folder Filed in Random Tusks
Younger Dryas Boundary Team flash mobbed by critics in PNAS: Great response
event July 25, 2012 comment 4 Comments

I have to be quick and dirty to get this up. But here are some links to a flurry of new publications, all of them letters, in PNAS this week concerning the YDB hypothesis:

1.) Age models and the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, Maarten Blaauw, Vance T. Holliday, Jacquelyn L. Gill, and Kathleen Nicoll

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Blaauw_pnas201206143%201._1.pdf

2.) Inconsistent impact hypotheses for the Younger Dryas, Mark Boslough

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Boslough_pnas201206739%201._1.pdf

3.) Suspect cubic diamond “impact” proxy and a suspect lonsdaleite identifcation, Tyrone L. Daulton

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Daulton_pnas201206253%201._1.pdf

4.) Paleoecological changes at Lake Cuitzeo were not consistent with an extraterrestrial impact, Jacquelyn L. Gill, Jessica L. Blois, Simon Goring, Jennifer R. Marlon, Patrick J. Bartlein, Kathleen Nicoll, Andrew C. Scott, and Cathy Whitlock

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Gill_pnas201206196%201._1.pdf

5.) Inconsistent redefining of the carbon spherule “impact” proxy,  Mark Hardiman, Andrew C. Scott, Margaret E. Collinson, and R. Scott Anderson

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2268163/Hardiman_pnas201206108%201._1.pdf

And the reply:

Boslough ignores the research of William Napier (6), who demonstrated that the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) hypothesis is consistent with Earth’s collision with the Taurid Complex debris field, which could have produced multiple airbursts capable of continent-wide environmental and biotic degradation (7)

Napier Paper: