Younger Dryas cooling event said to be comet related

From the University of California – Santa Barbara: A cataclysmic event of a certain age

Geologist James Kennett and an international team narrow the date of an anomalous cooling event most likely triggered by a cosmic impact

 This map shows the Younger Dryas Boundary locations that provided data for the analysis. Credit: UCSB

This map shows the Younger Dryas Boundary locations that provided data for the analysis. Credit: UCSB

At the end of the Pleistocene period, approximately 12,800 years ago­ — give or take a few centuries — a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.

New research by UC Santa Barbara geologist James Kennett and an international group of investigators has narrowed the date to a 100-year range, sometime between 12,835 and 12,735 years ago. The team’s findings appear today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers used Bayesian statistical analyses of 354 dates taken from 30 sites on more than four continents. By using Bayesian analysis, the researchers were able to calculate more robust age models through multiple, progressive statistical iterations that consider all related age data.

“This range overlaps with that of a platinum peak recorded in the Greenland ice sheet and of the onset of the Younger Dryas climate episode in six independent key records,” explained Kennett, professor emeritus in UCSB’s Department of Earth Science. “This suggests a causal connection between the impact event and the Younger Dryas cooling.”

In a previous paper, Kennett and colleagues conclusively identified a thin layer called the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) that contains a rich assemblage of high-temperature spherules, melt-glass and nanodiamonds, the production of which can be explained only by cosmic impact. However, in order for the major impact theory to be possible, the YDB layer would have to be the same age globally, which is what this latest paper reports.

“We tested this to determine if the dates for the layer in all of these sites are in the same window and statistically whether they come from the same event,” Kennett said. “Our analysis shows with 95 percent probability that the dates are consistent with a single cosmic impact event.”

All together, the locations cover a huge range of distribution, reaching from northern Syria to California and from Venezuela to Canada. Two California sites are on the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara.

However, Kennett and his team didn’t rely solely on their own data, which mostly used radiocarbon dating to determine date ranges for each site. They also examined six instances of independently derived age data that used other dating methods, in most cases counting annual layers in ice and lake sediments.

Two core studies taken from the Greenland ice sheet revealed an anomalous platinum layer, a marker for the YDB. A study of tree rings in Germany also showed evidence of the YDB, as did freshwater and marine varves, the annual laminations that occur in bodies of water. Even stalagmites in China displayed signs of abrupt climate change around the time of the Younger Dryas cooling event.

“The important takeaway is that these proxy records suggest a causal connection between the YDB cosmic impact event and the Younger Dryas cooling event,” Kennett said. “In other words, the impact event triggered this abrupt cooling.

“The chronology is very important because there’s been a long history of trying to figure out what caused this anomalous and enigmatic cooling,” he added. “We suggest that this paper goes a long way to answering that question and hope that this study will inspire others to use Bayesian statistical analysis in similar kinds of studies because it’s such a powerful tool.”

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4 1 vote
Article Rating
295 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wws
July 27, 2015 2:43 pm

This is a fascinating inquiry. I’ve been watching the various proponents and detractors of this theory go back and forth for a few years now – one study will say it was a comet, another will say no, that is completely wrong. The younger Dryas is an odd event, difficult to expain, and this does appear to fit the bill – also would have had a lot to do with the extinction of the North American megafauna. (maybe some link to the frozen mammoths in Siberia? There’s always been some odd questions about why so many got frozen so completely on what appeared to have been a balmy day)
A comet hitting the laurentide ice sheet (ice against ice) would have created a huge blast, but left no crater.

Curious George
Reply to  wws
July 27, 2015 2:52 pm

High-temperature spherules, melt-glass and nanodiamonds …

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  wws
July 27, 2015 2:57 pm

… a rich assemblage of high-temperature spherules, melt-glass and nanodiamonds,
Ice against ice and no crater — something doesn’t fit!

higley7
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2015 4:03 pm

How about most of the blast was into ice, but it did hit bottom and produce a limited amount of hot ejecta?

gbaikie
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2015 4:38 pm

comets tend to be rich in carbon [diamonds]. And no comets is pure water [or just water and hydrocarbons]. Or there would be all kinds of impurity, and the platinum could a higher abundance
then from normal rain and dust found in Earth atmosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2015 4:56 pm

Even comets have a lot of dust in them. And if was an asteroid not a comet …

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2015 9:08 pm

Comets are not pure ice. The main theory for comets is that they are “dirty snowballs”, and there are signs that some comets are more like “snowy dirtballs”. Many comets have significant chunks of something that can form meteors achieving “fireball” brightness (visual magnitude generally -4 like that of Venus in its brighter times or brighter) according to the daily fireball report at spaceweather.com on many days, mainly when a meteor shower associated with a known comet is in progress. Extraterrestrial objects of asteroid and comet nucleus size have a higher concentration of platinum and iridium than Earth’s crust does, because Earth’s share of these extremely dense metals got concentrated into Earth’s metallic core.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 27, 2015 11:11 pm

Who says ice against ice? You? The comets as “dirty snowballs” idea that doesn’t match reality? 67P, just visited recently was found to have some surface ice and was mostly rock. Comet Itokawa, ditto. Halley’s? Also mostly rock. The closer we come to comets, the more they seem to not be dirty snowballs. Some might be, but certainly some aren’t.

Geologist Down The Pub Sez
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 28, 2015 4:00 pm

Does the comet have to be all ice? Many contain silicates and metals, so the model could be made to work.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 30, 2015 2:40 am

@Geologist Down The Pub Sez July 28, 2015 at 4:00 pm
“Does the comet have to be all ice? Many contain silicates and metals, so the model could be made to work.”
Correct. The urban myth that comets are dirty ice balls has been shown to be not so very true. Some are. Not even close to all of them. As I understand it – and I might be wrong – before we WENT to comets, we had to rely on two basic lines of evidence. One was spectrographic evidence, looking for elements in the spectrae of the reflected light. That can only look at the surface. The second way was to try to measure the diameter of a comet, then by its diversions due to Jupiter and other bodies (if we could) to calculate a total mass. comparing the two, we could arrive at a “bulk density”. Using that we cold elminate some possibles. If the bulk density was too low we knew it couldn’t be iron-nickel or even silicate (much) – unless it was very porous – which we couldn’t really know from telescopes. Low desnity suggested maybe a lot of ice, but wwe coulnd’t be sure.
So, we visited Halley’s comet in 1986.
[Wiki]: “The missions also provided data that substantially reformed and reconfigured these ideas; for instance, now it is understood that the surface of Halley is largely composed of dusty, non-volatile materials, and that only a small portion of it is icy.”
Comet Tempel 1 was impacted by Deep Impact, and this from space.com:
“Dust emanates from the comet in frequent outbursts, likely a result of being warmed by the Sun. The dust kicked up by the impact was not the same as surface dust, but it spread through space and dissipated in a manner similar to the natural outbursts.
While more analysis is needed, the interior is clearly different from the surface. . .
. . .Inside, the comet harbors a relatively high concentration of organic compounds, the stuff from which life is made. The organics were more prevalent during and after the outburst than the water and carbon dioxide that routinely escape from the nucleus, or hard core of the comet.
In recent years, our impression of comets has shifted from dirty snowballs to snowy dirtballs. That latter description holds true with comet Tempel 1, A’Hearn said.
There is more dust than ice, A’Hearn said, but the ratio is less than 10-to-1. More significant to the new data is the revelation that there’s not much there.”
And we visited comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014. Same result – a “snowy dirtball” more than a dirty snowball.
“”We’re a bit surprised at just how unreflective the comet’s surface is and how little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, said in a statement.” (space.com)
http://www.universetoday.com/116423/philae-lander-early-science-results-ice-organic-molecules-and-half-a-foot-of-dust/
This is informative, but dammit, it is nothing but people saying their assumptions about what is being found, not what was actually found. “Hard as ice” could mean anything – including rock – but not dust. Almost every statement is waffled.

Reply to  wws
July 27, 2015 11:26 pm

Wws: “A comet hitting the laurentide ice sheet (ice against ice) would have created a huge blast, but left no crater.”
Prime candidate could be Nastapoka’s arc, a perfect arc of a circle
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rlinDW-CmVg/Va_SZfbIOQI/AAAAAAAAxRs/BIi1GIqIb9E/s1600/20150721180000_WIS30CT_0008377623.gif
If it was comet than it would be a huge lump of iron slowly sinking into the Mohorovičić discontinuity and eventually into the Earth’s mantle.
Strength of the Earth’s magnetic field (highest in the N. Hemisphere) following solar activity (reverse correlation) and the extreme negative gravity anomaly (more images HERE) make this area absolutely unique anywhere on the planet, perhaps best expressed in these few words:
Ordinary in no way is the Grand Old Hudson Bay
the centre of the ancient Laurentide
climbing up the isostatic stairway
in adulation of the sun, from Akhenaten to Svalgaard
the incontestable ruler of the North Atlantic Oscillations
for centuries past, the host to the true magnetic pole
boasting the lowest of the low in the gravity computations
with mystifying Nastapoka’s arc perfections
no other place on this beautiful blue globe
can equal the splendours of nature bestowed onto you
We salute you the Grand Old Hudson Bay.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 28, 2015 1:07 am

correction: should be: not an ice comet but asteroid originated meteorite or similar.

