RealClimate

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. This was another great RC post that took a specific issue and used it to show how science works.

    Other than the K-T impact are there other well supported extraterrestrial impact events that caused major climatic or ecological changes?

    Comment by Joseph O'Sullivan — 1 Mar 2011 @ 6:52 PM

  2. SMALL ROUNDED BASIN AT CHARITY SHOAL

    Charity Shoal
    A small equidimensional circular depression 1000 meters in diameter, with a continuous encircling rim, coincides with the feature referred to as Charity Shoal on nautical charts. An elongated ridge extends southwest from the feature, resembling the tail of a crag-and-tail feature common to some drumlin fields. The basin is slightly deeper than 18 meters and the rim rises to depths of 2-6 meters. The origin of the feature remains unknown. Although a sinkhole in the limestone terrane is a possibility, an origin related to a meteor crater, that was subsequently glaciated, seems more likely. Aeromagnetic mapping by the Geological Survey of Canada revealed a negative magnetic anomaly over Charity Shoal, which is a characteristic feature of simple impact craters (Pilkington and Grieve, 1992).
    from
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/greatlakes/lakeontario_cdrom/html/gmorph.htm#a8
    appears to remain undated.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 1 Mar 2011 @ 8:24 PM

  3. IMO the climate system ‘bit off more than it could chew’ during the Bølling/Allerød interstadial.

    The climate released a huge amount of energy during this time, the energy melted the ice.

    The state of the climate then shifted and began to store energy as opposed to releasing it, and the resulting surface cooling was then amplified by very cold melt water.

    Comment by Isotopious — 1 Mar 2011 @ 8:34 PM

  4. I never thought this was popular anyway in the YD literature, just something you hand-wave quickly in the introduction of a paper to establish you actually read what’s out there.

    Comment by chris colose — 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:00 PM

  5. It was a charming just so story while it lasted.

    The account of finding mammoth tusks with their upsides peppered with nickel-iron micrometeorites like so much bird shot was as seductive ( if true) as the carbon nano-mineralogy was suspect.

    What became of the smoking tusks?

    Comment by Russell — 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:01 PM

  6. From the quote above: “The remaining signatures instead seem to represent either (1) non-catastrophic mechanisms, and/or (2) terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial or impact-related sources.”

    What exactly would terrestrial impact-related sources be?

    On another OT point, the PTRS just had an issue devoted to discussions about what a 4 degree hotter world will look like.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

    Any chance that there would be a thread here to talk about the findings?

    Comment by wili — 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:50 PM

  7. I’ll second the motion by Will in#6 for a post on the Four Degrees themed issue. i’ve downloaded all the papers and I’ve begun working my way through them. Sobering stuff.

    - Jim P.

    Comment by Jim Prall — 2 Mar 2011 @ 4:54 AM

  8. So, you’re saying that bloggers gain readership for doing haphazard work and reaching beyond the evidence when offering interpretation. What’s your evidence for that?

    Comment by John D. Wilson — 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:28 AM

  9. Re: #8 (John D. Wilson)

    So, you’re saying that bloggers gain readership for doing haphazard work and reaching beyond the evidence when offering interpretation. What’s your evidence for that?

    Anthony Watts.

    Comment by tamino — 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:25 AM

  10. I may have already written the requiem for the YD impact, see my Science news story, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1140.full .

    Comment by Richard Kerr — 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:19 AM

  11. Tell us when you are going to retract your statements that the nanodiamonds in YD sediments don’t exist, when we now have a credible published report that they do, in fact, exist in YD sediments in great abundance, here. Take your time. Thanks in advance.

    [Response: What statements are you referring to? Who are you even talking to? - gavin]

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:58 AM

  12. for Richard Kerr, is the text of your story available online anywhere?
    The MP3 is available (thank you!): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/09/02/329.5996.1140.DC1/1140.mp3 — can you give us more references to sort out the dozen lines of evidence?
    Typing as I listen: “they don’t see any evidence of an impact, and they’ve had 30 years or more to work out what constitutes evidence of an impact … three years ago there were 12 lines of evidence … rejecting … a particular type of nanodiamond that everyone agrees could only be generated in a massive impact … fails …. proponents are not giving up … and … more evidence coming out in papers in coming months ….”

    So I’m guessing the dozen lines of evidence have some physical evidence for something; that evidence may or may not be holding up; if so something other than a huge climate-changing impact may have produced the evidence.

    For example as others asked, the nickel-iron bits — if confirmed, in a small number of tusks — could those indicate a smaller closer airburst? What process could imbed metal fragments in tusks to match whatever they’ve described as of last year, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFMPP31D1385H

    And what are the other dozen lines? Pointers to papers most welcome.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:00 AM

  13. Re: #8

    “Anthony Watts”.

    Nail – head.

    Comment by Lazarus — 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:07 AM

  14. Oh, I guess I ought to wait til the actual paper’s available–looking at the abstract (link in the first line at the top of the page ) my questions will be answered there and by the footnotes and references. (I’m not a subscriber so I’ll have to wait for a library copy or one of the authors to share a copy).

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:19 PM

  15. Humans probably killed off the megafauna. We’ve never been very good at sustainable resource management.

    Comment by seamus — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:27 PM

  16. If you were genuinely interested in and following this story with any due diligence, Gavin, you would know that I am speaking directly to Richard Kerr and his comments in Science Magazine here :

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1140.summary

    which he just linked to, and which now have been DEFINITIVELY REFUTED in the article I just linked.

    I was just wondering when he was going to retract his statements. I think a retraction would be in order, but who am I to say what Richard Kerr can or should say or do.

    [Response: Neither I, nor any other reader, is psychic, so you might be better off explicitly stating what comment or person you are addressing in future. But returning to your actual point, Kerr was reporting results from Daulton et al (2010) who indeed reported finding no nanodiamonds in a particular set of sediments, and indicated that previous assessments likely mistook signatures of graphene for nanodiamonds. Kennett (as quoted by Kerr) clearly does not agree. The Tian et al (2011) study, did find nanodiamonds in their samples (from Lommel YDB layer in Belgium), but not of the kind highlighted by Kennett et al originally as providing evidence of an impact. (Lonsdaleite). Kerr even mentioned the AGU presentation from these same authors, and so there is no new information on the topic. Having read Kerr's piece carefully, I don't see any reason why he needs to retract anything. (PS. I have no dog in this fight, so please just stick to science rather than attacks on me, Kerr or anyone else). - gavin]

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:29 PM

  17. From the MP3 podcast, I also at first had the impression someone said nanodiamonds didn’t exist — I was mistaken, the point was that those found aren’t the kind that would be impact markers. They’re real; but they’re not evidence for an impact — not tied to one particular stratum, not the right type of crystal form.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:31 PM

  18. Hi Earl –

    The “smoking tusks” are now realized to have been produced by an earlier iron asteroid impact, and the peppered Siberian musk ox skull by yet another iron impact that occured even earlier. A search is on for the impact craters, but as usual suffers from a lack of funds.

    As far as the YD impacts goes, few outside of the impact community realize how hard it is to find impact signatures – in other words, locating the YD layer, sampling it, and then processing the samples is non-trivial.

    For example, at the recent known impact site at Tunguska, it took more than 3 years of field expeditions, sampling, and sample processing to nail down the type of impactor, and the impact process is still under investigation.

