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

Now Playing: Ancient Irish history decoded as cosmic by McCafferty on Smithsonian

newgrange comet

Patrick McCafferty, Irish history savant and co-author and collaborator of Mike Baillie’s, stars tonight in a Smithsonian Channel documentary concerning the mysterious history of Ireland in the 6th century AD. McCafferty with the assistance of another Tusk favorite, Dallas Abbott, decodes the available information and concludes that Halley’s comet was responsible for the island’s conversion to Christianity during this tumultuous period.

I apologize for the late notice, but perhaps the show will be available for streaming for folks who miss it.  An excellent trailer for the documentary can be viewed here (unusually, it does not allow embedding here in my page). Some other info can be found here and here.

The show will replay this Friday, July 11 at 5:00 pm .


24 Responses

  1. He gave a talk to the SIS a few years ago and he came across as a really nice fellow who had chosen cosmic catastrophe as a potential career. I am glad to see he has teamed up with somebody else of like mind. I wish him well.

  2. carol –

    Your Amazon link shows their book at $215 US.

    Why do they not have it on Kindle? They aren’t going to sell squat at $215. They should be able to sell thousands if they put int on Kindle.

    Jonny – Can you please suggest that to them and get back to us?

  3. Hi Steve,

    The problem is that the book is out of print, and only had a limited initial run of 1000 copies, hence why second hand sellers feel justified asking for large sums of money for a rare book. It is a similar situation for Mike’s “A New Light on the Black Death”, which is by the same publisher. Then the issue with Exodus to Arthur is that the company went bust shortly after the book was published (I am sure there is no causality 😉 ), hence once again there was a limited run on it.

    Patrick had mentioned that he would like to get it into e-book format at some point, but I think he has his nose to the grind stone at the moment with other projects.

  4. I said to Patrick about the E-book, and he said that he would get on to it ASAP.

  5. I’ve got a spare copy of Exodus to Arthur which could be passed around if more than one person is interested. It’s gathering dust at the moment and my other copy is well dog eared and I wouldn’t let go of that. All that is required is the cost of postage as sending stuff across the Atlantic is expensive

  6. here is another piece of some puzzle and volcano at possible 500 to 600 ad on the other side of the globe.

  7. Jonny –

    If it helps, Patrick and others may be able to find someone to help with the formatting, etc. for turning the book(s) into ebooks. There should be someone out there filling that market niche.

    I might volunteer if no one else with experience can be found. If they would be willing to pay some small amount. I am not greedy, and I’d consider it a contribution on my part.

    I MAY not be up to it, but I could try.

  8. carol –

    Hahaha – If you think postage across the pond ain’t cheap, you should see what it costs to send to Mexico where I am.

  9. (oops forgot the4 link) this of course assumes the dating is correct .


    “The area was buried in ash from gigantic eruptions between the 5th and 6th centuries, which has helped preserve evidence of a the pre-Hispanic coastal settlement, possibly dedicated to salt production and fishing.” this does not mean that it wasn’t a cosmic event which triggered a or many volcanic eruptions. it makes sense to me that you sure could have possible huge volcanic and cosmic stuff going on at the same time.

  10. Hi Cosmic,

    I think the article is talking about ash from the el Salvador Ilopango eruption, which has a rough eruption date of between the 5th and 6th centuries (note this means AD 400-600 not 500 to 600 as you mention above). Radiocarbon dates of plant life killed by the eruption (near to the volcano) gave an age range of 408-536 CalAD (I am guessing this is the two sigma range), while tephras dated further afield are dated to between 400-600. A more recent radiocarbon dating exercise on a tree killed by pyroclastic flows gives a date of 450-545 CalAD.

    So at best we have a 95 year window for this VEI 6 eruption, but while it covers both the 536 and 540 tree ring events, it could be any of the sulphate signals in the ice cores. For example the Greenland NEEM core gives 14 eruptions from 400 – 540, and the Antarctica WDC core has 6 (3 of which are bipolar signals with the NEEM cores). This volcano is near the equator so we might expect a strong bipolar signal in North and south hemisphere ice cores. So until we can constrain the dating of this eruption, or find its tephra in a stratified ice core layer, we cannot say if this volcano caused the AD 536 or AD 540 event, though it is tempting to do so. Personally I would favour one of two dates in this range for its eruption AD 432 or 540, based upon bipolar sulphate signals, but I wouldnt discount AD 574 though it is just outside the dating range, but has a strong bipolar signal (note dates are in our revised chronology, so subtract 7 years for GICC05 timescale).

