are secondary. The primary data is the distribution of impactites and artifacts.

    Because of my rigor, Baillie’s error does not affect “Man and Impact in the Americas” in the slightest.

    As far as degrees goes, there are reasons for that, and I am comfortable with the decisions I made.

    I have never proposed imaginary impact structures.
    I have never proposed any imaginary asteroid injection mechanisms, and then tried to hide my involvement.
    I have never tried to pass myself off to any journal board as an impartial referee on matters in which I have a firm view.

  40. Hi Ed

    you are still referring to “Baillies error”. As I said before, the proposal of a hypothesis is not an error. Lets say that we are correct that the ice core data is mis-dated by 7 years, thereby moving a volcano to another date, leaving evidence of volcanic evidence at AD 540. So in 1995, and up to 2008 (when mike first addressed the 7 year offset), based upon available published data, as far as everyone was concerned there were no data indicating volcanic involvement of the 540 global environmental event evidenced in tree rings. So one must come up with another hypothesis, which is what Baillie did, and a cosmic impact, or loading of dust, from space is a logical suggestion, and one that could potentially be tested.

    Also as I have stated, our paper may not be correct, and until we hear from the ice core workers or obtain independent confirmation, it will remain a supported hypothesis needing further testing. But the paper not being correct does not mean we have made an error either, since we have simply proposed a re-dating based upon available data.

  41. “I have never proposed imaginary impact structures.”

    Every theory is an imaginary circumstance until it is either confirmed, or debunked. And to say you have never theorized that a given location is impact related is not true. 

    Actually, one does not have to dig too deep into the meteorite list archives at all to find instances where you have proclaimed something to be an impact structure, only to have your “imaginary impact structure” shot down as a “crater wrong” by geologist Paul Heinrich.

    It’s not that big of a deal really. One thing everyone looking for craters has in common is that not every location they get excited about checks out. And if after gathering up all the existing data, geologic maps, any papers relevant to the local geology of a place, and then actually going there to survey the place, gather some specimens, and spend some time on the ground, a location doesn’t check out one simply moves on to another. Thanks to Google Earth there is no shortage of suspect locations to go to and turn over some rocks. And like prospectors looking for gold every researcher has their own unique take on what to look for, and how to identify the trail.

    But so far no one has identified blast effected materials from the YD impact that are bigger microscopic. And no one has turned up an astrobleme or any kind of impact related planetary geomorphology that can be positively connected chronologically, or spatially, as a point of origin for those materials.

    “I have never proposed any imaginary asteroid injection mechanisms, and then tried to hide my involvement.”

    I just love conspiracy theories. Perhaps you’ll elaborate. If any given theoretical impact mechanism is proven false, it is simply discarded. That’s just the way science works. So where is the crime in proposing a hypothesis that doesn’t work out that’s so heinous that one would need to hide involvement in it?

    “I have never tried to pass myself off to any journal board as an impartial referee on matters in which I have a firm view.”

    Since you posses no degrees, credentials, or academic standing whatsoever, I doubt any journal board of any consequence would consider you as a referee, impartial or otherwise. So that last part comes as no surprise either.

    But otherwise, what’s your point?

  42. Hi Dennis –

    I told you when you first posted here at the Tusk that your scenario of ablative airbusts did not agree with the archaeological record, nor with the survival record. It still does not.

  43. Hi jonny –

    I tend to think of a “hytothesis” shown not to be vaild as an “error”.
    As it was based on the data available at the time, and Baillie corrected his error when new data became available.

    If Morrison had of done the same with the “Nemesis” hypothesis, then we would not be having this discussion now.

    There are some people who fail to admit errors.

  44. Well with the greatest of respect then Ed, you are not thinking about it correctly, nor scientifically. Showing a hypothesis to be incorrect/invalid/wrong is not the same as saying that you have made an error. The semantics of science is different from every day parlence. You see the use of error implies mistake, which is the general term for it in every day language, but scince doesnt use every day language in its every day meaning (look up the term scientific error to see an example).

    For example, lets for the sake of argument term the cosmic hypothesis as an error. In our paper, we are essentially hypothesising that the ice cores are too old by 7 years, and one implication is that there is a volcano at AD 540. So by your definition, Baillie made an error suggesting a cosmic vector with the data he had available at the time. Now, what if our redating hypothesis is shown to be invalid, and the cosmic vector hypothesis is back on the table. Does this mean he has no longer made an error?

    Indeed, if you look at it carefully, no where do we prove that the cosmic hypothesis is invalid. All we show is that upon redating the ice cores, there is a volcano at 540. No where does this explicitly falsify the cosmic hypothesis. Occams razor implies that the volcano is likely the origin of the environmental downturn but not that it is definitively correct. So how can you definitively say that Baillie made an error?