    For what it is worth, it appears that the peoples living in North America at the time of the YD impacts remembered them for some 13,000 years, and those impacts had a profound effect on their world view.

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas
    (while the book has hundreds of pages of small type, too many typos, and not enough pictures, it does have a correction sheet pasted inside the front cover)

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:39 PM

  19. Hank, ANY nanodiamonds, whether cubic or hexagonal or otherwise, found in large quantitites in YD sediments along large amounts of fullerenes and graphene fragments, is a clear indication that something extraordinary happened at the TD boundary. Nanodiamonds are not created by wildfires, they are either the result of the natural influx of extraterrestrial material, or if they concentration is spiked or elevated, some sort of carbon and volatile rich atmospheric or surface impact. Big impacts create hexagonal nanodiamonds in situ. Smaller impacts deposit existing extraterrestrial nanodiamonds in large amounts.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:54 PM

  20. Hi Richard –

    I don’t think you want to take credit for breaking that story:

    http://cosmictusk.com/vindication

    We’re working with data some 13,000 years old, and it is difficult.

    A good model to keep in mind as regards impact research is the Chicxulub/Shiva research and coverage.

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    [Response: If you want to comment here and be taken seriously, please read the papers you are referencing: "Because no hexagonal diamond (Lonsdaleite) could be identified a shock-induced mechanism is unlikely to be involved in the formation of the crystalline carbon material in the present layer." and "As a final conclusion it should be stated that the present variety of crystalline structures observed in the black Younger Dryas boundary in Lommel does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude an exogenic impact as the origin of these structures." Far too much discussion occurs on issues that are not actually relevant and on misquotes and misrepresentations of what people are claiming. I don't see any contradiction between Claeys' quote in the Science piece "There is nothing, no meteoritic signal." with what is in the Tian et al paper and what was presumably presented at AGU. - gavin]

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:57 PM

  21. A review discussing the evidence against the impact hypothesis was done before this too, discussing lack of sufficient chemistry changes in Greenland ice cores, as well as the non-uniquenes of a YD-like event (as I talked about in my post) implying that a random catastrophic event probably wasn’t what was going on.
    http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~acarlson/Other/carlson_2010_geology_YD.pdf

    Comment by Chris Colose — 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:37 PM

  22. Wili above quoted
    >> (2) terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial or impact-related sources.”
    and then asked
    > What exactly would terrestrial impact-related sources be?

    Wili, you misread that; “or” connects. What you quoted means:

    [terrestrial sources] rather than [extraterrestrial or impact-related sources]

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:56 PM

  23. Oh, what a shame! I enjoyed relating the various aspects of the 2007 PNAS Firestone et al paper to anyone unwise enough to listen … But, I suppose, therein lies the danger: it was such a lovely idea.

    But, I assume, the evidence that there was, at some time, an impact in Bladen County, North Carolina still stands: this aerial photo (Fig. 7) is astonishing:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1

    Comment by Slioch — 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:52 PM

  24. The print is too fine in the article at http://www.scribd.com/doc/45791500/Lommel-Diamonds-in-Younger-Dryas-Boundary-Claeys#open_download
    and some sentences are redacted.

    Has anybody tested impacts into ice? The bolide would be the only source of carbon if it hit a miles-thick glacier. The bolide composition would control the carbon found.

    If it wasn’t Lake Agassiz or an impact, what did cause the YD?

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 2 Mar 2011 @ 3:21 PM

  25. If a bolide hit, say, the Greenland glacier, wouldn’t the glacier melt at that spot and wouldn’t the water flow into the ocean? Was there still a continental glacier in northern Europe at that time? Could the water flow have concentrated the nanodiamonds in Belgium?

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 2 Mar 2011 @ 3:32 PM

  26. As to the shrapnel pelted mammoths, paleontologist GS Paul gave this notion a thumbs down:

    “Some in this discussion still seem to imagine that sand sized blast debris can be imbedded in bone surfaces or skin at substantial range from an meteoritic explosion. Tiny particles can travel at high velocities if they are being carried along by air that is itself an equally fast moving part of the supersonic shock wave (shock waves are shock waves because they move faster than sound) produced by the explosion, which are limited to the region immediately surrounding the point source. Anything hit by high velocity microdebris in this zone will be so severely damaged by even more obvious shock and heat that the sand impact will be incidental. The supposedly impacted tusks and bones should be shattered and scorched. Any living animal will be killed outright, the debris will not be the killing agent. Once the micro-debris hits stable air it slowsdown to harmless terminal velocity in well under a kilometer. Even pebble sized objects will slow down to a 100 mph in a few kilometers. That is why being hit by a round musket ball or grape shot at long range was not lethal.”

    Allen West, one of the theory’s first proponents, responded to this. You can read his response through the link below.

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/07/comets-over-canada-part-ii.html

    #18 and Mr. Grondine. Yes, some of the “peppered” carcasses were dated to times earlier than the YD. I believe the response to that from West and Co. was that they might have been already dead and partially exposed at the surface when the YD event occured.

    Comment by bigcitylib — 2 Mar 2011 @ 3:57 PM

  27. Hi bigcitylib –

    I am pretty sure that GS Paul is no expert on the mechanics of iron impacts, otherwise he would not have made such stupid statements. Some of the paricles take a ballistic trajectory, which is why you have peppering without death.

    On further examination, some of the bones were found to have healing.

    As far as “shattered and scorched” remains from YD impacts go, Ken Tankersley’s data from Sheriden Cave should move this debate on whenever they are formally published.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:03 PM

  28. I don’t see any contradiction between Claeys’ quote in the Science piece “There is nothing, no meteoritic signal.” with what is in the Tian et al paper and what was presumably presented at AGU

    Apparently one of the co-authors thought otherwise in a previous paper here, which remarkably is not referenced by Lommel et al., and completely ignored by both Pinter et al., and Tian et al., except as an afterthought. Both of those papers pronounce the premature death of the hypothesis while ignoring the crucial evidence, and offering no explanation of how both nanodiamonds and a wide variety of unusual carbon fragments made their way preferentially into the Younger Dryas sediment layers in Europe and Greenland.

    Wildfires do not explain this data. Impacts do. I would be more than willing to give up this hypothesis except for the fact that hydrogeology and geomorphology in the Lake Nipigon basin supports it, as well as carbonaceous anomalies in the Younger Dryas Sediments in Greenland and Europe, both downwind of the hypothesized impact.

    Clearly Firestone’s original scenario of a massive firestorm and conflagration was an overreach, but to pronounce any impact hypothesis dead this prematurely is not good science. Impacts happen all the time. They will continue to occur whether you admit their existence or not. Whether or not an impact occurred, or not, or contributed to the YD transition, or not, remains to be demonstrated, but it’s still a valid hypothesis, not refuted and but not yet confirmed.

    [Response: Since one can never prove a negative, this situation will last for ever. But without replicated and confirmatory evidence the posterior probability for it being significant decreases markedly. (PS. Lommell is a place, not an author). - gavin]

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:05 PM

  29. Hi Gavin –

    I doubt that the YD deposits will be uniform globally, and I don’t see any reason why they should be expected to be uniform globally.

    [Response: Who suggested such a thing? - gavin]

    Gavin, whatever occured triggered a substantial change in the Earth’s climate. I think that I’ve stated before that my current hypothesis is that cold water from the Artic mixed with the Pacific Current after the sudden event, and that is what accounted for the end of the Ice Age: colder water off the west coast of North America resulted in less snow falling in Northern North America, and more of the Sun’s heat being absorbed.