Jay Hope
Reply to  wws
July 30, 2015 5:45 am

Blame it on anything, just don’t say the Sun had anything to do with it!

Jquip
July 27, 2015 2:45 pm

Merely suggests? I thought that the science was settled; that correlation was causation.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Jquip
July 27, 2015 11:25 pm

Yes, to correlation, in the YDB studies. This may be the first study that has gotten past the lab testing for materials, which seem to indicate that the energy required and temperatures required for those materials was higher than terrestrial processes, including volcanoes. The involved scientists have not previously gone past the lab tests, because they know that if the lab tests of the materials doesn’t fly, then they can drop it and go on to other research. They didn’t want to put the cart ahead of the horse.
This current paper seems to indicate that they may be satisfied with the lab results and that there is nothing more they can do, so they can begin to go on to the OTHER aspects of such an impact scenario – mammoths, at some point, and perhaps mega-tsunamis, and the fires and the climate effects.
I’d think that in order to take that next step they have to see – as this study attempts – Did it all even happen at the same time? Again, if it shows that the effects that led to the lab results were spread over 500 years, then they would be barking up the wrong tree. NON correlation – falsification – would certainly be a clue, whereas correlation still keeps the possibility open, wouldn’t you say?
Quite literally, MUCH of the evidence in academic papers is evidence that “suggest” a hypothesis can be true, or evidence that “is consistent with” it, or evidence that does not refute the possibility. There are many shades of grey in evidence, and the more remote in time evidence is, the more “iffy” it will be – the more grey. Bayesian analysis seems to be a tool for dealing with the varying levels of certainty. Why WOULDN’T they use it to find out if they should just pack up their bags and go on to something else? But they weren’t going to use it until the bits of evidence were as solid as they could get it.
And whereas all this happened early 13,000 years ago, how would YOU propose they try to tie things to the same time frame? Take a time machine and go back and ask people?

July 27, 2015 2:51 pm

There is one thing for sure, the planet has been hit many times by a comet. Some of those comets must have been huge. If a huge comet hits the planet, then there has got to be some sort of large scale effect. I think this team is on to something.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  markstoval
July 27, 2015 9:13 pm

Many times by A comet?

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 28, 2015 8:02 am

Yes, by comets. Interesting read on Wikipedia about the possible influence of the galactic tide, bringing Oort cloud objects into the inner solar system. There appears to be about a 25% increase in comet impacts in the years after we pass through the galactic disk (when the tide is at a maximum). Very interesting stuff.

Jlawson
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 28, 2015 8:12 am

Darn thing kept backing up and hitting us again!

Steve Garcia
Reply to  markstoval
July 30, 2015 6:24 am

Be a little careful, though, about the terms comet and meteor. Every other non-gaseous body out there (except now Pluto!) is covered in craters. So, clearly, many have also come to visit Earth. When? The astronomers say it was almost all a very long time ago.
They may be right. They may not be. Not all of them are so sure that we may be a bit at risk, even now. (But at least they aren’t running around like Chicken Little, screaming “The Sky is FALLING!. The Sky is FALLING!”.)
Earth is VERY much protected by our atmosphere. Small stuff has a very hard time making it through our atmosphere without doing like the meteor in Chelyabinsk in 2013 – melt away and/or turns into a fireball, before ever getting to the surface. THAT is a GOOD THING. Our atmosphere probably got hit by 10 times the asteroids and meteoroids and comets as the Moon. And without our atmosphere, the Earth would probably look WORSE than the Moon – more cratered. Thea atmosphere not only GIVES us life, but it also SAVES our lives. All those thousands of small meteors that hit every day and turn into shooting stars – on the MOon and Mars and Mercury and all those moons in the solar system all of those meteors would hit REALLY hard on the Earth’s surface, if we didn’t have an atmosphere. Anything on the surface would be at terrible risk of getting “shot” by some object going 5 to 35 times as fast as a bullet. Normal bullets are about 2200 km/sec. That is about 60% of 1 km/sec. Meteors come in at at least 10 km/sec, and comets can come in at 70 km/ sec.
That stuff IS out there. Doing due diligence and trying to find all of them is a good idea, but no one is running around panicking about it. We may not get hit by a dnageous one for a few thousand years. Just in case – since we CAN – it hasn’t hurt us to check out just to be sure.
The YDB scientists (about 26 on this current paper) are not even talking about future risk. They are looking back in time to see if something whacked us 9000 years before Stonehenge. The more they’ve looked at it, the more it looks like yes.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 6:43 am

The more disinterested scientists look at it, the higher their certainty that the conjecture is a fantasy.
Large impacts obviously do occur and one could have happened that recently, although it’s highly unlikely. It’s just that there is no evidence for it and all the evidence in the world against it.
Asteroids with a one km diameter strike earth every 500,000 years on average. Larger collisions, of five-km objects, happen approximately once in twenty million years. The last known impact by an object of 10 km or more in diameter was the K-T (or P) extinction event 66 million years ago.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 12:16 pm

SH –
“Disinterested scientists”?
Oh yeah? Name them. Skeptics count or don’t they? If you name skeptics, then they aren’t disinterested. Name some the skeptics have convinced..
Oh, I am sorry, this is such a bad idea that they don’t NEED convincing by skeptics.
But name a few.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 1:08 pm

SH –
You say, “Asteroids with a one km diameter strike earth every 500,000 years on average. Larger collisions, of five-km objects, happen approximately once in twenty million years. The last known impact by an object of 10 km or more in diameter was the K-T (or P) extinction event 66 million years ago.”
I can put up numbers, too… A bit on the evolution of the estimates of frequencies of impacts on Earth:
Gerrit L. Verschuur, in “Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids (p. 157)” wrote:
“…Specific odds were offered by Sir Richard Gregory in 1893: “about once in about twenty million years.” In 1897 David Todd offered an estimate of an impact every 15 million years, but even if the earth should pass through the head of a comet, it might bring universal death to nearly all forms of animal life. The famous textbook of Russell, Dugan, and Stewart in 1926 stated flatly that comet collisions would happen once in 80 million years.” [Note that no size was given. These were blanket statements about ALL comets.]
“…Representing the Lone Ranger point of view, Clark Chapman and David Morrison published their odds in Nature in January 1994. In “Impacts on the Earth by Asteroids and Comets: Assessing the Hazard,” they concluded that the chance that a large (2-kilometer diameter) object will slam into the planet and terminate civilization during the next century is I in 10,000. (pg 159)”
Note that this is the same David Morrison who is the director of NASA, and this was the same year that Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke into 20 large fragments which slammed into Jupiter over the course of several days in July of that year.
Note also that until the Shoemakers and Levy found SL-9, NO astronomers or anyone at NASA thought that they would ever in their lives see a comet hit a planet. And, to add insult to injury, TWO other comets have since 1994 been seen to hit Jupiter.
So much for the estimations of frequencies of comet strikes on planets? Maybe, but we raren’t done yet.
Continuing. . .
“In July 1994 an interesting article appeared in Scientific American on what was learned from the Apollo moon landings. The author, G. Jeffrey Taylor, a geophysicist physicist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, pointed our that for every impact crater you see on the moon there would be 20 expected on the earth, because of the earth’s larger size. He added that Frederick Horz of the Johnson Space Center estimates that there are 5000 craters on the moon larger than 5 kilometers across which were produced in the past 600 million years. Putting these numbers together implies that half-kilometer objects, which are potentially civilization-destroying, are expected on average every 6,000 years. This rate is consistent with the claims made by the Tollmanns (chapter 8). If earth is hit by a 0.5-kilometer object every 6,000 years, roughly four out of five would be expected to land in the oceans, which means it is very likely that a major flood event would have occurred at least once in the past 10,000 years. (p. 162).”
(Don’t tell the Creationists!)
Continuing……..
“While researching old books and technical articles for this chapter, I noticed something fascinating that illustrates how our conception of what the future holds depends so intimately on our knowledge base. In two centuries, the typical estimated time between comet impacts (from old books) to impacts capable of producing global catastrophe (from new research) has decreased from once every 281 million years (which held for most of the 19th century) to about once ever 5 to 10,000 years in the past year.
“…Compared to estimates made in the past century, one thing has changed in recent years. The NEAs have entered the picture and therefore the odds of impact have shortened dramatically. Around the end of the nineteenth century the odds had shortened to once every 10 million years or so, which held until the early 1980s when 100,000 years between civilization-destroying impacts began to surface. That change happened because of the sudden increase in information about NEAs, crater statistics, and past mass-extinction events. A spate of at least nine estimates appeared in early 1995, four of which independently set the interval between such collisions at close to 5,000 years. (p. 164)”
On another tack ——– From http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/03deadlyskies/03tracking/indexmid.html we have this:
“…Dr. Brian Marsden, director of the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which catalogues all newly discovered near-Earth objects and tries to accurately determine their orbits…
“… In 1998, the center listed 10,000 objects. Two years later, the number has risen to 15,000. Most are objects traveling harmlessly in the asteroid belts between Mars and Jupiter, and more are being discovered everyday…
“…A smaller subgroup, called Potentially Hazardous Asteroids, includes 249 objects that are one-tenth of one mile or larger, and pass within five million miles of the Earth. Last year, about 100 new objects were added to this list.
“Most of these objects are not a danger,” says Dr. Marsden. “But in the last two years, there have been five objects with a significant impact possibility during the next half-century.” Intense efforts are underway to determine the orbits of these objects. All but one has been ruled safe. This one object, which appeared in 1998, but vanished before an orbit could be determined, is listed as a potential threat to the Earth.”
So, the number of known threats becomes higher. IN one year it went up about 40% – and that ws before WISE mission began looking seriously.
At about the end of 1980 9,425 asteroids were known. By 1985 that had grown to 12,214. In 1990 it wsa 26,748. BY 2000 it had grown to 123,114. Then in 2005 the count went to 343,671. In 2010 it was 548,914. In 2013 it had grown to 588,992. Those are all now known, numbered and tagged. The number went up by 62-fold.
These absolute numbers don’t mean that the danger to Earth has increased or decreased. We are not 62.5 times more much in danger than 35 years ago. We just have more information.
But we DO need to be aware that old estimates, based on old numbers, cannot fly. Estimates need to be based on the numbers we DO know about – and WHAT we know about them. If we see that 588,991 of those will never be a threat, the ONE that is left is not much of a threat.
But with the NEAs/NEOs numbers up several-fold since 1980, we DO now know the threat more than ever, and the odds are not once in 500,000 years anymore.
SH, it looks like your numbers are based on information from probably 40-50 years ago.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 1:15 pm