    See this article http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/aag-eruption-el-salvador%E2%80%99s-ilopango-explains-ad-536-cooling. Note that the 2008 article is likely Larsen et al 2008, where they suggest moving the suphate signal in their core at 533 to 536 to conform to environmental events. This 533 layer is of course what Baillie and myself say is actually AD 540.

  11. Jonny –

    Thanks for your take on the 400-600 year period.

    My two cents: I’ve looked into quite a bit of climate “stuff” having to do with other topics, and have gotten fairly conversant on the atmospheric flows. I and am not sure that a Salvadoran volcano can give much of a signal at all in the southern hemisphere (SH) as far south as Antarctica. Ilopongo isn’t all that close to the Equator, and is well within the easterlies that come from the northern Hadley cell, so it is necessary to look at the journey such ash must endure to get to Antarctica.

    Basically, Hadley cells are the 0°-30° north and south of the Equator, where the air rises at or about the equator and then flows northward after rising and then sinks farther from the equator. As it does this, the air circulation also gets an E>W thrust to it at the surface, causing the Easterlies. The rising portion of the Hadley cells are the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ICZ), and this wanders a bit north and south during wach year, as the Sun’s more direct rays move north and south toward the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

    With two Hadley cells, a northern and a southern, the amount of air that mixes between the two is very small. What goes up in the ICZ does take some NH air and send it south, but it really, really is not much.

    If Salvador were in the ICZ, I’d give it a decent chance of dumping some ash into the SH, because then the ICZ would assist ash getting into both the N Hadley cell and S Hadley cell. Ilopongo is at 13.67°N, almost halfway across the N Hadley cell. The easterlies at present send the air pretty much due west at that latitude, across the southern edge of Mexico and out across the Pacific.

    As the air drifts across the Pacific, approaches the ICZ very gradually. Most of the year it is raining along this entire corridor, which would work most of the ash out of the atmosphere. If you look at time-lapses of the ICZ, especially, for example, in Indonesia, you see almost constant clouds, and the rising air cools and drops a LOT of rain. The span across the Pacific being about 40% of the Equator, this is a LOT of rain bleeding ash out of the atmosphere. Between the time and distance it takes for the ash to “descend” to the ICZ and the time it takes to get across the Pacific, the ash from Ilopongo would have gone through a heck of a gauntlet. This does not bode well for much ash getting into the SH.

    Even for the small percentage of ash that gets into the SH, much less will ever get to Antarctica, because the ash then as to make it across not only the S Hadley cell, but also the Mid-latitude cell (30°-60) and into the Polar cell (60°-90°). These cells and their delineations are very real, even if the evenness of the cell widths may look artificial. The path for the ash is NOT direct, because it has to rise at the ICZ, then fall at the S edge of the S Hadley cell, than cross the mid-latitudes near(er) the surface, and then it rises again at 60°, the northern edge of the S Mid-latitude cell. So it is going up and down, and in addition is traveling eastward in the upper elevations of the S Hadley cell and westward in the lower elevations of the Mid-latitude cell.

    Thus, the ~9500km trip south from Ilopongo to the ICZ and then across to Antarctica is not a direct journey, but zigs and zags, east and west, and up and down. The distance covered for any particular ash particle is probably in the 40,000km to 80,000km range, depending on how many times it circumnavigates before arriving in Antarctica. And all that while it is subject to rain precipitating it out of the atmosphere. And all this for the maybe <5% of the ash that doesn't stay in the NH or that doesn't rain out on its first pass across the Pacific.

    All in all, the signal down in Antarctica should be nearly zero. To me that makes the ash in Antarctica not likely to come from a source so far north as Ilopongo. With all due respects to the work done on Ilopongo, I'd look to some volcanic source in Indonesia or Ecuador as being a much more likely source. OR some more southerly source would even be more likely. At least for Antarctica ash layers in cores.

    Yes, I can be wrong on this. There is stuff I don't know. But this is my first take on it, and perhaps there is something here that can help.