    Since you seem very interested in this sudden climatic change, could I ask you to briefly state your own hypothesis, or to state if you do not have one?

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    [Response: The evidence that most of the climatic effects are related to a slowdown/shutdown in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation is very strong. The trigger for this THC change (and for the multitude of other similar events during Stage 3 and during other terminations) is likely to be meltwater/iceberg discharge related. This will likely be related to ice sheet/shelf instability/variations in runoff routing/lake drainage events etc. which for the most part are very poorly constrained (with the one exception of the 8.2kyr event). I have a pretty open mind about how any of this went down, but all I ask is that people discuss these things clearly and not conflate apples and oranges in a rush to support their preferred story. - gavin]

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 2 Mar 2011 @ 5:17 PM

  30. Since one can never prove a negative, this situation will last for ever.

    No it won’t. It will last until somebody (anybody) adequately explains the geomorphology of the Nipigon basin, and the cubic nanodiamond formation, synthesis and deposition mechanism, well as the carbonaceous anomalies in the Lommel sediments (sorry about the confusion). Clearly Tain et al. and Pinter et al. have not done that, and nobody seems to want to address the Nipigon problem at all, which is the most glaring anomaly imaginable in all of this. I’m all for hypothesis falsification, as there is something to be learned even with falsification in both of these cases, and I would be the first person to jump on the bandwagon once the origins of these pesky little artifacts are cleared up. But until then, I’m skeptical of any claims of the death of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:41 PM

  31. Hi Gavin –

    Ah yes – but what caused that melting in the first place?

    I think your scenario is suffering from an observational bias, in other words, while we have plenty of data from the Atlantic we have damned little from the Pacific coast of North America.

    Of course, the oil companies have multiple cores from that area, but they are proprietary.

    I think we can both agree that climate is a global system. Thus in my view, without that data any model of the transition is tentative.

    All that I want to add is that impact science is evolving, with substantial revisions made – a look at Chicxulub/Shiva will show what I mean.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:44 PM

  32. 30, Thomas,

    You are defining Nipigon as a “problem,” and I’m not saying someone shouldn’t consider it, but I find nothing at all to date the crater. Has anyone done so, or confirmed that it is in fact an impact crater and not something else?

    My point being that, while it certainly appears to be an impact crater, to assume that it is, and more pointedly that it formed 12,900 years ago, is a leap.

    1) Printer et al found no evidence (signatures) of an impact in the period in question.

    2) Nipigon appears to be an impact crater.

    QED) Any Nipigon impact did not occur in the time period in question, and so is unrelated to the YD.

    The first step to proving otherwise (and a giant step forward in in the YD impact hypothesis) would be to find some method of dating that impact crater.

    Correct?

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:30 AM

  33. 30, Thomas,

    After briefly studying the Earth Impact Database, I’m not even sure that it is an impact crater, and if it is, it must be far more ancient than 12,900 years old. At least, I need to withdraw my own statement that it at least looks like one. It actually looks to me more like a flood basin, or a now dried out lake bed, or something else.

    First, it lacks a serious degree of depression compared to the surrounding land — most impact craters appear to be deep enough to form large bodies of water, and given the number of lakes in that region, that fact that it doesn’t is rather surprising. Second, it lacks a central “rebound” feature. Third, it has too many other features which suggest geologic processes that would require millions of years — a crater that young, I would think, would look a whole lot more like a crater. The existence of a large lake which cuts across what should be the rim of the crater, and large gaps in that rim, seem like a very unlikely features to have formed in just the past 13,000 years.

    In addition to that, as an impact crater, it would rank as huge — 20 km across. The effects of such a recent impact would, I’d think, be pretty obvious (rather than lacking any clear signatures), and such large bodies do not appear to strike the Earth all that often.

    Again, I know little of this, but as a layman, glancing at a database of hundreds such craters… it seems that first the case must be made that it is a crater, and then what the date of impact is, before it can be put forth as a serious cause in the YD scenario.

    Do you have any evidence other than “it looks like” a crater?

    Wait a minute… am I acting like an ignorant denier? Or a skeptic? Oh, shoot, I have to go take a shower… iccck!

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 3 Mar 2011 @ 10:15 AM

  34. Here is the list of anomalies and my general reasoning.

    Just south of Lake Nipigon is a large anomalous 25 km diameter geomorphism consisting of a heart shaped basin, lying across a fault line that delineates harder Canadian shield rock in the east from softer glacial till areas to the west, which was discovered, within a few minutes of searching Google earth maps, after deducing that this area must have been unusually hydrogeologically active at a time when ice covered the area 13000 years ago. Two cores in the area reveal highly disordered regolith down to the basement. Anomalous salt licks appear across the entire area which appear to originate from the basement regolith interface. All of the lake sediments in the area reveal elevated heavy metal concentrations. A smaller depression appears just to the northwest of the heart shaped depression. Other depression like areas appear to the east of this area, where dramatic cliff and channel systems appear to indicate some kind of intense megaflooding during and after Laurentide ice sheet disintegration.

    Acoustic soundings in the Lake Superior basin just south of this area reveal sediment layering indicative or Marquette ice sheet advances and retreats, specifically in an area that was supposedly totally covered in ice during the Younger Dryas. A wide variety of nanodiamonds and carbon fragments appear in Greenland ice and European soil samples in a layer of carbon rich sediments that represent the Younger Dryas period. Large water based impacts are now thought to create atmospheric ozone catastrophes which can put unusual extreme stresses on the vegetation and the wildlife.

    Impact simulator results indicate a low grazing angle impact of a volatile and carbon rich impactor of less than a kilometer, impacting on an ice sheet consisting of more or less pure water roughly a kilometer or more thick, could yield an impact feature of this magnitude and shape – a heart shaped blast basin and a smaller vapor impact basin, providing a credible synthesis, deposition and distribution mechanism for a large variety of nanodiamonds and carbon fragments. An ozone collapse would provide additional vegetation and megafaunal stresses on an already overhunted and stressed populations. Residual heavy metals and salts would be distributed into the area, eventually making their way into lake sediments and the water table. A subtle ammonia and nitrate spike would present itself in the ice core data.

    A large disruption of the Laurentide ice sheet would occur in this general area, initiating an instantaneous aas well as a longer term route for Lake Agassiz meltwaters, under and through the Laurentide ice sheet, through Lake Nipigon and down into the exposed lower Great Lakes, creating dramatic waterfalls and channels (the remnants of which are observed everywhere in the area) and eventually out to the Atlantic along the edge of the receding ice sheet. The ice sheet disruption in the area would be filled in by ice sheet advances during the Younger Dryas cooling now thought to be initiated by the long term Laurentide and other world wide ice sheet collapses, which continued throughout the entire Younger Dryas period. Subsequent post Younger Dryas ice sheet collapses would route even more meltwater through this region, scouring clean a great deal of the evidence of any such impact.

    This works for me, but I also admit that there may be even other more conventional and slower long term explanations for the abrupt climate change that we now think (more or less) was initiated by long term LIS meltwater flows into the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. I would be very happy if anyone could explain to me the nature and origin of this unusual geological feature in an area that was literally whacked by ice sheet advances and retreats, followed by periods of intense megaflooding, which also explains the host of the other unusual indicators discovered.

