I am just beginning to read this Carolina Bays paper. I am basically upset in reading it, because it states the aeolian hypothesis as fact. The authors accept unchallenged the concept that the winds on shallow ponds would create wave action all in one direction for a wide region. How they or the previous authors could assume a consistent direction for the winds is beyond me, because at the present time that is not the case at all. Although I do not live there, I have paid attention to weather reports in that area for some reason, in terms of the weather systems. The systems come from the SW for much of the year, just as they come from the SSW to my NE Illinois area for much of the year. I most often see the weather systems coming across from approximately Mobile, AL or Gulfport, MS, across Georgia toward and more or less paralleling the southern Carolina coast. From http://tiny.cc/98vsc : “[For North Carolina] The prevailing winds are generally from the southwest for 10 months of the year, and from the northeast during September and October.” From http://tiny.cc/6ifge : For South Carolina, “On a monthly basis, prevailing winds tend to be either from the northeast or southwest. [accompanying chart]” The prevailing winds are not only not out of the NW, but in no season are they from the north or west, either. Even hurricane season brings winds from the SE and S. These winds simply do not jibe with the NW-SE alignments of the CBs. How the CBs can have NW-SE alignments and higher rims on the SE end is beyond my comprehension when the winds normally come from directions that would not create a high rim to the SE. If they see some consistent pattern from the NW I could see their point, at least intuitively, and would be prone to give at least some aeolian support. Since I don’t see wind patterns coming from a logical direction, I have to dispute the basis being laid for this paper. It doesn’t help that the authors simply go with a simple aeolian seem to completely blow off the work of Doug Johnson who tried the aeolian idea and found it completely unworkable by itself and had to add, not one or two or even three, but four other “patches” – assumed actions added-on to massage the aeolian hypothesis hoping to make it workable. His hypothesis is called the “complex theory,” to separate it from the simple aeolian theory. I challenge the aeolians to put up or shut up. If aeolian is such a great idea, then they should put it to the test in a wind tunnel and see if they can make winds create elliptical bays from variously-shaped shallow ponds – especially with winds coming from a) right angles to the long axes of the resultant bays or b) from 135-180 degrees from the high rims and from the bulged-out sides of the resultant bays. I predict that A) this will falsified, and B) the only feature that can be assigned to the prevailing winds would be the bulges opposite the SW wind systems’ prevailing SW direction. My position is more or less supported by the aeolian-created riverine dunes studied in “Riverine dunes on the Coastal Plain of Georgia, USA” (Ivester & Leigh 2002). It supports in two ways. One, the dunes are at some distance to the NE of the rivers which generally flow NW-SE. Secondly, the dunes do not in any way form elliptical shapes but parabolic (and never come close to the rivers’ edges where ellipticity might possibly be seen. That may seem like a small distinction, since both are curved. But that there is no dune formed to the SW of the rivers, it would be left to the CB aeolian thinkers to explain how the SW side of the bays would achieve such elliptical shapes. I will point out that another big difference in the riverine dunes and CB rims is that the riverine dunes are tens of meters high, while the CB NE rims are consistently less than one meter. Now, if they argue that this pattern was not true in the Pleistocene, due to differences caused by the ice cap up north, so far I haven’t seen any that assert this. They merely speculate (and I hate it when anyone tries to explain any phenomena with speculation, especially when it is done by scientists). They speculate that the wind does it, but offer no examples nor evidence to support the speculation. I am certain that riverine dunes are called to mind and applied in the case of the CBs uncritically. And contrary to uniformitarian principles, if they argue that prevailing winds more than 13,000 years ago were such that they would form the CBs into ellipses, they would need to explain why these shallow rims haven’t been erased by the Holocene wind patterns which have included probably 600 or more hurricanes. If aeolian is the cause, I can’t see how.