SH –
BTW, don’t take that lsat comment as me doing the alarmism thing. YOU brought up some old numbers on the estimations about frequency, and I just had to update them.
The Verschuur book dates all the way back to 1996, so even HIS numbers are ancient.
If the risk is one 1/2 km object every 6,000 years, even based on 1996 information, then something big hitting 13,000 years ago is a bit of a big gap since then. Are we at risk now? HELLIFIKNOW. I think we are doing the right things – collecting as much information as possible.
I am much less interested in any new ones coming along. If they come and wipe us out, they do. I’ve gotta die sometime. Who knows? That would be an interesting way to go. For now, I am mainly interested in seeing what they turn up about the one at the YDB. Comet? Meteor? It doesn’t matter, if it does its damage, it does its damage.

Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 1:16 pm

Steve, also note, that as time marches onward, our observational equipment improves, and we are getting close to the point where we just might be able to observe the impactor before it strikes. Hopefully we might even be able to do something about it too.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 30, 2015 1:21 pm

Steve,
Wrong again, as always. Those are the best recent estimates from my colleagues still actively working on the relevant issues.
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
http://news.berkeley.edu/2013/02/07/new-evidence-comet-or-asteroid-impact-was-last-straw-for-dinosaurs/
They are the same estimates used by NASA in assessing risk.

Bloke down the pub
July 27, 2015 2:52 pm

Best guess as to where this comet impacted, or whether it even survived to reach ground level?

TonyL
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
July 27, 2015 3:21 pm

This is a really good way to start a flame war. The Y-D impact theory is about as contentious as you get. Two sites I have seen proposed are Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes. According to one group, you need an impact that dumps material on a site in Georgia (?), or thereabouts. Southward aimed impacts from the two northern sites would do that. Even finding the tektites and nanodiamonds has been contentious.
A: We found nanodiamonds!
B: We looked, found nothing.
A: You looked in the wrong layer.
B: Did Not!
A: Did So!
Popcorn Time.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 10:27 pm

TonyL. Sites and dates of comet or asteroid impacts on earth are contentious in themselves, then to further stretch and say they caused the Y-D cooling. Much speculation and very short on quantitative data. I see no consideration of alternative hypotheses.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 11:31 pm

Leonard Lane – Actually, when Richard Firestone first began finding out about this evidence, a comet was not in his mind at ALL. One of his early ideas was that a supernova had blasted Earth with energy and particles.
And WHY was he even looking for anything? One of his fields of research is Carbon-14. We all know here that the C14 calibration curve turned out to not be a straight line. It had dips and non-dips in it. He was trying to understand some of those.
It isn’t science as in peer-reviewed papers, but you might find Firestone’s book, “The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes” to be an informative book, not only about this event, but how scientists work in the field (NOT Firestone’s normal venue).

Jim payette
Reply to  TonyL
July 29, 2015 11:10 pm

There are the Carolina bays – tearshaped pond like structures oriented as coming from a north west direction from N Florida up into Virgina and Md. They are poorly understood as no terrestial terraforming actions can explain them. Dating them is contentious but some people do date them as early as the Younger Dryas (most dating says much older). Some of the dating controversy can be explained if the strata in which they are made was ejecta from an impact elsewhere and the bays made by ice impacts. There could also be much smaller amounts of material from the extraterrestial object – most likely a comet exploding somewhere around the Great Lakes. It must be noted that none of the photos of comets taken by flybys show anything resembling an iceball – they all look the like small asteroids to me. The evidence seems to say that comets, meteors, and asteroids are more alike than different – their obits being the biggest difference.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
July 29, 2015 2:09 am

One of the largest precious metals mines is in Canada somewhere near Quebec I think. The thesis is that the space rock impacted mile thick ice there (sending a tidal wave of ice slush into siberian mammoths…) and leaving the metals in the future mine. Ejecta made secondary impacts in the Carolinas that have tails pointing back to the impact in Canada.
Since it was mostly ice, no solid crater but lots of “scour”. And enough air burst and impact to make the glasses and diamonds and such. Also large objects often break up and arrive in chunks. See Jupiter and Shoemaker Levy 9 (sp?).
IIRC, Enke was breaking up then and parts of the proto “it” have the right timing to be this impact. We still get Taurid meteor showers from it…

Steve Garcia
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 30, 2015 1:18 am

E.M. – You got me thinking on this now…
The crater that is the basis for the mine is assigned a date of 1.8 billion years ago. That is a problem, but if an error can be shown, or sufficient reasons to challenge that…
Taurids? They are part of the overall.
Two researchers – Michael Davias of Cintos.org and Tim Harris, a rocket scientist, have worked up a connection to the Australian Tektite Field and also with the Carolina bays. They put it at 780,000 years ago, which is also the time of the Brunhes–Matuyama geomagnetic reversal.
They are my friends, but I’d like to see their date be wrong. I am thinking in the time after the Encke Progenitor breakup – i.e., the last 30,000 years or so. I have trouble with the Carolina bays being so old, geomorphologically speaking. Tim and Michael think they are quite robust. I don’t think THAT robust.

emsnews
July 27, 2015 3:00 pm

They are thinking it hit mainly in the Carolinas of the USA.
And speculation that this is what killed off a number of megafauna mainly in the North American continent coupled with the arrival of humans with their wolf/dogs back then meant annihilation for a number of megafauna that never saw either ape-type hunters or their puppy dogs before 12,000 years ago.

Reply to  emsnews
July 27, 2015 4:21 pm

And the saber toothed cats and dyer wolves lunched on the dogs! My personal vote is for the introduction of some sort of pathogen. Think of it the way small pox wiped out native Americans.

DesertYote
Reply to  fossilsage
July 27, 2015 11:35 pm

Sorry but Canis lupus simply out competed both the smilodons and C. dirus. It is not a choosey like its competition was.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  fossilsage
July 27, 2015 11:40 pm

fossilsage – Oops! Your userID suggests you know about such things, but you slipped.
It is D-I-R-E wolves, not “dyre wolves”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf

Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 9:01 am

well that’s the way they spelled it back in the old days!