    Such as, for instance, cubic nanodiamods in the Younger Dryas sediments.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 3 Mar 2011 @ 11:35 AM

  35. Thomas,

    Impact simulator results

    Cite, please.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 3 Mar 2011 @ 1:50 PM

  36. There are a large variety of impact simulator programs available online, Bob – feel free to fiddle with the input parameters any which way you like.

    Remember, the large majority of the impact energy is deposited into a very thick sheet of almost pure water ice in this situation, material that is subsequently catastrophically mobile over a period of several thousand years.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 3 Mar 2011 @ 2:09 PM

  37. (PS. I have no dog in this fight, so please just stick to science rather than attacks on me, Kerr or anyone else)

    I have no dog in this fight either, Gavin, but what I do have is an open mind, and I’ve taken the time to speak directly with, or otherwise communicate with or inform, most of those who DO have a dog in this fight, and to dig as deeply as possible into the subject matter, rather than simply dismissing or selectively refuting only certain lines of evidence.

    So when I see phrases in the published literature and commentary like ‘requiem’ or ‘flunks out’ or even worse : ‘physical and statistical impossibility‘ about a subject matter that is capable of producing useful scientific insights even if falsified – I do have certain issues.

    This sort of seesaw, right, no wrong, no maybe right, oops wrong again, occurs on a continual basis in the condensed matter physics literature, and the Younger Dryas is an excellent example of this in geophysics.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 3 Mar 2011 @ 4:35 PM

  38. Edward Greisch @24 & others — The change of drainage of Lake Agassiz from southwards to the northwest (eventually into the Artic Ocean) agrees quite well with the onset of YD. So does the catatropic drainage of proglacial lakes to the east down the Mohawk/Hudson and thence to the Labrador Sea. Less well constrained, but still close to the onset of YD is the drainage of Baltic Ice Lake I.

    I suppose that all three of these ice dammed lakes were about ready to drain i8n any case; all a posited YD bolide does is synchronize the releases, an event not presumed for the similar YD III during termination 3.

    The dating of the drainages around Lake Nipigon places that events as much later. At the time of YD the area was entirely covered with the Laurentide ice sheet.

    Conservative archaeologist C. Vance Haynes, Jr., no proponent of the CLovis Comet nonetheless remarked that while Paleoindians could well have extirpated the megafauna of North America, he stated “but all at once?”

    I went through all the literature I could find and posted on the previous-but-one RC thread on this contentious subject.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 3 Mar 2011 @ 5:48 PM

  39. Hi Edward

    \Has anybody tested impacts into ice? The bolide would be the only source of carbon if it hit a miles-thick glacier. The bolide composition would control the carbon found.\

    Yes, Dr. Schultz started work on modeling ice impacts at NASA Ames.

    I kind of like the Lloydminster structure as a candidate, where there appears to have been isostatic rebound after an impact removed the ice load. There are several other candidate structures as well; it is entirely likely that there were multiple impacts at the YD. But since Gene Shoemaker’s passing, there is no coherent well funded effort in this field. And as regards larger impacts, you have to remember that hydrocarbons pool in the fractures from them, so a large part of the work remains proprietary.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:25 PM

  40. 36, Thomas,

    There are a large variety of impact simulator programs available online, Bob – feel free to fiddle with the input parameters any which way you like.

    No thanks… I have way too much other work on my plate. What I’m interested in is knowing which program you used, and with exactly what parameters, and most importantly how valid that particular model is and how specific the results are.

    My point is that you saying that you did X, and so X is possible, does nothing whatsoever to prove that the feature you’ve identified is an impact crater, or… much more importantly… that such an impact occurred within the last 13,000 years.

    It could be a perfectly valid hypothesis, but currently “real” evidence points against it, and all that you’ve produced so far appears to be speculation. If you are able to advance your points beyond speculation, please do so.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:27 PM

  41. Hi Edward –

    “The change of drainage of Lake Agassiz from southwards to the northwest (eventually into the Arctic Ocean) agrees quite well with the onset of YD.

    Yes.

    “So does the catastrophic drainage of proglacial lakes to the east down the Mohawk/Hudson and thence to the Labrador Sea. Less well constrained, but still close to the onset of YD is the drainage of Baltic Ice Lake I.”

    My working hypothesis is that Lake Agassiz overflowed east after the melt triggered by its “sudden” northward drainage. A triggering event of a “tipping point”, if your will –

    “I suppose that all three of these ice dammed lakes were about ready to drain in any case; all a posited YD bolide does is synchronize the releases, an event not presumed for the similar YD III during termination.”

    If you go to http://cosmictusk.com, you can read what appears to be an Assiniboine/some Sioux memory of the drainage of glacial Lake Missoula, and the events surrounding it which I posted there.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:10 PM

  42. Hi Bob

    “My point is that you saying that you did X, and so X is possible, does nothing whatsoever to prove that the feature you’ve identified is an impact crater, or… much more importantly… that such an impact occurred within the last 13,000 years.’

    I can agree completely with you on your comment to Tom here. It is likely that he used the Purdue impact simulator, which I guess does not include modeling of ice impacts nor of Boslough’s ablative airbursts.

    “It could be a perfectly valid hypothesis, but currently “real” evidence points against it, and all that you’ve produced so far appears to be speculation. If you are able to advance your points beyond speculation, please do so.”

    And here I have to disagree with you, completely. Besides the hydrocarbon markers, there are gross neutron and proton signatures, and we have gross climate change, rapid simultaneous species extinctions, and there is a sudden quarry abandonment, indicating the death of roughly 95% of the population of North America.

    What is quite amazing is that several peoples appear to have remembered these events for some 13,000 years, and further remembered where they were at that time, and thus can be locked onto the archaeological record from 13,000 years ago on.

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:30 PM

  43. It could be a perfectly valid hypothesis

    No, it’s a viable hypothesis, nothing more and nothing less. To pronounce it dead, or flunked or scientifically impossible is unhelpful, in my opinion, especially since it continues to provide useful insight into natural nanodiamonds (NDs for the spam filter) origins, occurrence, distribution and synthesis, for instance, a fertile, current, interesting area of research.

    Any number of plausible parameters are capable of reproducing this feature, and hypersonic gun experiments with pellets into ice clearly show fairly plausible methods of producing lateral, subglacial blast waves.

    currently “real” evidence points against it

    Which explains why there are no published reports describing and explaining this unusual Nipigon feature, and what the anticipated forms and distributions might be of the naturally deposited terrestrial surface NDs, and why estimated deposition rates appear nowhere in the literature as far as I can tell. Perhaps Tyrone Daulton or one of the other authors of these papers would be willing to stop by here and give us their estimated cubic ND surface fluxes, and explain to us how relatively pristine cubic NDs arrived in the Lommel sediments, and if those deposition rates are not unusual, what other sediments have they analyzed for cubic ND content to verify surface fluxes, and if we might be able to rely on ice core ND content to track past impactor fluxes, or if they envision some other completely different origin of the cubic NDs.

    I’m always interested to learn of such things. I’d also be interested in any microstructural or compositional analysis of any impurities, and isotopic analysis of any of the detected surface or sediment nanodiamonds.

    So many questions, so little time.

    If you are able to advance your points beyond speculation, please do so.