    Also, if our redating hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, then by your thinking, we made an error or a mistake, and Baillie then didnt, even though you have said he has. If we are correct, then we havent by your way of thinking made an error, but Baillie did. Therefore, since at this moment in time, neither hypothesis has been shown to be either definatively correct or incorrect, then by your thinking Baillie must be in some form of Schrodingers cat, being both in error and not at the same time, until someone falisfies one or both hyptheses. Welcome to the new field of quantum-dendrochronolgy.

  45. Ed Said:

    “I told you when you first posted here at the Tusk that your scenario of ablative airbusts did not agree with the archaeological record, nor with the survival record. It still does not.”

    In point of fact Ed my theories regarding the potential for ablative airbursts remain to be confirmed either way, and this completely non sequitur comment from left field attempting to resurrect a years old argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this article. Such behavior is typical of you though. You’ve done it many many times before.

    The thing is Ed, I have no confidence whatsoever in your education, or your academic or intellectual integrity Ed. And I pretty much don’t give a rip for your opinions regarding my ideas, or my work. Heck For more than three years, you yammered, and hammered endlessly, and oh so authoritatively at me pretending to be the final word and absolute authority on all things related to impact science. But the simple reality has always been that you are just another self-taught, self-important amateur researcher, and science reporter.

    Right from the beginning you had based your entire opinion of my work, uncountable non sequitur comments that didn’t connect to the conversation in any way that could be responded to, and endless personal ad hominem attacks for more than three years on a single comment on the meteorite list about a place, or places someone credited me with finding, or pointing out, I’m not clear which; and never mind that, in fact, I had never written a bloody word about that  place.  You kept calling those places my “features” but you never did tell us where they were, or just exactly what it was that I was accused of saying about them. And never mind how many times you were told of your error.

    And then, after years of trashing me like that, you showed up on another blog where an article of mine had been posted that expresses that theoretical ablative airburst mechanism which you object so strongly to here was posted without my name in the byline at the top. So it wasn’t clear who the author was. You did see my name with one of the comments below though. And you asked me, just as politely as can be, “Dennis, why haven’t you told us of this gentleman’s excellent work before?” You clearly had no idea that “this gentleman’s excellent work” was in fact mine.

    Now if you understood my work well enough to have a valid, and such a damning opinion of it on the Tusk all those years, how come you didn’t immediately recognize it there? What an amazing revelation! All that time you were proclaiming to be such an expert, and damning critic of my work, you had never really read a single word of what I had actually written!

    That was the very work you’d been damning for more than three years already, and here was unassailable proof that you’d been doing so without ever really having a word of it. Suddenly the reason all those non sequitur comments about my work that didn’t connect in any rational way to the conversation, or anything I had ever actually said or written about anyplace on Earth made perfect sense.

    Reality Check: All that time you’d been riding me like a dirty diaper, the truth is, you had no real clue what you were talking about. No wonder so many of the insulting things you said didn’t any sense at all!

    Here was a thing you’d proclaimed for years to have an expert opinion on, but that entire self-assumed expertise, was based on something someone else had said in a single comment thread on the Meteorite list.

    The thing is folks, what we have here is clear, and unassailable evidence of the kind of academic/intellectual integrity we can expect from Ed in every thing he says and does, including the “rigors” of putting together his book. After this, I can’t help but ask: How much of his much vaunted book consists of the same kind of weak, assumptive thinking, and lack of intellectual integrity, without any checking of facts?

    Ed also said:

    “If Morrison had of done the same with the “Nemesis” hypothesis, then we would not be having this discussion now.”

    Yeah, we’ve already pretty well shot your silly claims of Dr. Morrison’s heinous, and “overwhelming support” of of the Nemesis hypothesis in the butt once before, remember? But what the heck? Let’s run through it again.

    You’d been continually damning Morrison for his alleged support of the Nemesis hypothesis, and when challenged to provide something to support your condemnation all you could come up with was a link on the NASA website to a book review he wrote about 17 years ago. In it Dr. Morrison gave a review of about ten books related to impact. He divided them into two categories. One for publications in the popular press, and the other for work that was peer reviewed, or the author had also published the subject in a peer reviewed journal. And thus it becomes a part of mainstream science. He draws the distinction that to qualify as “mainstream science” the authors are also making their case, correct or not, in peer reviewed literature to other scientists.

    The thing for folks to keep in mind is that at the time of that book review, the Nemesis Hypothesis was still a perfectly valid, but untested idea that had been properly expressed in peer reviewed literature. It wasn’t until we had the WISE data that the door was finally closed on it.