Reply to  emsnews
July 27, 2015 7:25 pm

Actually one of the casualties were the Clovis humans that were already here.

DesertYote
Reply to  denniswingo
July 27, 2015 11:25 pm

The Clovis humans were not casualties. The Clovis culture just morphed into something different and the people moved on because of the faunal shift. Paleo Americans moved around a lot. A journey of a couple thousand miles was trivial.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  denniswingo
July 28, 2015 12:07 am

Correct. denniswingo. After right about 12,800 yeas ago, poof! No more Clovis artifacts. Actually, though, at the Anzick site in Montana, a recent study concluded that the “sub-adult” bones found were Clovis and the newspapers had a field day talking about them being able to do a DNA genome of a Clovis man, dated to about 12,200 years ago (from my memory) – centuries after the YDB and also centuries after the latest Clovis dates previously determined.. However, it took me only about 15 minutes of googling to find out that the human remains found at Anzick were NOT able to be tied to the large Clovis tool assemblage, in the layers. Part of that problem was that heavy equipment is what uncovered the whole thing, and before anyone new it, the layers had been disturbed, removing ANY clear chance to connect the bones with the stones. And since the site was ALSO later a bison over-the-cliff kill site (MANY bison bones were found), the site was obviously used by humans later on. So, the site has had a LONG history of human presence. YES, Clovis artifacts were found there.
How the artifacts got there and why no one knows. A 1996 study doubted that it was a “cache” location for hunters. Some think it was a workshop for producing them. If Clovis did die out centuries earlier, it poses a problem, but not an intractable one. Stones, as every archaeologists knows, last a long time. Archaeology is very much BUILT on the fact that stones last a long time. If trade existed at the time of Clovis (and that is not out of the question), then anyone who traded with Clovis could have taken the artifacts anywhere. It did not have to be Clovis people to have Clovis artifacts. We have Japanese cars, and that doesn’t make us Japanese.

DesertYote
Reply to  emsnews
July 27, 2015 11:37 pm

The wolves came of there own accord. The dogs that were brought, were of a pariah type, e.g. the Carolina Dog, not lupines.

Steve P
Reply to  DesertYote
July 28, 2015 9:47 am

Native americans ate dogs.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  emsnews
July 27, 2015 11:38 pm

NO, emsnews, they do NOT think that a comet hit in the Carolinas. You are conflating an early (later deleted) idea that they had, that the ejecta from a Great Lake AREA ice sheet impact caused the Carolina bays. II reiterate: They have long ago decided that this part wouldn’t fly.
YES, to the still-on-the-table idea that the comet impact (if it still holds true) was perhaps connected. THIS is something that they MAY connect in the future – possibly in the same way as this paper, with Bayesian statistical analysis. But at the present time it is only a possible future research topic. Certainly by connecting the OTHER, lab results – which are C-14 dated and dated in other ways – in this current study they have tied OTHER things together in time. That was a necessary step. Applying it to extinctions would be a proper thing to do – IN ITS TIME. They are careful scientists and they are being careful to do the proper analyses at their proper times, in the proper sequence.

Reply to  emsnews
July 28, 2015 11:17 am

emsnews,
Just curious because I live in SE USA (Virginia), near the Carolinas. Any thoughts on where it was supposed to impact? I ask because 12,000 years +/- is very recent, geologically speaking, and I would think that the remnants from a large impact only 12,000 years ago would be fairly obvious.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Phil R
July 29, 2015 8:41 am

For various reasons, “where it was supposed to impact” was on the Laurentide ice sheet somewhere near its southern edge in the general region of the Great Lakes – but that is a very general location and very tentative.
Since there IS no “fairly obvious” crater, that makes the ice sheet impact scenario almost a must. Peter Schultz does hyper-velocity experiments, and his work with scaled down impacts onto ice covering simulated ground material showed that the ice attenuates the impact energy, while absorbing much of the energy and dissipating it. That doesn’t mean that no ejecta materials were thrown out. No one knows for sure what the specifics were. So far they have mostly tried to solidify their evidence at thee small scale, nanodiamonds and carbon spherules and other materials that normally are interpreted as impact materials. One step at a time. First make sure the materials are correct – then go on to extrapolate that out.

Star Craving Engineer
Reply to  Phil R
July 29, 2015 8:42 am

Phil R,
Some current research on the Carolina bays can be found at
http://cintos.org/index.html
The impact site they’re presently considering is described at
http://cintos.org/SaginawManifold/index.html
and the associated links. The cintos group believes that the bays were made by the ejecta from a huge impact some 800,000 years ago, and that they’re unrelated to the 12,800ya hypothesized Younger Dryas Boundary impactor. Their analysis of trajectories is impressive, I’m not so sure about their dating.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Phil R
July 29, 2015 10:40 pm

Star Craving Engineer –
Yeah, Cintos has some interesting stuff there. He’s also mapped all of the Carolina bays using Lidar to find and measure them.
You might want to know that he and a co-researcher have tied that all to the 780,000 impact that created the Australian Tektite Field.
See http://cosmictusk.com/to-australia-with-love-michigan/

July 27, 2015 3:06 pm

“… the production of which can be explained only by cosmic impact …”
In the same way that global warming can be explained only by man’s CO2.

TonyL
Reply to  Tony
July 27, 2015 3:34 pm

Hey, I get to reply to myself, almost. Or my almost self.
Actually, tektite and nanodiamond formation only by impact is well accepted by the scientific community, across disciplines. You can make them in the lab for comparison. I got a feeling this thread is going to get interesting.

Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Correctly described tektites, yes. Ditto shocked quarz, of which Kennet finds precisely none (a remarkably pure comet?). High temp,cosmic impact. Sure.
ANY carbon allotrope (nanodiamonds, buckeyballs, nanotubes, graphenes, agglomerated spherules) are produced in any carbon combustion process. Quantities vary with temperature and fuel source. But ordinary candle soot suffices. Nanodiamonds scrubbed off the Cistene Chapel restoration. The horror!

Reply to  TonyL
July 28, 2015 1:12 am

Nano-diamonds can be created anywhere in space from free floating carbon by supernovea explosions shock-wave, then at a later stage attracted by gravity of a passing asteroid eventually ending in the earth’s atmosphere during the impact.

dp
July 27, 2015 3:32 pm

I think it was a battle star first because it is more plausible, and second, it requires only imagination, not models. And since no climate alarmist scientists were involved in inventing this solution there is a much higher probability of truth. Finally, battle stars are almost 100% titanium with a tiny percentage of unobtanium and unlikelium, and the latter two have never been found which would be expected. Solved.
And here’s the obligatory /snark for the net nannies out there.

TJA
Reply to  dp
July 27, 2015 4:07 pm

“Pray that I do not alter your climate further….”

Gums
July 27, 2015 3:33 pm

Where is the layer of iridium?

TonyL
Reply to  Gums
July 27, 2015 3:39 pm

K-T (or C-T, K-pg) Boundary. 66 million years ago. Closed down the original Jurassic Park. You know the rest.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 3:53 pm

So why platinum this time?

michael hart
Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 4:06 pm

That was my thought. What is so special about platinum in this case. Why not other elements too?

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 4:15 pm

Robert
Apparently, impacting asteroids are like fussy women who will not wear the same outfit to social events twice. They need a new outfit every time.
One could speculate endlessly about the physical/chemical processes which fractionate the elements and produce space rocks with such different compositions.

Reply to  TonyL
July 27, 2015 7:26 pm

Platinum is exceedingly rare in the Earth’s crust, almost all that we have has a meteoric source. Thus if there is a layer of any PGM in a certain layer it is almost certainly diagnostic of an extraterrestrial impact of an M or CC or cometary body

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Gums
July 28, 2015 12:12 am

ALL inbound objects don’t have iridium. Just like all meteorites aren’t iron or nickel. Meteorites come in several classifications. Look it up. And if they aren’t all made up of the same things when we find meteorites, then WHY would all impacts be exactly the same?
Sorry. Some have platinum. Platimum spikes at the YDB time? Yes. It’s in the journal papers. And in the Greenland ice sheet. And right at the time of the YDB. Funny thing, that. Look it up.