    Sure, I’ll run right up to Lake Nipigon this weekend and collect and arrange for the international shipment of soil and rock samples, get them analyzed, and have a report ready for you my Monday morning, no problem. I’ll get right on it.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:57 PM

  44. This came out quite recently from UMaine. Thoughts?

    Kurbatov A.V., P.A. Mayewski, J.P. Steffensen, A. West, D.J. Kennett, J.P. Kennett, T.E. Bunch, M. Handley, D.S. Introne, S.S. Que Hee, C. Mercer, M. Sellers, F. Shen, S.B. Sneed, J.C. Weaver, J.H. Wittke, T.W. Stafford, J. J. Donovan, S. Xie, J. J. Razink Jr., A. Stich, C.R. Kinzie, W.S. Wolbach, Discovery of a nanodiamond-rich layer in the Greenland ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology, v. 56, n 199, 749-759

    Comment by Douglas Watts — 3 Mar 2011 @ 9:32 PM

  45. Douglas Watts @44 — Thanks. The authors suggest a dating of YD initiation, but conclude their abstract with however, more investigation is needed to confirm this association.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 3 Mar 2011 @ 10:28 PM

  46. Has anyone tried doing MRI on fossil material or on drill cores?
    http://www.physorg.com/news185737514.html

    “… nanodiamonds have excellent biocompatibility and can be used for efficient drug delivery. This new work paves the way for the clinical use of nanodiamonds to both deliver therapeutics and remotely track the activity and location of the drugs…. the first published report of nanodiamonds being imaged by MRI technology, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge…. Ho and Meade imaged a variety of nanodiamond samples, including nanodiamonds decorated with various concentrations of Gd, undecorated nanodiamonds, and water. ”

    Seems they might bioaccumulate??

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 3 Mar 2011 @ 10:44 PM

  47. 43 Thomas Lee Elifritz: “Any number of plausible parameters are capable of reproducing this feature, and hypersonic gun experiments with pellets into ice clearly show fairly plausible methods of producing lateral, subglacial blast waves.”
    Can you tell us any more about the hypersonic gun experiments with pellets into ice? Do you happen to know of any downloadable papers?

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 3 Mar 2011 @ 11:25 PM

  48. 43, Thomas,

    No, it’s a viable hypothesis, nothing more and nothing less. To pronounce it dead, or flunked or scientifically impossible is unhelpful…

    But I did no such thing. I said that as yet you have failed to support the hypothesis with sufficient evidence.

    Sure, I’ll run right up to Lake Nipigon this weekend and collect and arrange for the international shipment of soil and rock samples…

    The sarcasm is lost on me. I didn’t come in here posting my own pet theory without sufficient supporting evidence, expecting others to take my proclamations at face value and without question.

    I’m pretty sure that gremlins caused the YD, and if someone would take the time to engineer a time-vapor-gremlin-ghost-detector, they’d know it. It’s not my fault that no one has taken me seriously enough to build a TVGGD yet. It’s still a valid theory, and to my mind, totally true until someone proves otherwise…

    I’ll say it again. The post said:

    …none of the original YD impact signatures have been subsequently corroborated by independent tests. Of the 12 original lines of evidence, seven have so far proven to be non-reproducible. The remaining signatures instead seem to represent either (1) non-catastrophic mechanisms, and/or (2) terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial or impact-related sources.

    Simplified, there is no evidence of an extraterrestrial impact related cause of the YD. You cannot refute this simply by saying that you’ve found a geological feature which looks like it might be an impact crater.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 3 Mar 2011 @ 11:54 PM

  49. 42, E.P. Grondine,

    And here I have to disagree with you, completely. Besides the hydrocarbon markers, there are gross neutron and proton signatures, and we have gross climate change, rapid simultaneous species extinctions, and there is a sudden quarry abandonment, indicating the death of roughly 95% of the population of North America.

    I’m not sure what you’re saying here. According to Pinter et al, as per to OP, there are no valid signatures for an impact event. The fact that there was gross climate change, rapid simultaenous species extinctions, and population loss in North America says something happened in the YD, yes, but not that it was impact related. You can’t say something like “there was an effect, so X must have been the cause.” There was an effect, so there must have been a cause, but there is no evidence yet as to what the cause was.

    That said, the paper discussed in this OP seems to say pretty unequivocally that it was not an impact event because the signatures of such an event do not exist. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, that particular option is off the table.

    That’s not to say someone can’t produce evidence tomorrow. If so, we can argue it tomorrow. Today, there is no such evidence.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 4 Mar 2011 @ 12:00 AM

  50. Several people: Thanks.

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 4 Mar 2011 @ 12:15 AM

  51. But I did no such thing.

    I’m really not directing my comments to you, I’m more or less directing them to the broader impact and geophysics community.

    I said that as yet you have failed to support the hypothesis with sufficient evidence.

    Whereas I have produced a feature in the critical hydrogeological position which appears to be an ice sheet related impact astrobleme, and noted that cubic diamonds are purported to exist in YD related Greenland ice and YD related black mat sediments in Europe. We know that cubic nanodiamonds exist in abundance in carbonaceous meteorites, and we think some of them were formed in the solar nebula, and there are wide variety of plausible shock and plasma related chemical vapor deposition synthesis routes capable of producing them in impacts and simple meteor and dust reentries and presumably via recondensation of hot plasma impact plumes.

    Furthermore, the authors have explored none of these natural diamond formation and deposition scenarios, and they have also failed to offer any estimated formation and/or impact rates and sedimentation fluxes for the cubic nanodiamonds that they have observed, nor have they bothered to check for the existence natural nanodiamonds in any other control sediments. At least none of them have reported any of those results yet.

    there is no evidence of an extraterrestrial impact related cause of the YD.

    I find it extremely difficult to rationally engage anyone who uses the phrase ‘no evidence’.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 4 Mar 2011 @ 8:39 AM

  52. 51, Thomas,

    I looked more closely at their manuscript. I’ll retreat from “no evidence” because I’d never give the most recent paper final say, but from their abstract:

    Lastly, with YD impact proponents increasingly retreating to nanodiamonds (cubic, hexagonal [lonsdaleite], and the proposed n-diamond) as evidence of impact, those data have been called into question. The presence of lonsdaleite was reported as proof of impact-related shock processes, but the evidence presented was inconsistent with lonsdaleite and consistent instead with polycrystalline aggregates of graphene and graphane mixtures that are ubiquitous in carbon forms isolated from sediments ranging from modern to pre-YD age. Important questions remain regarding the origins and distribution of other diamond forms (e.g., cubic nanodiamonds).

    The paper itself gives a lengthy discussion of nanodiamonds, and I’m not sure what to make of your statement that they have explored none of the natural formation and deposition scenarios. What they did do was to review and summarize all of the work that has been done to date, and to point out the large number of contradictions or failings which make such evidence suspect, at best. Given that it is the only line of evidence that appears to have withstood attention without being debunked (but also without finding incontrovertible support), while all other issues have been put to rest or cast into doubt, it would seem that anyone who clings to nanodiamonds as a smoking gun (as you appear to be doing) has an emotional rather than logical attachment to the process and the outcome.

    I’m not saying an impact event is impossible. That has not been determined. But at the moment, the evidence for it is extremely unlikely, and the visual appraisal, with no substantive work, of a potential impact crater (one which is just as easily interpreted as a mere flood basin beside a ridge formed through a natural geologic fault — I’m out of my depth here, so hopefully a geologist can chime in and offer the possible/likely scenarios for its formation) does not add any weight whatsoever to the argument.

