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

Reconnaissance: Tusk Boots Hit Ground with iPad at Butterfly Bays

6 Responses

  1. Self-vetting (as we are all supposed to do): I think I have gotten the slope question wrong.

    All of this is, of course, first order speculation.

    I do think there is merit in the larger idea, but, like Firestone, the details won’t be determined correctly the first time out.

    A quick perusal showed that it is not only slope. I perhaps should have looked before posting that comment above. Yet, my ego isn’t injured by a mistake. It just points out that the solution will be more complicated.

    So, I will now suggest that the alignments may have more to do with a combination of slope and the direction of the “quake”. (And perhaps a 3rd or 4th influence.)

    While the focus of the alignments is toward the Great Lakes, the slope is out away from the Appalachian ridge line.

    With quakes there are S-waves and T-waves and P-waves. These individually would possibly have an effect on the formation and rising of hydrate bubbles, perhaps in a way that not only extends them in one direction, but that rounds them off, too.

    All this is intuitive and isn’t worth anything without field and lab work, and perhaps modeling, too.

    It is not my intent to sandbag the Y-D hypothesis, but to maybe find another mechanism tied to it. Impacts certainly have some of the same effect as “normal” quakes, so perhaps an impact created the Carolina Bays without having ejecta as their cause.

  2. Okay – what happened? My earlier comment did not ‘take,’ but the follow-up did. Let me try posting the original comment again (comment follows):

  3. George,

    I was just reading in a reprint of a mining manual about the effects of blasting on rock. It spoke of soil densification during blasting, particularly in sands with 5% or less silt.

    Has anyone ever compared the density or compaction of the sand or clay layer at the bottom of a Carolina bay depression with the equivalent stratum well beyond the perimeter of the bay? If there is a distinct increase in the compaction of these sediments in the depression, then we can pretty much conclude that the depression was formed by some kind of overhead concussion, rather than some other kind of process. We could eliminate three quarters of the Carolina bay origin theories just on that evidence alone.

    I suspect that it would require special coring techniques in order to not disturb the density of the sediments during the process.


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