July 27, 2015 3:39 pm

Kennet just won’t let this previously falsified hypothesis go. It was thoroughly debunked by radiocarbon dating of over 20 of his supposed sites around NH, (ASU, IIRC 2013) so here he selectively revises the radiocarbon dates. Rather like Karl and the pause.
And the carbon spherules/nanodiamonds? From forest fires. Every candle ever lit produces them. Another paper that denunked the ‘high temp impact’ claim. Carbon soot is amazing stuff.
I was going to write an essay for the book,on this. Months of research about ‘abrupt’ tipping points in nonlinear dynamic systems. Scrapped. Willis Eschenbach is right in general about thermoregulation. YD is not a disproof.
The Younger Dryas onset is fairly well established science. Retreating Laurentide ice sheet finally allowed large paleolake Agassiz (meltwater south) to punch through what is now the St. Lawrence seaway. The massive and very abrupt freshwater pulse interupted the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. There are even massive geological water scours that show how violent the event was.
What is interesting and NOT well understood is why the YD ended as abruptly as it started? That is where the research bucks should go. No comet hypothesis about YD end…yet. Although one could make up a story that an undetectable ocean comet impact suddenly restarted thermohaline circulation. It would have had to be an equatorial Atlantic impact, heated water pulse flowing poleward, and all that. Maybe the Mayan calendar holds some clues…

gbaikie
Reply to  ristvan
July 27, 2015 5:21 pm

Well, it’s certainty that over last 100,000 year there has been numerous impacts- and even the rarer cometary impacts.
The last known largest impact, was Tunguska event, which was small compared to larger one we would see over a 100,000 year period. Wiki, Tunguska event:
“Estimates of the energy of the blast range from as low as three to as high as 30 megatons of TNT (between 13 and 130 PJ).Most likely it was between 10 and 15 megatons of TNT (42 and 63 PJ),[9] and if so, the energy of the explosion was about 1,000 times greater than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan; roughly equal to that of the United States’ Castle Bravo ground-based thermonuclear test detonation on March 1, 1954; and about two-fifths that of the Soviet Union’s later Tsar Bomba (the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated) ”
So in terms of a climatic effect we can dismiss Tsar Bomba type impactor or smaller, as we dismiss Tunguska event as having any effect on global climate.
But it possible that impactor with more explosive power than Tsar Bomba, which occurred many times over last 100,000 years, have had no effect.
Now if take a really large impactor like one than killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, there should no doubt such large impactor would affect global climate. Or wiki:
“The Chicxulub impactor had an estimated diameter of 10 km (6.2 mi) and delivered an estimated energy equivalent of 100 teratons of TNT (4.2×1023 J).[21] By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons of TNT (2.1×1017 J), making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful. Even the most energetic known volcanic eruption, which released an estimated energy equivalent of approximately 240 gigatons of TNT (1.0×1021 J) and created the La Garita Caldera, delivered only 0.24% of the energy of the Chicxulub impact.”
So, Tunguska event was less than Tsar Bomba and Chicxulub impactor was 2 million times Tsar Bomba
So of range of starting from 50 to 10,000 Tsar Bomba, would they have any effect, and rather than just the explosive power, it seems it could matter where and when they hit. And is possible that the energy of a nuclear war, would not have any climatic effect?

Reply to  gbaikie
July 28, 2015 2:47 am

Yerrsss. I too have been looking at the energies associated with natural and man made events: The ‘end of civilisation on account of nuclear war’ simply doesn’t fly .
I have assumed it was yet another ‘convenient lie’ to scare populations into putting pressure on governments. Part of the cold war black propaganda.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  ristvan
July 27, 2015 10:35 pm

Thanks ristvan. Hmm the end of the Y-D must have been caused by another comet that caused heating. Maybe it was mostly CO2? Or maybe anti-platinum. Or maybe the Y-D begin and end were from natural processes in our oceans and atmospheres.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  ristvan
July 28, 2015 12:17 am

Ristvan, obviously you side with the skeptics there on the YDIH, too. You have that right, to do that. But while you are claiming that the YDB impact scenario has been “falsified”, you just MIGHT want to go and look up the rebuttal papers and letters in the journals to see how the YDB people shot down damned hear every one of the skeptics’ points. And the few that wee not shot down were extremely minor points.
The YD Impact Hypothesis stands UN-FALSIFIED at this time.
If you are going to pretend to be scientific, you should read up on ALL the claims – even the claims of falsification. I am not even going to point you at the rebuttals. You are so smart, go out and find them yourself.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ristvan
July 28, 2015 8:02 am

The Younger Dryas onset is fairly well established science.

————–
If one assumes that this temperature proxy graph is anywhere close to being correct …… then one has to ask themselves …..
“Was the Younger Dryas a sudden-like cooling event (13.5Kt o12K BP) …. or was it just the continuation of a pre-14.5K BP cool period …. that was interrupted by a temperature “spike” or increase?”comment image
That graph implies that the temperature cooled off kinda gradual like to become the Younger Dryas Period …. and then rebounded quite quickly to “mark” the start of the Holocene Optimum.
A 2,000+- years of a gradual “cool-off” ….. instigated by a comet/astroid/metero “strike” has my curiosity aroused.

Steve P
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
July 28, 2015 9:55 am

What caused the significant spike 15,000 years ago, about 3000 years before the YD? Was this the warming that unleased the Kankakee Torrent?

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
July 28, 2015 1:39 pm

I find that graph quite interesting, the snow accumulation trace especially. For those at WUWT who haven’t heard it said, “Snow doesn’t accumulate when it is too cold.”. LOOK at how little snow accumulated when the temps were down at -50°C – and how MUCH accumulated when the temps rose above -35°C.
In fact, that .22-.25 meters/year of snow accumulation after 10,000 years ago adds up to something like maybe 2200 meters of snow accumulated since the end of the YD. Make it 2000 meters – to be conservative? 2000 meters is nearly 6600 feet. I DO assume (maybe wrongly) that the “accumulation” is as found in the ice cores, compacted and all.
From Britannica:
“The northern dome, located in east-central Greenland and reaching more than 10,000 feet (3,000 m) above sea level, is the area of maximum thickness of the ice sheet.”
Wiki gives the thickness as 2000-3000 meters.
So, are we then to gather that the Greenland ice sheet was only about 800 meters before the end other YD? That is kind of what it looks like…
I don’t know! I am just asking!

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
July 29, 2015 1:53 am

Steve P – Good question. The answer in terms of names is the OLDER Dryas. It came along and stopped the warming of the Bølling warm period. It was very short, and was followed by the Allerød warm period – which was the one in effect at the onset of the YOUNGER Dryas.
In terms of WHAT cause that cool-down, heck, no one knows WHAT mechanism or process did ANY of it. There is an orthodoxy which explains it according to gradualism and internal “forcings”. But there are many aspects that the orthodoxy and its favored processes do not handle well (fail to explain), so the overall is that no one really knows.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
July 29, 2015 2:19 am

Garcia:
Remember that compacted ice is about 1/10 the thickness of the fluffy snow that fell…

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C. Cogar
July 29, 2015 8:24 am

Steve Garcia – July 28, 2015 at 1:39 pm

“The northern dome, located in east-central Greenland and reaching more than 10,000 feet (3,000 m) above sea level, is the area of maximum thickness of the ice sheet.”
Wiki gives the thickness as 2000-3000 meters.
So, are we then to gather that the Greenland ice sheet was only about 800 meters before the end other YD (12K BP)? That is kind of what it looks like…
I don’t know! I am just asking!

Steve G,
The way I figure it is that they “don’t-have-a-clue” as to how thick the Greenland ice sheet was before the end of the YD, …. or for that matter, ……. before the onset of the Holocene Climate Optimum 10.5K BP as noted on this proxy graph, to wit:comment image
The following study confirms that there surely was or should have been ….. 6,000+- years of “serious melting” of the Greenland glaciers, to wit:

Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia
Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia.
During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.
Excerpted from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233

So my question is, ….. how many feet of ice melted off the “top” of the Greenland glaciers?

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  ristvan
July 29, 2015 2:33 am

In this posting I cite an article that finds the Gulf Stream is metastable at the glacial times and stable during the interglacial
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
That means thing switch strongly 20000 years ago, but not 5000 years ago.
In that context, a warm swap can be knocked over to a cold state and latch up for 1000 years till another push swaps it back to warm. Eventually orbital changes have us latch up in a stable interglacial warm, until orbit changes put us back at metastable heat levels.
We are very near metastable heating now and a good cold spike would have decent odds of sticking…. then over the next 90000 years the climate is prone to very strong swings… multiple C swings… without a single stable state.