    Sorry, but if you want to put forward the case that the area near Lake Nipigon is an impact crater, you are going to have to drive up there and get some hard evidence to support your case. “It looks like one on Google Maps” isn’t evidence, or science, it’s easy, armchair pseudo-science. It’s what an army of climate change deniers do all day long at WUWT.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 4 Mar 2011 @ 9:23 AM

  53. Can you tell us any more about the hypersonic gun experiments with pellets into ice?

    Most of it is documented and all I know is from what I’ve seen of the slow motion imagery of the actual oblique angle impact experiments. These experiments were carried out at the NASA Ames Hypervelocity Facility by Peter Shultz and I presume Ted Bunch. Very clear easily distinguishable lateral wave fronts were observed when the pellet punctured the ice sheet.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 4 Mar 2011 @ 9:24 AM

  54. It looks like one on Google Maps” isn’t evidence, or science, it’s easy, armchair pseudo-science.

    Which explains why I deduced something of a highly unusual hydrogeological nature must have occurred in the area of Lake Nipigon, when I went searching for evidence of unusual hydrogeological activity in that area using brand new Google Earth terrain map data, I almost immediately discovered an unusual geomorphism.

    Those preliminary discussions are well documented here. I am completely open to alternative interpretations if they have any credible geophysical basis, but thus far none have been offered, except ‘it’s not an astrobleme’.

    So you see, the (non) argument works both ways. I’ve already long ago been in contact with numerous field workers and have already made plans to visit the area and worked the permitting to import the samples into the United States across international boundaries, Bob. Timeframes for these activities are measured in years.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 4 Mar 2011 @ 9:41 AM

  55. @42 Hi Bob –

    B – I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

    “And here I have to disagree with you, completely. Besides the hydrocarbon markers, there are gross neutron and proton signatures, and we have gross climate change, rapid simultaneous species extinctions, and there is a sudden quarry abandonment, indicating the death of roughly 95% of the population of North America.”

    B – “According to Pinter et al, as per to OP, there are no valid signatures for an impact event.”

    Re: Pinter et al., Locating the YD layer, sampling it, and processing those samples is non-trivial. Its not like dealing with the KT layer.

    B – “The fact that there was gross climate change, rapid simultaneous species extinctions, and population loss in North America says something happened in the YD, yes, but not that it was impact related. You can’t say something like “there was an effect, so X must have been the cause.” There was an effect, so there must have been a cause, but there is no evidence yet as to what the cause was.”

    Ahhh, but you left out of your list the neutron and proton production evidenced in 14C and 10Be samples – which is what got Firestone involved in all of this in the first place.

    While Firestone attributes these to nearby supernova, my current estimate is that in a massive impact photons reach an energy level capable of splitting neutrons and protons out of what is now called the nucleon (which you and I were taught was the nucleus of an atom). If one takes a look at the 14c calibration charts, the peaks appear to be tied to impact.

    “That said, the paper discussed in this OP seems to say pretty unequivocally that it was not an impact event because the signatures of such an event do not exist. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, that particular option is off the table.”

    That’s not to say someone can’t produce evidence tomorrow. If so, we can argue it tomorrow. Today, there is no such evidence.”

    There is another item of data which I did not mention because it is widely denigrated by the “scientific” community, and that is Native American oral histories. Anyone who wishes to claim that an impact did not occur has to come up with an explanation as to why they would create such stories out of whole cloth, and why their histories’ details would correspond so closely to such unusual events.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 4 Mar 2011 @ 11:48 AM

  56. 54, Thomas,

    Well then I wish you good luck. It sounds exciting and worthwhile. I similarly have my own efforts which I will keep to myself until they amount to something, if ever.

    But don’t put the cart before the horse. Showing up here and touting it as if the scientists are somehow remiss in not taking you seriously, or that this post is in error because you think you’ve found the smoking gun, is inappropriate.

    You have an idea, possibly a good one, and you’re doing the work to see if it comes to fruition. Good. If it does, you publish and you’re famous. If it stands up to scrutiny, you’re even more famous. If it doesn’t, you move on.

    But casting aspersions on other scientist’s work, or defining your intuition as a “problem” that they are ignoring, before you yourself have done sufficient leg-work to make the claim relevant, is wrong. It is armchair pseudo-science if all you’ve done is blog about it, and until you’ve done something more definitive.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 4 Mar 2011 @ 11:49 AM

  57. Showing up here and touting it as if the scientists are somehow remiss in not taking you seriously, or that this post is in error because you think you’ve found the smoking gun, is inappropriate

    But I haven’t done that. Those who know me know already full well that my perspective on right and wrong in science is far looser than you imply.

    And I’ve already learned a great deal from the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, right or wrong, and the anomalous Nipigon geomorphism isn’t going anywhere. It is easily accessible for anyone who may want to take a look at it, and I’ve already done my obligatory due diligence with respect to it.

    Indeed, I now hypothesize that trillions and trillions of microscopic nanodiamonds are available for anyone to take a look at, examine in detail and categorize, since they appear to … ahem … erode very, very slowly, and it’s quite possible now that they may be literally … almost everywhere!

    I will be patiently awaiting any interesting conclusions they may draw from them.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 4 Mar 2011 @ 12:20 PM

  58. E.P. Grondine,

    …it is widely denigrated by the “scientific” community…

    Do you have any idea how offensive and off-putting a “comment” like this is?

    People who “disagree” with you — and back it up with substantive work and publication — do not deserve to be “imprisoned” in quotes.

    If you have a scientific point to make, prove it. Until you do, it is guesswork that you can label as a theory or a hypothesis, but no amount of Internet posting puts any substance behind it. It’s all hearsay until you (or Firestone) produce firm, reproducible evidence. This has not yet happened. Talking about it as if it will happen is a waste of time. Current, published science says “YD yes, impact no.” It stays that way until contrary evidence is produced.

    Conjecture about Native American oral histories, which could reflect anything from a religious belief or moral analogy to a simple, ordinary meteorite fall at any point in the past 100,000 years, anywhere in North America, with no relationship whatsoever to the YD, is mere conjecture. In fact, meteorite strikes are so common that to attribute oral history to anything other than an ordinary event in the relatively recent past is really stretching it. Do you really think that an oral history might have survived a population decimation and 13,000 years of time to exist today in any reliable form and to provide any remotely relevant information?

    Such conjecture has no place whatsoever in a scientific discussion, unless you can figure out a way to prove its veracity and applicability.

    Note, from just some random googling (trying the find specifically what you’re talking about in the first place… and I’ve failed):

    Several Native American tribes thought meteors were fragments of lunar material and called them “children of the moon.”
    In one Native American legend, a shooting star symbolizes a young girl, far from her native land, trying to get home. In another, it’s a coyote who had climbed up to dance among the stars.

    In Australia:

    One disaster recounted in Aboriginal legends, speaks of a “white wave” falling out of the sky and devastating their culture.

    And also:

    Australian Aborigine mythology begins in a period known as the “dream time”, before the emergence of humanity. Many stories about the dream time include legends about stars, gods, or rocks falling from the sky.