  12. Hi Steve,

    The one thing to clarify though is that it is not ash that is found in ice cores, but sulphate (i.e. or more exact the precipitate of sulphur compounds injected into the atmosphere). Furthermore, explosive eruptions inject vast amounts of sulphate into the troposphere at altitudes above the Hadley cells, allowing the sulphate to spread around the hemisphere through horizontal mixing (for example the Chelyabinsk Meteor plume within the stratosphere only took a matter of a month or so to circumnavigate the hemisphere). It is difficult though for aerosols from one hemisphere to cross to the other, but not impossible. For example, the southern hemisphere volcano Kuwae is thought to have erupted in 1458/59 and is at 16 degrees south, but we find large deposits of sulphate in Antarctica and Greenland (see Sigl et al 2013) with a year delay in arrival between the two cores, roughly comparable to the 13 degrees north of ilopango. There even appears to be sulphate in Antarctic from Hekla AD 1104 in antarctic ice, though the signal is small, and may even be from a smaller coincident southern hemisphere eruption. Colima, Mexico 1585 also has a bipolar signal. The AD 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in peru (at 16 degrees south, again comparable to Ilopango) also has a strong bipolar signal.

    I dont discount what you have said, and I agree equatorial volcanoes are more likely to leave bipolar signals than high latitude ones. My favoring of 432 or 540 should not be taken as definitive, but merely a personal whim at the moment, based upon the large bipolar signal. The 536 eruption is also bipolar with a strong northern signal, but weak southern signal. Indeed, in the GICC05 timescale the 529 (536 in our timescale) is thought to be northern hemisphere (though it does have a small southern hemisphere component), and 533 (our 540) is equatorial (though given it could be on the southern side of the equator to explain Argentinian trees suffering slightly before the northern). Indeed, it may even seem equatorial if there was two volcanoes erupting in the northern and southern hemispheres in the same year. So in this respect Ilopango could indeed be at 536, or at 522 (which is also a reasonably large monopolar northern hemisphere sulphate signal with accompanying frost ring). So my favours could well be wrong (and probably are), and indeed we are still no wiser as to when Ilopango erupted.

    I will admit that I did misjudge the latitude of Ilopango (I forgot my geography and thought it was much further south!), but as we see above, bipolar signals can seemingly appear from high latitude eruptions. I dont pretend to know much about the atmospheric dynamics that could cause this, but it does seem to happen.

  13. Jonny –

    Yeah, I meant to mention a possible MISS on my part, due to possible stratospheric dispersion for very large eruptions. I DO assume you meant stratosphere above the Hadley cells and not troposphere. And, yes, I should have said sulfates instead of ash.

    For the smaller eruptions, yes, the signatures might be confusing because of other small(er) ones that might have occurred elsewhere. The big eruptions in our time occur every few centuries, with many smaller ones; using that as a rough metric for the past few thousand years, there may be hundreds of smaller ones we may never really know about.

    As to the certainty of your “personal whim,” yeah, that is cool that you are talking of tentative on those dates. I do that, too. I think it helps a lot to consider what ifs as real for a bit, to see what falls out from them. Just as going in different directions sometimes in one’s life needs “a positive pull and a negative push,” it can be helpful to extrapolate a possible end result and use it to see what corollaries might show up, in addition to extrapolating mainly from present solid knowledge. If doing the former adds some insights, it is a good thing.

    I can’t recall exactly – In your paper with Mike Baillie, is Ilopongo the main volcanic candidate there for the 530-ish tree ring anomaly, versus an impactor?

    Also, are all those eruptions mentioned chemically matched up with the sulfates in the ice cores?

    * * *
    If I may:
    I know you and Mike MUST bend over backward to some degree, in order to try to fit an eruption into the tree ring/ice core record – and you ARE doing that. But if I may suggest, don’t bend over TOO far to feed the gradualists what they want to hear. The underdog hypothesis is sometimes right. I.e., don’t use too big of a gradualist crowbar. I am NOT an Occam’s Razor kind of guy; I think the supposed principle is over-used and leads sometimes down blind alleys – but if an impactor at some point seems a simpler explanation, point that out to the world at large, if for no other reason, to keep that hypothesis on the table.

