Younger Dryas Boundary Team flash mobbed by critics in PNAS: Great response

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

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

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

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

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

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:

  • Anybody want any popcorn? It’s gonna be a great show!

  • And of our friends the Carolina Bays, all remains strangely silent. This is like turning up the heat in a pressure cooker. Something is going to happen, probably sooner than later, regarding sixteen hundred cubic kilometers of exceptionally pure, clean and uniform grain size sand of questionable pedigree. Emplaced by a single process yet never successfully explained by any pundits of modern Geology. Stay tuned.


  • George Howard

    Bingo TH

  • We need to get Dr. Boslough and Dr. Napier together for some drinks, or some rounds of golf, or whatever the social function. Swimming party in a Carolina Bay perhaps, on a houseboat w/ broad band internet….