    One of the books Dr. Morrison included on the mainstream science side was a book called, “Nemesis: The Death Star”. Now the only reason that book was on the mainstream science side of that list is because it’s  author, David Mueller had also also co-authored a peer reviewed paper on the subject. That’s what made it mainstream science. It had nothing to do with whether or not Dr. Morrison was “supportive” of the idea. In fact Dr. Morrison admonished that Mueller’s book should be “taken with a grain of salt”.

    So we are left wondering how Ed got “overwhelming support” of the Nemesis hypothesis from what Dr. Morrison actually said in that book review: “Nemesis: The Death Star, is mainstream science because it’s writers are also making their case to other scientists in peer reviewed literature, but nevertheless, Mueller’s book should be taken with a grain of salt”

    So, as folks can see, Dr. Morrison’s alleged “overwhelming support” of the Nemesis hypothesis was imaginary right from the beginning, and it was founded on Ed’s mis-interpretation of an ordinary online book review Dr. Morrison wrote a long time ago

    But we are also left to wonder how being “supportive” of any theory properly expressed in peer reviewed literature can be construed to be some kind of heinous and criminal act anyway. And what’s being “supportive” of something got to do with it? Either a theory stands when tested against the actual data, or it doesn’t.

  46. BUSTED

    In reference to ‘Man and Impact in the Americas’ are these assertions above:

    …As far as using traditional histories … to locate other impact structures goes, or any archaeological data, those traditional histories are secondary. The primary data is the distribution of impactites and artifacts.

    …is referenced to peer reviewed publications. I referenced known and documented impact structures and excavations in “Man and Impact in the Americas”.

    That would sort of depend on how one uses the word “references.” Chapter 2 ‘Getting to the Crossing’ has TWO footnotes (out of 14) that reference any sources. One (3)points to the entirety of the Cambridge Volcanic Database (no more specific information to assist the earnest reader). The other one (7)points to “Entire books” on scaling laws. One points only at an entire Handbook, while one actually points to specific pages – the normal standard in footnotes and endnotes.

    In that chapter are 11 mostly short sections that reference dates and locations of impacts. In those 11 sections there are, by my rough count, 153 numbers presented. Of those, 153 did not have a reference crediting the sources, either in the text or notes.

    Footnote 8 says, Hiroshima had a “widely accepted estimate of 12.5 kiloton. No source is given to back this up. Up to 15 years ago, even with wide reading on the subject I had never seen anything but 20 kilotons. Since that time I’ve only seen 15 kilotons, until this. I would like to know where it comes from, so I will have to look it up in the “widely known” book.

    Chapter 2 is 18 pages long including notes, all of which DO reference Ed’s own comments, though two also point at sources, one vaguely.

    The book ends on page 327, with 18 chapters.

    Given the assertion that “The primary data is the distribution of impactites and artifacts,” how many other chapters deal primarily with impacts?

    These do not: Chapter 1. Chapters 3-18. Appendices A through E.

    Of the 317 total endnotes in the book, by my count exactly 5 (6 if you count the half one noted above) are on impacts.

    It is time someone stopped bragging about being an impact guy, when 312 out of 317 (98.4%) of his notes are on history or legends or myths or archaeology. The Chilam Balaam itself had far more endnotes than did impacts.

    Add in the fact that the impact information is NOT SOURCED, and the book is rife with self references (Dennis was absolutely correct) and using other people’s impact information/research without giving credit.


  47. Steve, speaking about BUSTED, when I want more information about the death4
    of David Childress’ half brother John Moss, I will be sure to talk with you.

    The bigger they are the harder they fall.

  48. I am glad that both of you are taking so much time to read my book.

    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.

  49. Hi Steve –

    Unlike Mr. Cox, at least you know what a scaling law is, If you want to take classes on them, the public ones are given by Dr. Holsapple at the University of Washington. If I am obscure regarding other peoples’ work on scaling laws, that is intentional, as they want to be bothered even less than I do.

    Other classes may be available over at Purdue in West Lafayeette, but I don’t know if they’d let either of you in.

    Moving on, when impacts were established by other researchers, I always fully acknowledged their work. PERIOD. This is unlike some charlatans who reference the works of “ancient alien theorists”.

    As far as self reference goes, if you go back to those “self references’, you will find the initial references.

    As far as work in the Flathead Lake area goes, you should not find it surprising that I do not share it with the two of you here. It is simply not your business, any more than George’s latest remediation project is mine.

    I have told both of you that the local tephra sequences include HSIE impactite layers.

  50. 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.

  51. 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

  52. 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?

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.]

  59. 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?

  60. Dennis, you still do not know scaling laws.

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

  61. 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 WordPress.com.

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

  62. 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?

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

  64. 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.

  65. 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/cu.cm.). 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.

  66. 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.


  67. 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.

  68. 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?

  69. 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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe for Updates

Tax deductible donations to the Comet Research Group can be made here