    * * *
    AN ASIDE: I’d also point to a large seamount in the western Pacific that was just recently seen to be the largest in the world, and the little that we know about undersea volcanoes. It is not out of the question that some large eruptions are covered by ocean. What we don’t know about we cannot learn about, of course, but a potential exists for other completely unknown eruptions. As those are discovered, we might find a need to re-write the history. And some WILL be discovered, for sure.

    I’d also point to the East Pacific Rise and the Galapagos Ridge, which are the fastest spreading mid-ocean ridges. There is some potential there that an impact or even gradualist process caused greater undersea volcanism in that area (in particular).

    * * *
    Another ASIDE: I would suggest the following paper by an ice core professor who honestly thinks that the ice cores might be being misread re climate: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ He is talking about CO2, O2 and N2, but I don’t know if sulfates would also be affected. I will leave it for you, if you are interested. The relevent section is entitled “FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE” – the 1st 2 paragraphs.

  14. Yeah, I meant stratosphere above the hadley cells, not troposphere. I was being distracted by kids.

    Regarding Ilopango, in our paper we do not mention it at all. The reason being is that we do not wish to distract from the crux of the argument of the cores being mis-dated. All we know is that Ilopango occurred somewhere in a 95 year window, and that it may have been more climatically effective than first thought. In our paper, we have no further evidence for when it occurred. it could be the culprit for 536 or 540, but then again so could Rabaul, or indeed a volcano that we have not thought off. What we do think though is that 536 and 540 environmental events are not impactor caused. This is not to satisfy the gradualists though, this is purely based upon the evidence within the ice cores. Mike has always been interested in solving the 536/540 mystery, and he doesnt mind what caused it, as long as the cause is found. So while Mike suggested an impactor as a hypothesis to explain the 540 event due to apparent lack of volcanic evidence, we now see that the volcanic evidence is there, only incorrectly dated, at least in our opinion.

    Also, on the point of the re-dating of the ice cores, it hasnt been met with enthusiasm by many. In fact it is a little strange to think upon. Lets remember that Mike (who first suggested an extraterrestrial cause for 540) first proposed the re-dating of the ice cores in 2008 thereby placing a volcano at 540 and removing the extraterrestrial vector form the table. But ice core workers were convinced that their chronology was correct and that an eruption in 536 caused the strange decade long two stage environmental event characteristic of 536/540. To put it crudely, a “catastrophist” suggests a simple explanation for an event that is less exotic than impactors, and it is met with silence.

    So we are not trying to play to the gradualists or to bend over backwards to please them. We are trying to correct what we perceive is an error in the ice cores, one of the consequences of which is to locate a volcano at 540, where none was observed. In effect we are trying to construct a coherent story between ice cores and tree-ring chronologies, and only by doing this can we hope to try to begin to make sense of the distant past. For example, there is great debate over the date of the eruption of Thera. Based upon archaeological evidence, a 15th or 14th entury date was placed upon the eruption. However in 1984, a date of 1627 BC was suggested from Bristlecone pine frost rings, and supported by tree chronologies from Western Europe, but this tree signal may or may not be due to Thera, but radiocarbon dates do support it. Ice cores on the other hand do not agree with the trees, and dont even agree with each other with their dates for volcanic eruptions, but ultimately it is ice cores that can tell us of the presence of large eruptions. If we can absolutely date Thera, then it will permit a better understanding of middle eastern and egyptian chronologies.

    Regarding chemical identification of the eruptions I mentioned. I do not know for sure if they have definitively been identified chemically in the ice cores, but I do know that some of them appear in the historical record (indeed I chose only those volcanoes that are within what we think is correctly dated core and that are historically dated volcanoes). However, identifying or even finding tephra from a “known” volcano can be problematic. For example Hekla in 1104 is meant to be a historical volcano, but it has proved difficult to find and/or identify any tephra relating to it. So there is still a lot to do in identifying the culprits of acid signals in ice cores.

    For your pleasure though, here is the paper by Sigl et al (2013) which lists sulphate in the Greenland NEEM core, and antarctica WDC core http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/502097/1/jgrd50082.pdf. In it you can see the amount of sulphate deposited in each eruption.