    Did all of these events cause massive climate change? It’s no wonder “scientists” dismiss such “evidence.” It goes hand in hand with the search for Atlantis, Intelligent Design, ozone killing all of the trees on the planet, and climate change denial.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 4 Mar 2011 @ 1:09 PM

  59. David @45 You are correct. The 8/2010 Glaciology paper emphasizes that their YD dating and findings are preliminary due to the study scope and are intended to foster more directed, intensive efforts. It appears their methods (using the edge of the ice sheet at the presumed YD boundary) necessarily raises issues about how accurate they can estimate the age of the surface where the nanodiamonds are located. I have no dog in this hunt and in fact did a long piece for UMaine’s magazine about Denton and Broecker’s late 1980s work on the shutdown of the conveyor as being a suspect driver of the YD. But any finding of an ET layer of stuff in Greenland is very interesting regardless of whether it drove the YD or not.

    The UMaine Climate Change Institute has a free PDF download of the Glaciology paper. Look under 2011 pubs.

    http://climatechange.umaine.edu/research/publications/

    Comment by Douglas Watts — 4 Mar 2011 @ 1:32 PM

  60. Bob, so far you have claimed here that there is ‘no evidence’, that all scientific publications must ‘prove something’, that the sole reason for doing science is ‘fame’, and that the internet is not a valid scientific communication medium. If you have anything substantive to offer with respect to the topic at hand, I will be patiently waiting here in order to hear it.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:38 PM

  61. Hi Bob –

    \Do you really think that an oral history might have survived a population decimation and 13,000 years of time to exist today in any reliable form and to provide any remotely relevant information?\

    Yes. It is fairly stunning, but YES. It survived more than impact as well – it survived the conquest and \cultural genocide\.

    I’m not alone in my views on the interplay of racism and science. For Adrian Major’s views on the denigration of Native American traditions, see her book.

    A shorter collection of North American Native American YD traditions is available at http://cosmictusk.com

    If you have any other reason why they should have made up details about impact events, the burden is on you to provide it.

    Now back to the hard evidence, which you attempt to kite-by.
    You have no explanation for the observed neutron and proton production.
    The burden is on you to provide one.

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 4 Mar 2011 @ 4:57 PM

  62. Hi Bob –

    (Excuse my typos – my stroke damage is catching up with me.)

    If you have any other reasons than that they observed impact for them to make up the extra-ordinary deatils contained in these traditions, then produce them. In other words, they were here, and remembered in some detail what they saw.

    (PS – you’re absolutely right about posting to the internet, as TEL is doing here, we have Dennis Cox over at Cosmic Tusk doing the same thing, and it does get wearying.

    But in regards to formal publication, it would help if Dr. Morrison and his associates stopped passing themselves off as impartial referees: Mueller’s Nemesis injection mechanism is by no means the standard paradigm.)

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 4 Mar 2011 @ 5:17 PM

  63. Douglas Watts @59 — I found and read the paper before commenting. Pinter et al.’s requiem severely criticises Kurbatov et al. on page 31 and seem to indicate that n-diamonds were actually not observed; they seem to require an independent analysis.

    Be that as it may, I opine it is too early for even last rites, much less a requiem. Thmos Lee Elfiritz seems to find something unusual about Lake Nipigon; in comment #2 I pointed to Charity Shoal as a possible YD-date impact crater; in the previous-but-one thread on YD I linked to a potential YD-date impact crater near the Louisiana/Mississippi border, although the dating seems to be otherwise. I’ll add another: off the Carolina coast there is a massive, fairly recent geologically speaking, clathrate blowout feature. Such might be due to a bolide impact and ought to be detectable as such via a magnetometer survey. If so, then a sediment coring ought to be able to roughly date the feature.

    If E.P. Grondine would indicate where in the anthropological literture one can find those Amerindian legends, I would pay attention. There is little doubt that the Navajo tibal story is essentially correct back at least to their time in/near the Queen Charolette Islands as they are Na-Dene speakers.

    While such a Clovis Comet as not necessary to explain YD, it certainly would directly explain the end of Clovis Culture and the simultaneous extinction of 33 genera of megafauna, including the North American llama, but not, it seems, wapiti and certainly not bison.

    Comment by David B. Benson — 4 Mar 2011 @ 6:21 PM

  64. Bob S: Do you really think that an oral history might have survived a population decimation and 13,000 years of time to exist today in any reliable form and to provide any remotely relevant information?

    EPG 61: Yes. It is fairly stunning, but YES. It survived more than impact as well – it survived the conquest and cultural genocide.

    BPL: Can you identify any other legend in the world that has survived 13,000 years? I’m not aware of any, especially since written history only goes back 6,000.

    It’s great to be for Native Americans, but you don’t have to be a racist to doubt that a particular legend is 13,000 years old.

    -BPL
    Brother of the Crow, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1976.

    Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 4 Mar 2011 @ 8:14 PM

  65. Hi BPL –

    There is a collection (not complete yet by any means) over at http://cosmictusk.com.

    Enjoy.

    I know of no other oral corpus that goes back that far.

    As far as the “scepticism” goes, you surely are aware that many Native Americans will just call all scientists “Nazis” for good reasons.

    Within the archaeological community, naturally if you can show 13,000 years occupation, it brings NAGPRA into play at many sites here in the US that were previously “fair game”.

    E.P. Grondine
    Man and Impact in the Americas

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 4 Mar 2011 @ 11:12 PM

  66. 60, Thomas,

    Bob, so far you have claimed here that there is ‘no evidence’, that all scientific publications must ‘prove something’, that the sole reason for doing science is ‘fame’, and that the internet is not a valid scientific communication medium. If you have anything substantive to offer with respect to the topic at hand, I will be patiently waiting here in order to hear it.

    Wow. Were you really able to pack that many blatant misinterpretations of what I’ve said into one sentence? Anyone can go back and read it, you know.

    No evidence: No, what I \claimed\ (stated, actually) was that you have refused to provide evidence each time you have been asked. You offer lots of gish gallop, but when I ask for details on the models you used to simulate impacts, you evade. When I ask for evidence of not merely an impact but the timing of the impact, you evade. You have not provided evidence, only claims.

    Oh, wait, I did say there’s \no evidence,\ as in \no firm evidence\ of an extraterrestrial impact related to the YD because that is the case (according the paper supposedly under discussion here, which you seem to too readily dismiss). If there were firm evidence, the discussion would be moving in a different direction. If you have firm evidence, cite it. Or continue evading, as you’ve done so far.

    I never said scientific publications must prove something. I did say that if you have a claim to make, the burden falls on you to prove it, with the understanding that if you have proof of a substantive claim, then publishing it would be the most beneficial thing to do (i.e. get it out where everyone can see it and use it). See the difference? Not that publications must prove something, but rather that people wandering into blogs making elaborate, extreme claims must prove them. Simply making the claim over and over again is ridiculous.

    I never said the sole reason for doing science was fame, I said that if you turned out to be right you’d be famous. See the difference?

    I never said the Internet was not a valid scientific communication medium, but it certainly is a place where one can find a lot of nonsense and crackpots, and one has to see through all of the gish gallop and recognize those with a Galileo complex for who they are. Fortunately, this site is normally relatively immune to such nonsense. I’m not sure why this has gone one for so long, however…

    But as far as you patiently waiting for me to provide something substantive… LOL. I’m not the one making fantastical and totally unsupported claims. Once again, if you can support your position with anything more than \look, look, it looks like an impact crater, see\ then I’m patiently waiting here in order to hear it.