Paul Westhaver
July 27, 2015 3:46 pm

I like this kind of speculation. It seems like a reasonable, inspired hypothesis to think that the ice age was preceded and caused by a collision between earth and an extraterrestrial object. I don’t know much about this kind of collision mechanics and the evidence it would leave, but I would like to know:
What was the earth’s climate like at the last moment BEFORE the impact, should there have been one.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 28, 2015 12:24 am

Paul – Acctually a very good question.
And the answer is that BRIEFLY the climate was very close to today’s climate. And then, after the Younger Dryas mini ice age that lasted 1300 years, the climate went into a similar climate to today again.
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ended about 22,000 years ago, and between then and the YDB at 12,800 years ago, there were two warm periods separrated by a bvery short cold period. The cold period was the FIRST Younger Dryas, the Older Younger Dryas. It separated the Bolling warm period from the Allerod warm period, which is the one that the Younger Dryas ended so abruptly.
BTW, all of those periods were discovered and named by biologist types who recognized the changes in flora in Scandinavia. The dryas is a type of arctic flowering plant.

Jbird
July 27, 2015 3:48 pm

Whew! If CO2 didn’t cause it, then it is always due to some kind of impact, isn’t it? What if the sudden catastrophe was due to something other than an impact? I’d like to think that these researchers could come up with more creative theories than comet impacts. Maybe it’s time to think outside the box.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Jbird
July 27, 2015 3:58 pm

See Restvan above
Retreating Laurentide ice sheet finally allowed large paleolake Agassiz (meltwater south) to punch through what is now the St. Lawrence seaway. T

Jim payette
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
July 29, 2015 11:27 pm

Newer research says that did not happen. There was a big lake it just slowly evaporated when water stopped draining into it. No evidence shows there was giant punch through.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Jbird
July 27, 2015 10:38 pm

Lots of comet impact theories but no references to Velikosky.

skeohane
Reply to  Leonard Lane
July 28, 2015 5:41 am

His story of SW Native Americans seeing a big fire in the sky to the NE, always comes to mind.

July 27, 2015 3:49 pm

No, no and NO! The YD was not caused by a cosmic impact and was just one of many abrupt climate changes between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago.
The ice dynamic was such during this time period that only small amounts of forcing were needed to send the climate into another climate regime.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 28, 2015 12:35 am

Man, you are talking to the wrong crowd, talking about small changes making LARGE climate shifts.
You are repeating the orthodox paradigm. This hypothesis challenges the orthodoxy, so why wouldn’t the orthodoxy scream bloody murder, that the orthodoxy is being challenged?
There are correct, that in the Greenland ice cores GISP2 and GRIP, especially, show 18-oxygen PROXIES for temperature – and that those PROXIES seem to show that the temperatures were going UP and DOWN and UP and DOWN – by as much as 14°C – a HUGE amount. On WUWT here, again, you will find resistance to the reliability of proxies.
Climate change on that order, so many times – and “it just happened” each time, right? Oh, really? All by its lonesome? No industrial CO2 emissions? No internal combustion engines? No Chinese economic miracles?
Blaming it on “the ice dynamic was such” is like saying, “It’s a MIRACLE!” or, “It’s just a coincidence”. What does ice dynamic even MEAN? And what does “as such” mean”? A waffle word phrase. Waffling because YOU don’t know what caused them, either. No one does.
And we WON’T, not for a long time. We don’t have enough facts to know. And when someone comes along and finds FACTS, what do you do? Dig your heels in and hunker down behind the protection of the orthodoxy. Have you even READ any of the journal papers? I am betting the answer is NO.
NO, NO, and NO!

taxed
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 9:10 am

Steve Garcia
l believe l understand how the weather patterns could cause such big swings in Greenland temps.
Persistent blocking highs between Greenland and northern Europe would have pushed a lot of warmer air from the south up across Greenland. Which would have lead to a noticeable warmer of Greenland.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 29, 2015 12:21 am

taxed – A good, reasonable insight. The difficulty, though, is that one would need the blocking high to be stable and more or less stationary for close to 1400-1500 years, on a pretty much regular schedule. We might have trouble convincing anyone that that could happen, with known climate evidence from the past and meteorological evidence of what happens now.
And the alternate blocking highs would have to be pretty much the same, each time it shifted that way. Doubtful? I think so, but I could be wrong.
The up-down shifts were amazingly regular – for which NO known terrestrial process or mechanism could be ascertained. AND THEY DID LOOK. So, basically, for now they’ve thrown their hands up as far as terrestrial processes are concerned. They do NOT, however, entertain the idea of an ET cause, which one would expect them to do.

July 27, 2015 4:00 pm

The explanation below is for the Little Ice Age and I think it can be applied to the YD, despite the fact Milankovitch Cycles were not that favorable at that time , but the Ice Dynamic for sure was and that changed the whole dynamic of the playing field and is the factor which made abrupt climatic changes to happen so frequently 20000 to 10000 years ago.
The YD was just one of many abrupt climatic changes during that time period.
This theory combined with my input for how the Little Ice Age may have started can also be applied to the YD, with the big difference being the all important Ice Dynamic at the time of the YD ,which made the climate more vulnerable to change with much less forcing.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050168.pdf
This article is good but it needs to emphasize the prolonged minimum solar /volcanic climate connection( which it does not mention ), and other prolonged minimum solar climate connections such as an increase in galactic cosmic rays more clouds, a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution/concentration changes (which it does not do ) which all lead to cooler temperatures and more extremes .
In addition they do not factor the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field.
When this is added to the context of this article I think one has a comprehensive explanation as to how the start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period may have taken place and how like then (around 1275 AD) is similar to today with perhaps a similar result taken place going forward from this point in time.

I want to add the Wolf Solar Minimum went from 1280-1350 AD ,followed by the Sporer Minimum from 1450-1550 AD.
This Wolf Minimum corresponding to the onset of the Little Ice Age.
John Casey the head of the Space and Science Center, has shown through the data a prolonged minimum solar event/major volcanic eruption correlation.
Today, I say again is very similar to 1275 AD. If prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched (similar to the Wolf Minimum) accompanied by Major Volcanic Activity I say a Little Ice Age will once again be in the making.
Milankovitch Cycles still favoring cold N.H. summers if not more so then during the last Little Ice Age , while the Geo Magnetic Field is weaker in contrast to the last Little Ice Age.
I would not be surprised if the next Little Ice Age comes about if the prolonged solar minimum expectations are realized in full.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 28, 2015 12:39 am

Milankovitch cycles are totally inadequate to bring about sudden climate change – much less 14°C in a year or two, as indicated in the Greenland ice cores.. The Milankovitch cycle changes are over 100s of thousands of years, making the changes SO incremental as to seem standing still. How can Milankovitch cycles make changes in a few years and then make NEW changes in the same up or down part of the Milankovitch cycles. The idea is preposterous. It’s as silly as warmists claiming that 0.7°C is even noticeable by humans, much less a climate catastrophe.

Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 8:05 am

You did not listen to what I said Steve. I said in the above post that Milankovitch Cycles were NOT favorable to support the YD cold era.
I said however the Ice Dynamic at that time was.

taxed
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 9:20 am

Steve
A persistent blocking high in the northern Atlantic can lead to a large increase in temps over Greenland in well within the space of a year. Because a blocking high in the right place can push the temps along the western coast of Greenland up to 12c in Nov/Dec.

TJA
July 27, 2015 4:05 pm

I had been assured that the YD was caused by a slowing of the Gulf Stream due to glacial meltwater and that we were in for a repeat soon. Plus it was in the movie The Day After Tomorrow.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  TJA
July 28, 2015 12:41 am

That was the hypothesis based on Wally Broecker’s oceanic conveyor, and later on Broecker himself rescinded his support of the idea. The meltwater pulse was impossible at that time, because the ice was too far south still. The meltwater pulse, if it ever happened, could not have gone out the St Lawrence from glacial Lake Agassiz. The data said no, and Broecker agreed.

Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 9:00 am

Steve Garcia

The meltwater pulse was impossible at that time, because the ice was too far south still. The meltwater pulse, if it ever happened, could not have gone out the St Lawrence from glacial Lake Agassiz.

An impact in that area might have destroyed enough of the southern ice-sheet to allow some/all drainage into the St Lawrence at some point. So a possibility is a YD initiated by an impact & prolonged by a subsequent massive dump of freshwater into the N Atlantic?