    So indeed, the 536 and 540 eruptions might be from undiscovered volcanoes, so trying to attach a name of known volcanoes might be fruitless at the moment. Speaking of sea mounts, Robert Juhl talks about an impact in the Enoshima Engi which he dated to AD 552. Mike though argued in one of his books that it could be around 538, but this was all based upon the impact paradigm at the time. Importantly, we have two individuals who have linked the time of the event being close to the 540s. Here is the relevant part

    “dark clouds covering the sea, earthquakes, the
    appearance of a bright goddess (Benzaiten/Sarasvati) above the
    clouds, boulders falling from the sky, lightning-bolts, rocks and
    sand spurting up from the sea, flames on the water, the emergence
    of an island, and the descent of the goddess onto the island.”

    ignoring the parts of the bright goddess, and her descent upon the island, all the rest sounds like a possible large underwater eruption, which created a new island (perhaps just before the eruption destroyed it again).

    I am not sure if your link is relevant to sulphates, since sulphates are not trapped in gaseous form, but rather precipitate unto the ice when their liquid acid drops are frozen into snow flakes.

  15. “Mike has always been interested in solving the 536/540 mystery, and he doesn’t mind what caused it, as long as the cause is found.”

    A true scientist – “Let’s just see where the evidence leads us, but let’s not be afraid to let the world know where it has been leading us SO FAR.” Humility and honesty and courage, all wrapped in one.

    If I can digress – onto the subject of this post for a moment (LOL) – I watched the NatGeo video, and what did I get from it?

    First off, I’ve been VERY aware of Knowth and Newgrange for a good while. The neolithic spirals there are fascinating as hell. There are very few locations on Earth with them, but they are not limited to the Boyne Valley. There are what I understand are scores of them in Northumberland, in the NE of England. And I speculate that they represent, not the seasons, but comet sightings head-on. A little wild but no more speculative than the mainstream thinking.

    Coincidentally, some of the other VERY FEW locations is here in my state of Guanajuato in colonial central Mexico. I’ve seen the one big stone in the Waldemar Julsrud Museum in Acámbaro. VERY cool. In addition, there are about 15 of them on top of Cerro Sombrero about 15 miles south of my house, though I have yet to go up and see them. They are still in sitio, like those in Northumberland I am vehicularly challenged, so I have to get a friend with a car to go up with me. I will, and soon. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LkaHFNHWlQ

    Right now my tentative direction is that people in these places had the right angle on incoming comet, and that the comet was spinning fast enough that from in front it looked like a spiral. After all, spinning is one of the possible means by which comets throw off material, right? And from the front, with the material being spun out over time, would it not look like a spiral? Like you and Mike, this is just a direction that makes sense to follow for now. If it turns out wrong, I will change with the evidence. The reality was/is what the reality is, and “as long as the cause is found,” I am happy with that.

  16. “Also, on the point of the re-dating of the ice cores, it hasnt been met with enthusiasm by many. In fact it is a little strange to think upon. . . To put it crudely, a “catastrophist” suggests a simple explanation for an event that is less exotic than impactors, and it is met with silence.”

    Like I said, they will utilize as big of a crowbar as they think necessary, as long as the crowbar is a gradualist crowbar. I agree with them that – because gradualism is the operative process family for 99.999% of the time – gradualism should be the first avenue of pursuit. But when in real history an impact HAS occurred, for that brief moment – weeks, months, and years or decades – the mechanisms simply will NOT be gradualist, but catastrophes and aftermaths of catastrophes. It’s not rocket science. It’s just opening one’s eyes to a certain brand of evidence – evidence that doesn’t fit into gradualism.

    In time, it will happen. They will accept it. This is the very early stages of opening people’s eyes. Just the very existence of something like the video by NatGeo is evidence that within a generation the memes will be somewhat different. And Dr Leleand Beement’s talk on the YD at NW Oklahoma State University here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XKi3Ikbd44 (covered in a post on CT 2 years ago) – means that SOME of tomorrow’s earth scientists are being exposed to this, and THAT is a GOOD thing. It makes me think of where plate tectonics was in about the 1960s. The younger generation is exposed to some catastrophe evidence before they are crystallized in their thinking. And you and Mike are part of that change.

  17. “this tree signal may or may not be due to Thera, but radiocarbon dates do support it. Ice cores on the other hand do not agree with the trees, and dont even agree with each other with their dates for volcanic eruptions, but ultimately it is ice cores that can tell us of the presence of large eruptions. If we can absolutely date Thera, then it will permit a better understanding of middle eastern and egyptian chronologies.”

