If dozens of scientists find nano-diamonds in diverse locations, and another smaller group of equally well respected scientists say they aren’t NDs at all. Who do we want to believe? Are they nano-scale graphines? Or nano-scale diamonds? Is there a recognized authority that can arbitrate such a disagreement?
Just how important are they?
The NDs are a red herring. They are an important clue. But they are only a clue. Not crucial evidence. And the YD impact theory is not dependent on them. It is dependent on finding varifiable planetary scarring though.
Fortunately, those continental scale, blast effected materials haven’t been hard to find. But that fur can fly in a different cat fight.
Here, Here!!! Yes Dennis! this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Nanodiamonds are but one clue. There has been so much emphasis on this factor alone, that the much more important debate as to the Younger Dryas cause is being neglected. I say once again, a part of the debate must also focus on the the extremely weak support for the other main proposed Younger Dryas cause and that is, THE SLOWING OR SHUT DOWN OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN CIRCULATION. It continues to amaze me how many papers still refer to the St. Lawrence corridor as the source of meltwater entering the North Atlantic and supposedly initiating the response of the North Atlantic; this despite the oceanographic guru himself, Dr. Wallace Broecker admitting some time ago now that though the idea of the St. Lawrence as origin for meltwater was ” a seductive idea” but it no longer is thought to be viable.
I ran up my white flag too soon — 23 experts firmly show YDB era Greenland
ice layer that has unique huge numbers of impact nanodiamonds in 11-page
paper in J Glaciology: Rich Murray 2010.09.02 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.htm
Thursday, September 2, 2010
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/66
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]
Important to note the authors… same ones on all of the pro-YD impact papers…
The same group keeps finding the material— however, everyone else (not small groups by the way– discrete groups) who have tried to duplicate their results have failed.
That’s an important key: repeatable results. Your work has to be able to be tested by others.
Age models are one of the most important parts to geology— how old is it? Everyone needs to know to be able to do what is gives any information: rates of change.
For example, their ‘YD’ boundary with Iridium. They need an age model to be able to determine whether or not the iridium is an anomaly. If it turns out that the ice was changing rates of deposition, ect, the iridium could end up being at a regular pace.
Important to note the authors… same ones on all of the pro-YD impact papers…
The same group keeps finding the material— however, everyone else (not small groups by the way– discrete groups) who have tried to duplicate their results have failed.
That’s the stupidest piece of veiled ad homonym chicken shit if I’ve ever heard.
Let’s see, the same world class scientists (Dozens of them) studying the stratigraphy of the Younger Dryas boundary layer keep replicating the very same set of stratigraphic sample collection, and preparation, protocols, at various locations all over North America, where the YDB is exposed. And they keep finding the same thing. And publishing the same result. So they go to Greenland, and sample ice from the layer the corresponds to the YDB. And darned if they don’t find the same thing again.
Hmmm…..
Two groups, Surovell et al, (9 authors) and Daulton et al, (3 authors) sampling different locations, and materials, in the strata, and using different protocols, got a different result. Neither of them sampled the same sedimentary materials as the studies they were challenging. Neither of them replicated the sample collection, and preparation protocols. So neither of them accomplished anything worth giving any serious consideration. And both of them are small groups.
There is not just one “magic” protocol that works. Different protocols do not necessarily mean incorrect protocols. Certainly, a range of different protocols will yield similar results. The results need to be reproduced by different protocols to verify the results are not artifact of the protocol.
If a result can be achieved by ONLY by one group using only one protocol, that is a problem.
If dozens of scientists find nano-diamonds in diverse locations, and another smaller group of equally well respected scientists say they aren’t NDs at all. Who do we want to believe? Are they nano-scale graphines? Or nano-scale diamonds? Is there a recognized authority that can arbitrate such a disagreement?
Just how important are they?
The NDs are a red herring. They are an important clue. But they are only a clue. Not crucial evidence. And the YD impact theory is not dependent on them. It is dependent on finding varifiable planetary scarring though.
Fortunately, those continental scale, blast effected materials haven’t been hard to find. But that fur can fly in a different cat fight.
Here, Here!!! Yes Dennis! this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Nanodiamonds are but one clue. There has been so much emphasis on this factor alone, that the much more important debate as to the Younger Dryas cause is being neglected. I say once again, a part of the debate must also focus on the the extremely weak support for the other main proposed Younger Dryas cause and that is, THE SLOWING OR SHUT DOWN OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN CIRCULATION. It continues to amaze me how many papers still refer to the St. Lawrence corridor as the source of meltwater entering the North Atlantic and supposedly initiating the response of the North Atlantic; this despite the oceanographic guru himself, Dr. Wallace Broecker admitting some time ago now that though the idea of the St. Lawrence as origin for meltwater was ” a seductive idea” but it no longer is thought to be viable.
I ran up my white flag too soon — 23 experts firmly show YDB era Greenland
ice layer that has unique huge numbers of impact nanodiamonds in 11-page
paper in J Glaciology: Rich Murray 2010.09.02
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.htm
Thursday, September 2, 2010
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/66
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]
Important to note the authors… same ones on all of the pro-YD impact papers…
The same group keeps finding the material— however, everyone else (not small groups by the way– discrete groups) who have tried to duplicate their results have failed.
That’s an important key: repeatable results. Your work has to be able to be tested by others.
Age models are one of the most important parts to geology— how old is it? Everyone needs to know to be able to do what is gives any information: rates of change.
For example, their ‘YD’ boundary with Iridium. They need an age model to be able to determine whether or not the iridium is an anomaly. If it turns out that the ice was changing rates of deposition, ect, the iridium could end up being at a regular pace.
Duplicate the experiment is exactly the point. To do so, you have to replicate the conditions. No one has done that.
How do they expect to duplicate the results, if they don’t sample the same materials, using the same sample collection, and preparation protocols?
I can’t leave this cheap shot unanswered.
That’s the stupidest piece of veiled ad homonym chicken shit if I’ve ever heard.
Let’s see, the same world class scientists (Dozens of them) studying the stratigraphy of the Younger Dryas boundary layer keep replicating the very same set of stratigraphic sample collection, and preparation, protocols, at various locations all over North America, where the YDB is exposed. And they keep finding the same thing. And publishing the same result. So they go to Greenland, and sample ice from the layer the corresponds to the YDB. And darned if they don’t find the same thing again.
Hmmm…..
Two groups, Surovell et al, (9 authors) and Daulton et al, (3 authors) sampling different locations, and materials, in the strata, and using different protocols, got a different result. Neither of them sampled the same sedimentary materials as the studies they were challenging. Neither of them replicated the sample collection, and preparation protocols. So neither of them accomplished anything worth giving any serious consideration. And both of them are small groups.
There is not just one “magic” protocol that works. Different protocols do not necessarily mean incorrect protocols. Certainly, a range of different protocols will yield similar results. The results need to be reproduced by different protocols to verify the results are not artifact of the protocol.
If a result can be achieved by ONLY by one group using only one protocol, that is a problem.
True, but they still have to sample from the very same place and from the very same materials in the YDB layer.
They didn’t.
Those aternate protocols should still be compared side by side using exactly the same materials if the challenge is to be valid.