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 9:11 am

Meltwater also enters the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic during LIS deglaciations, as well as via the St. Lawrence.
http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/FLower-Williams-Hastings-Hill-2010.pdf
Meltwater input from the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) has often been invoked as a
cause of proximal sea surface temperature (SST) and salinity change in the North
Atlantic and of regional to global climate change via its influence on the Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). Here we review the evidence for
meltwater inflow to the Gulf of Mexico and its reduction relative to the onset of
the Younger Dryas, compare inferred meltwater inflow during marine isotope stage
3 (MIS 3), and thereby assess the role of LIS meltwater routing as a trigger of
abrupt climate change. We present published and new Mg/Ca and δ18O data on the
planktic foraminifer Globigerinoides ruber from four northern Gulf of Mexico
sediment cores that provide detailed records of SST and δ18O of seawater (δ18Osw)
for most of the last glacial cycle (48–8 ka). These results generally support models
that suggest meltwater rerouting away from the Gulf of Mexico and directly to the
North Atlantic may have caused Younger Dryas cooling via AMOC reduction.
Alternatively, southern meltwater input may simply have been reduced during the
Younger Dryas. Indeed, Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling events must have had a
different cause because southern meltwater input during MIS 3 does not match
their number or timing. Furthermore, the relationships between Gulf of Mexico
meltwater input, Heinrich events, Antarctic warm events, and AMOC variability
suggest bipolar warming and enhanced seasonality during meltwater episodes. We
formulate a “meltwater capacitor” hypothesis for understanding enhanced season-
ality during abrupt climate change in the North Atlantic region.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 29, 2015 12:11 am

Beng135 –
Ask Wally Broecker, who thought up the idea in the first place, and abandoned it when this timing evidence was shown to be solid. I would imagine he considered your scenario before giving it up entirely. The meltwater pulse was like out in the Scablands or a dam break: Everything flows straight downhill as fast as gravity drives it. No turns unless an obstacle is in the flow path. Fluids only flow downhill until they find something to splash up on – and then continue flowing DOWN.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 29, 2015 12:28 am

Sturgis Hooper –
Yeah, that is all known stuff, and a diversion, about meltwater heading down those available paths – almost all the time during ice advances being down the Mississippi. At 12,800, no route to the St Lawrence to the N Atlantic was available. But you are not addressing the formerly proposed glacial Lake Agassiz ice dam failure and its subsequently proposed “meltwater PULSE”. You are talking about normal meltwater, which has been thoroughly studied and understood and which has no dam break included.
They tried. They failed. It didn’t happen. NOT to the east.

July 27, 2015 4:06 pm

RISTVAN says, which is ridiculous reasoning due to the fact the YD was not an isolated event by any means and the whole period of time(20000-10000 years ago) proves that the argument WILLIS has presented about thermoregulation is wrong plain and simple. If thermoregulation was correct then the only way abrupt climatic change could have occurred in the past would have been through cosmic impacts which there are far to many abrupt climatic changes in the past to all be accounted from that source.
I was going to write an essay for the book,on this. Months of research about ‘abrupt’ tipping points in nonlinear dynamic systems. Scrapped. Willis Eschenbach is right in general about thermoregulation. YD is not a disproof

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 27, 2015 4:58 pm

SdP, I actually did research this hypothesis in depth. The motivation actually was nonlinear dynamic abrupt strange attractor shifts (a subject that I in general know more about than you might presume, having published peer reviewd on certain microeconomic consequences back in 1991). Just facts. Abandoned after the simple geophysical explanation convincingly emerged. Again just facts. Go look them up yourself–no need to believe lil’ ol me.
Focus on the abrupt end to, rather than the abrupt beginning of, YD. Therein still lies mystery.

Reply to  ristvan
July 28, 2015 2:53 am

It is not inconceivable that the event was initiated by cometary impact, and ended relatively abruptly as the climate flipped attractors.
certainly a melting snow/lower albedo scenario would produce a very rapid shift just as the ice cover approached zero..
There are many conceivable explanations many of which are not against the actual evidence.
CO2 is just not one of them 😉

Reply to  ristvan
July 28, 2015 7:31 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
ristvan and any one else it was not a one time event. You are acting as if it were, the YD was not unique. Look at the data.

Reply to  ristvan
July 28, 2015 8:04 am

The mystery is the depressor(s). The climate is like a spring that bounces back whenever the heavy foot is lifted. Temperatures rebound quickly from glacial minimums but have do be dragged kicking and screaming down from interglacial maximums.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 28, 2015 12:46 am

And not one impactor has ever hit the world since the 50,000 years of the ice cores? You DO know that up till about 210 years ago every scientists INSISTED that rocks don’t fall from the sky, right?
Read up on Bill Napier and Victor Cube’s work some time.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 29, 2015 2:44 am

Salvatore:
Climate is stable and Willis is right to the warm side during an interglacial.
During a cold glacial, large warming can happen until his thunderstorm regulation can even begin.
The Gulf Stream (TH Circulation) is metastable during glacials, thus the swings and switches. See:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rapid.pdf
It only stabilizes when in a warm interglacial.
That is why climate swings so widely until after the Y.D.

July 27, 2015 4:11 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
The data in the above throw out thermoregulation as being wrong, throws out the cosmic impact as being wrong and throws out the melt water from Lake Agassiz as being wrong.
Not to mention the YD was synchronous in both hemispheres.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
July 28, 2015 12:48 am

Hahaha – Just like the Little Ice Age was synchronous world-wide, in both hemispheres, too. But tell that to a warmist. Especially tell it to Michael Mann, who ill go to his grave arguing that it wasn’t.

Dan Harrison
July 27, 2015 4:16 pm

This is not a new theory, but provides supportive evidence of an impact theory that would explain a lot. A large strike has been postulated on the 1-2 mile thick ice sheet just North of the Great Lakes region. The mechanism of a comet strike is not like that of a solitary asteroid. Comets tend to break up and leave long tails as they pass around the sun. The Earth then runs into the tail resulting in many strikes, small, medium and large–most in the oceans. A comet strike would leave little to no recognizable debris, especially an airburst above a thick ice sheet. Other strikes postulated to have occurred in the same timeframe could be impacts from breakup debris (induced by passage by the sun or Jupiter, for example) of the same comet striking days, weeks or even years later as the Earth orbits annually through debris captured by the sun. One of these impacts occurred of the Southeastern coast of the Unites States in the same timeframe and was postulated to have largely wiped out a group of European migrants, the Solutrean hypothesis, a group that was the origin of the Clovis point in the Americas.
WWS mentioned the extinction of the large fauna in North America. But there is much more. In about the same timeframe what is now Yellowstone Park experienced a geological change that could easily be attributed to impact. And as far away as the region between modern India and Pakistan, an impact could have unleashed glacial dams causing massive flooding and destruction of very ancient early civilizations affected by overflow of seven (or nine) major rivers at the time.
In North America, massive flooding would have resulted from breach of a continent sized reservoir of water in Canada under the ice sheet changing the course of the St Lawrence, Ohio and other Rivers with most of North America being wiped out. (A few years ago the remains of a surviving pre-Clovis native American culture was first identified in the Northeastern New Mexico mountains–NOT Clovis.)
Multiple relatively small surviving impact craters can be seen just South of the Great Lakes region that have not been explained.
About 30 years ago I came across a Geology textbook that devoted a chapter to ancient floods in North America which had changed the course of rivers, and which had decimated much of the Northern United States. Evidence was provided in detailed reports of massive, downed buried trees over large regions in the Northern United States fitting the timeframe of this postulated comet strike. The book was already very old, almost falling apart, when I bought it at a library yard sale in Lawrenceville, Georgia, in the early 1990’s. The chapter discussed as a possible cause a comet strike as I’ve described, with the Earth passing through this comet tail after it broke up passing by the sun. The author went on to describe a referenced theory that this was a recurring comet on an approximate 5,000-year highly elliptical orbit. He went on to describe hints of older references (Greek–Egyptian) of more destructive impacts at roughly 5,000-year intervals out to beyond 20,000 years ago.
Since then I’ve noted an impact 5,000 years ago on a mountain in South America, Chili, I believe, that resulted in the deep freeze of flowering plants recently located with the thawing of a glacier at an altitude at which they could not have survived today. Then, about 5,000 years ago, there’s the unknown cause of the massive building projects such as Stonehenge (and its predecessor, Woodhenge) and the Pyramids (following revival of an ancient religion in Egypt). This all roughly fits the Mayan calendar with an approximate 5,000 year cycle of destruction and rebirth of the Earth. 10,000 years ago we are at 8,000 BC with the Sphinx and other ancient sites such as the one from which some stones for Stonehenge were reported to have been taken–not quarried.
I would really like to see all of this pulled together sometime. If nothing else, it would at least make a hell of a fictional ancient world for story telling. By the way a comet that fits this description impacted Jupiter after breaking apart into 24 separate pieces each at least a kilometer in diameter in July 1994, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, very close to the Mayan Calendar’s prediction. There are others …

RobertLS
Reply to  Dan Harrison
July 27, 2015 5:08 pm

Velikovsky put much of it together. I find it hard to believe that he hasn’t been mentioned.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  RobertLS
July 27, 2015 10:53 pm

Very odd RobertLS. Velikovsky published much and had great impact on the public and science fiction writers in the middle of the last century including books and movies. So it is odd that he is either unknown or ignored by all these impact and comet hypotheses.