    Comment by Bob (Sphaerica) — 4 Mar 2011 @ 11:20 PM

  67. Re: #65 (E. P. Grondine)

    I looked at your linked site, and in my opinion, your claim that the oral history is reliable evidence of a YD impact event is not plausible. I’m tempted to compare to Velikovsky.

    Comment by tamino — 5 Mar 2011 @ 11:34 AM

  68. I’m not the one making fantastical and totally unsupported claims. Once again, if you can support your position with anything more than \look, look, it looks like an impact crater, see\ then I’m patiently waiting here in order to hear it.

    I already provided you with several paragraphs delineating my lines of evidence in support of my fantastic and totally unsupported modified YDB hypothesis. Hydrogeological arguments concerning catastrophic and longer term LIS retreat and advances, cubic nanodiamonds in YD sediments and ice, some CVD nanodiamond and carbon fragment synthesis routes in electrically charged, volatile rich, plasma impact plumes, an ozone catastrophe related to volatile injection into the stratosphere, and a putative impact feature in the correct position and of the correct size and geometry to explain the hypothesis. Your responses are exactly what I was expecting from this.

    Thanks. At least that particular hypothesis was verified.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 5 Mar 2011 @ 11:41 AM

  69. Hi tamino –

    I understand what you mean by “reliable” – in other words hard, physical evidence, and I don’t make such a claim for the historical traditions.

    And I can understand you wanting to compare my analysis with Velikovsky’s – but that comparison is simply not fair in any way. In my analysis, physics is given more priority than any verbal or written account, as is the “hard” data, including anthropological hard data.

    My analysis also accords with modern physics and cosmology, as they are understood today. (I should point out here that Mueller an Morrison’s hypothesis on comet and asteroid impacts are in no way considered to be “the standard paradigm” within the international impact research community.)

    Velikovsky’s writings did neither, from what I know of them – I never read them. (Leroy Ellenberger can give you more information about Velikovsky, if that’s who you are interested in.)

    And that is why my book is so much better than anything Velikovsky ever wrote, and why it is groundbreaking and paradigm shifting – it is the first anthropological work to take into account somewhat comprehensively the effects of comet and asteroid impact on a portion of mankind.

    Bob above mentions the Australian Aboriginal traditions, and they have successfully been used to locate impact events. If Gene Shoemaker had not of passed on in that traffic accident, he might have been the first to do what I did; if Peter Snow had not passed, he might have been the first. As it is, I am the first. (While Kennett’s YD/clovis work is far better than mine, I do span more impacts in my book.)

    What I do think, and am willing to argue with anyone, is that Native American oral and written traditions do remember impact events, and that with archaeological data they can be used to limit the search for physical evidence of impacts, making that process more efficient.

    Once again, if you want to see how impact science has progressed, take a look at Mueller and Morrison’s Nemesis hypothesis, then take a look at Clube and Napier’s hypothesis; or take a look at Chicxulub, then take a look at Shiva.

    At this point in impact research, there is nothing done and over with.
    And if you’ve been at it for any length of time, you know you will make mistakes.

    My book has a correction sheet pasted inside the cover of every copy.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 5 Mar 2011 @ 2:24 PM

  70. TLE –

    Bob wrote to you:”No, what I \claimed\ (stated, actually) was that you have refused to provide evidence each time you have been asked. You offer lots of gish gallop, but when I ask for details on the models you used to simulate impacts, you evade. When I ask for evidence of not merely an impact but the timing of the impact, you evade. You have not provided evidence, only claims.”

    I invite you over to the cosmic tusk to discuss your claims with Dennis Cox.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 5 Mar 2011 @ 2:53 PM

  71. Prediction:

    > This paper is unlikely to the very last word on the subject,
    > but it is likely to be the last time the mainstream paleo-
    > climatologists are going to pay this much heed unless some
    > really big new piece of evidence comes to light.

    Corollary: an explosion of blog science on the topic ….

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 5 Mar 2011 @ 4:11 PM

  72. Here’s why I love RealClimate.org: “gish gallop”. What a perfectly delightful term!

    Comment by Duane — 5 Mar 2011 @ 5:05 PM

  73. Duane @72 — I once listened to Duane Gish gallop:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    Comment by David B. Benson — 5 Mar 2011 @ 5:56 PM

  74. I invite you over to the cosmic tusk to discuss your claims with Dennis Cox.

    No thanks. I have my own blog, and the only reason I’m posting here is that the original hypothesis, whether it’s true or false (and large impacts that recent are indeed only true or false) has already yielded incredible insights into the (cubic) nanodiamond phenomenon. I am of the opinion that the original Firestone hypothesis was a huge overreach, and so I’ve now narrowed it down to these last few related outstanding unresolved issues. Once these last few issues are resolved, I’m ok with abandoning it. I’m intrigued with the concept of ice sheet impacts, especially one that’s now gone.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 5 Mar 2011 @ 8:05 PM

  75. TLE –

    Well that is too damn bad. Over at the Tusk Dennis does the same thing you’ve done here with “features” that he’s located through Google Earth, and will spend copious amounts of time simply re-iterating his claims. I was hoping that the two of you would have an interesting “conversation”.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 6 Mar 2011 @ 1:44 AM

  76. Ok, Ed, I give up. Bob is right, it looks like a lake bed.

    Case closed. Snark off.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 6 Mar 2011 @ 4:04 PM

  77. Though looking at a single locale’s Ice Sheet record is revealing (the Younger Dryas is visible in both Greenland & Vostok cores), it should be a pointer to describing the behavior of the Ice Ages.
    When I look at Vostok (and extensions) Ice Core record, I see what appears to be two main waves. When they coalesce (or occupy overlapping time frames) the result is contructive (much like the behavior of light waves). When they pull apart, they are roughly half the height of the same two waves that are on top of each other. The Younger Dryas looks to me to be the result of two waves that last coincided 330,000 years BP. The two waves are nearest separation at 570,000 YBP and 640,000 YBP.
    If this process is correct, then the next interglacial will be pulled apart into two lesser interglacials.

    Comment by rbateman — 6 Mar 2011 @ 4:23 PM

  78. Hi TLE –

    “Ok, Ed, I give up. Bob is right, it looks like a lake bed.
    Case closed. Snark off.”

    Oh well, that’s something else you and Dennis have in common.

    And here I was so looking forward to the two of you competing in making baseless claims to greatness through finding THE YD event or events.
    Now if I could only have harnessed your obliviousness to deal with Dennis’s, then what a delightful turn of events that would have been!

    Well, TLE, here’s bit of encouragement: someday somebody will find all of the YD impact related data. And they’ll be Great with a capital “G”. So some on over and share insults with Dennis.

    PS – Bob, no need to thank me, [edit - out of order] there’s a special on “Man and Impact in the Americas” over at the cosmictusk.com. I think that you’ll have a better perspective on other peoples after you read it.

    Comment by E.P. Grondine — 6 Mar 2011 @ 8:13 PM

  79. Ok, Ed, I give up. Bob is right, it looks like a lake bed.
    Sisli Arcelik Servisi
    Case closed. Snark off.

    Comment by asguvenservis — 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:11 AM

  80. My analysis also accords with modern physics and cosmology, as they are understood today. (I should point out here that Mueller an Morrison’s hypothesis on comet and asteroid impacts are in no way considered to be “the standard paradigm” within the international impact research community.)
    Sisli Arcelik Servisi

    Comment by asguvenservis — 7 Mar 2011 @ 4:12 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.423 Powered by WordPress