    Okay, I have a question:

    Deposits in ice core layers contain chemical traces that tell us things. Has anyone ever thought to look for such signals in the tree rings themselves? Other than “simply” count the rings or ring widths and densities?

  18. “I am not sure if your link is relevant to sulphates, since sulphates are not trapped in gaseous form, but rather precipitate unto the ice when their liquid acid drops are frozen into snow flakes.”

    To me, the pertinence of that opinion by Jawaworski is – like with C14 and DNA testing – to make darned sure of what kind of effect/contamination/lost material/outgassing can happen just in getting the samples, and to allow for or prevent such “weirding” of the samples. If the leakages or melting or outgassing aren’t taken into account, then the straightforward assumptions about what is being read are likely to give wrong quantifications. It is like C14 – early on, with the atomic testing, they saw that the C14 straight line relationship with time was not quite steady, and so we now have IntCal13 and its predecessors.

    I think that even with snowflakes of sulfates, there may be some physical factor that might make the readings skew or fluctuate from what is currently assumed as constant. They can’t, of course, know about such a hypothetical yet, until they even know to look for it, so they have to go with the current methods.

    But when the ice cores and tree ring records each HAVE their own spikes, but the spikes don’t match up, it is CERTAIN that those spikes SHOULD match up – as it seems Mike and you are arguing. To NOT be working to “rectify” these signals as your paper is doing, to me, the height of stupidity. Those who fight it are true numbskulls. In time the scientists WILL rectify the two, and when that time comes, they will look back at the present conservatives as idiots. They SHOULD be saying, “Oh! Wow! Thanks! I am glad you caught that!”

    ASIDE: To me the handling/core acquisition factors are like dendroCLIMATOLOGY, which as I understand it assumes that all ring growth factors besides temperature are constants – when we all know that at least precipitation is all over the map. (How dumb can some people BE?) I was just last week watching a video (where I can’t recall) in which a scientist pointed out how just a difference of ten or 20 feet up or down on a slope or over to one side made a group of trees grow spectacularly differently. (Some of that was not even rainfall, but different nutrients and amounts in different patches of soil. This doesn’t affect Mike’s dendroCHRONOLOGY, but it can (IMHO) lead to asinine conclusions about climate.*** At this point I think that dendroCLIMATOLGY will, in time, be seen as a science with no scientific basis. Not unless they can sort out which part of the growth signal comes from temps and which from precip – and I am certain that will never happen.

    ***One factor of dendroCLIMATOLOGY is that tree rings are much clearer in northern latitudes than tropical zones, so they get an inordinate amount of their tree ring data for climatology up in forests in the northern Urals and Siberia. This is wrong for two reasons. #1: The Arctic regions are the regions that respond to global warming most extremely. #2: It is like the guy who one night dropped his car keys near his car, but was looking under a street light 100 feet away – and when asked why he was looking there, answered, “Because this is where the light is.”

  19. Some possible good news. It looks as if the two books “Celtic Gods” and “new light on the Black Death” may be getting another publishing run. The History Press (which has the Tempus imprint), are advertising the books as “pre-orders” http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/index.php/catalogsearch/result/?order=relevance&dir=desc&q=baillie, and Amazon.co.uk is listing New Light on the Black Death as being available to purchase directly from them (not market sellers). I checked amazon.com though and it doesn’t appear to be listed by the company.

    Looking at the publishers website, they ship internationally for around £10. So keep checking their website for availability.

  20. Jonny –

    Would you know if some form of ebook will be available?

    The last time I had anything near a book (in weight) shipped to me in Mexico, out of the UK, it cost me almost $40 US. Something in my head says over $50, but I really can’t remember. It was not £10, I know. Maybe books get a price break?

  21. Hi steve,

    No word on an ebook format yet. The publishing company if republishing might do an ebook format themselves. I havent heard from patrick recently, so no idea if he has got the ebook format sorted for Celtic Gods.

  22. I contacted the publishers yesterday, and received confirmation that they are hoping to republish he two books in physical copy within the next few months. No mention of ebooks though.

    Hopefully, the books will also be available on international book selling sites.

  23. this is such good news — I already have a spot on my coffee table reserved –“smiles and cheers”.

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