Reply to  Dan Harrison
July 27, 2015 5:37 pm

Yes I noticed this recurrence too, that most if not all world megastructures are built in recurring timeframes. It looks like gravity was much weaker during building of those structures. But I doubt that it can be explained by closing of some celestial object. That would be too short time to build.

asybot
Reply to  Peter
July 27, 2015 10:38 pm

, that I guess would depend on their orbits. Velikovsky does have some interesting theories, much like Al gore. Frankly I’d believe Velikovsky long before Gore.

Rob Dawg
July 27, 2015 4:16 pm

Anything carrying enough platinum to be this prevalent would have left a hunkin’ huge hole someplace. Find the smoking hole and get back to use with something other than Bayesian models.

LT
Reply to  Rob Dawg
July 27, 2015 4:52 pm

During the end of the last glaciation the glaciers were up to 2 miles thick, an impact on a thick glacier would not have left much behind for us to see today. I am a geophysicists and much of the seismic data I have interpreted in the glacial till areas of Canada are a mangled mess.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  LT
July 28, 2015 12:53 am

LT – OOOOOH, I’d like to pick your brain some day soon, sir.
I would say that the operative term in your gice sheet thickness is “up to”. Up to 2 miles thick. My best info is that it was 2 KM thick, maximum. Also – and I looked the very best I could – the ice thickness in the region in question was perhaps 400-600 meters thick.
If I am wrong on that, I’d love to hear more information!

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Rob Dawg
July 28, 2015 12:51 am

Yeah, it left a BIG hole in the ice sheet. Then the ice melted. Simple, right?
See the NOVA episode with Peter Schultz’s hyper-velocity experiments on ice impacts. It’s on YouTube.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Rob Dawg
July 28, 2015 12:56 am

LT – Meet me over at http://www.CosmicTusk.com sometime. PLEASE.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Rob Dawg
July 29, 2015 2:51 am

There is a large platinum mine in Canada near the proposed impact site…

Steve Garcia
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 30, 2015 12:26 am

E.M. Smith –
It is the Sudbury Formation, and it is a HUGE source of valuable minerals. And it is the 2nd largest impact crater on Earth.
And, YES, it is just north of Lake Huron.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 30, 2015 1:09 am

My bad. The Sudbury Basin.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
August 1, 2015 8:47 pm

Oh come on, if you are talking about the Sudbury Basin and the nickel-copper-PGM mines there, it was formed 2.2 billion years ago, somewhat before the Younger Dryas (or even the very oldest of multitudes of dryases). But it is universally conceded that the Sudbury Basin is a meteorite impact feature).

Steve Garcia
Reply to  E.M.Smith
August 1, 2015 9:25 pm

Smart Rock –
Yeah we know that it’s 2.2B. It’s a coincidence, though, that it is VERY close to where people are kind of asking, “Okay, smart asses, where’s your crater?” Sudbury is only 50 miles or so from Lake Huron.
Actually, SOME of the evidence ORIGINALLY that put the possible YD impactor near the Great Lakes was the occasionally mentioned (here) Carolina bays. Now discarded because it didn’t work. Commenter Surgis Hooper here keeps claiming that because unworkable parts were discarded that, “The goal posts keep moving.”
But PERSONALLY, I think that any scientist worth his mettle should KEEP bad crap in his hypothesis. If for no other reason than that Sturgis Hooper doesn’t pull the “moving goal posts” attack on him . . . Everybody has to be quaking in his boots over that one. . . /snarc
Once the Carolina bays were ruled out, I am not sure the Great Lakes is the place to look, anyway. It seems that the field should have opened up.

July 27, 2015 4:40 pm

Think of it as a comet storm, rather than one major body, with meteororites impacting the earth over a period of time and over a very large area – accounts for small craters from New Mexico, to North Carolina to the Dead Sea, with lots of them having hit the ice sheet. There is a lot of widespread evidence.

LT
July 27, 2015 4:40 pm

The real challenge to this puzzle is why did the cooling last for 1500 years?

Steve Garcia
Reply to  LT
July 28, 2015 1:02 am

YES, that is the right question to ask.
1500, and my number is 1300, but whatever, it – and other big changes in the late Pleistocene – came and went damned near the same way. The end of the YD was the last – otherwise we might not even BE here, semi-civilized and all this tech stuff at our disposal…LOL
ONE question is to ask if the 18-oxygen values in the ice cores are truly good proxies for temps. If they somehow are not, then the whole question becomes “WTF ARE they?” If they prove out, what the hell was going on there for most of 40,000 years? Hint: It doesn’t seem to show up in the climate elsewhere. Not in Antarctic ice cores, not even CLOSE to that degree.
(I actually came up with a screwball idea of how the YD could have lasted that long, but it isn’t ready for public consumption yet…LOL)

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  LT
July 28, 2015 8:48 am

Because that is normal for D-O Events, the average duration of which is 1470 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Sturgis Hooper
July 28, 2015 11:52 pm

You DO realize, don’t you? How lame that “because”? “because” is supposed to provide a CAUSATIVE action or process.
Saying that the duration is that long because it is that long is no answer at all.
Are you proud of your non-answer?
That is like explaining how a machine works by saying, “Well, I plug it in and push a button.”

Bill Illis
July 27, 2015 4:49 pm

I count 26 events in the Greenland ice cores that are more significant cooling events than the younger dryas (noting of course, there was an older dryas and a youngest dryas and a bunch of other events).
So 26 even bigger comet impacts then?

LT
Reply to  Bill Illis
July 27, 2015 4:54 pm

Care to share your data, I have never heard of this before?

Phlogiston
Reply to  LT
July 28, 2015 5:17 pm

“Never heard of this before”
Here is one graph of the dozens of Younger Dryases which occurred throughout the last glacial:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/tidescurrents/media/effect_influences_3.gif
Bill Illis has better ones.
Just read up and learn essential palaeoclimatology and you will discover the shallow fallacy of this comet YD hypothesis.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Bill Illis
July 27, 2015 7:39 pm

Correct, as usual.
There is nothing the least bit anomalous about the YD. all glacial-interglacial transitions show similar fluctuations.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Bill Illis
July 30, 2015 2:03 am

I find it very interesting that one graph makes everybody an expert on the climate of Greenland. You counted 26 spikes? Did you do that all yourself? Are we supposed to be impressed?
And what did you count? Temperature? And in the ice cores, HOW was that temperature measured? Do you even know? Was there a thermometer in the ice core every few inches?
Are you aware that the Law Dome Antarctic ice core doesn’t show these spikes? See http://www.iceagetheatre.ca/ice_age_canada/DO-Ice-core-isotope.jpg and look at 20,000 to present.
So, do the spikes exist all over the world? Or just in Greenland? Does anybody know? You do. You know everything. Tell me.
On the Law Dome graph there is a long upslope to the – OHMYF-INGGOD! – up to the – GASP! – the YDB! And THEN it drops off again! For, OHMYGOD! – about 1500 years!
I must be a geology and climate expert now, because I could count up to one spike!
So, dude, ya gotta tell me, since you are the expert on graph spike counting – how many is one plus none? I am not certain I counted to one correctly.
Yep, don’t forget! Those 26 spikes in Greenland – WHY aren’t they showing up in Antarctica? Uh, maybe because those spikes may or may NOT really be telling us about temperature. Or – it just occurred to my expert mind (I DID count to 1, after all, so I thin I can claim to be an expert) – maybe those spikes mean something we aren’t understanding. Nah, THAT couldn’t be true! We are all experts now!
Maybe we should check the ice cores in, say, Chicago! Oh, crap! Chicago doesn’t have any ice cores! But don’t ice cores tell the temperature all over the world? They DON’T??? DAMN, that Law Dome ice core, anyway! You guys had it all figured out, with your spike counting – and then that damned Law Dome had to come along and screw it all up…
That spike counting – that REALLY looked like a promising expert-maker. . . Maybe not…

David L. Hagen
July 27, 2015 5:02 pm
Steve Garcia
Reply to  David L. Hagen
July 28, 2015 1:05 am

Thanks for the link!

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Johanus
July 28, 2015 4:48 am

See, Michael Mann? Phil Jones? Some scientists are open about their work and post their Supplementary Information right away.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  David L. Hagen
July 29, 2015 7:00 pm
July 27, 2015 5:06 pm

There is no requirement for a large hole in the ground. We can think Tunguska (or Chalyabinsk) writ large. Maybe a Shoemaker-Levy type at extremely shallow angle of approach? And if we consider an airburst event, does it have to be an icy comet? Even a stony asteroid airburst is a possibility. It would go further to explaining the relatively small Carolina Bays impact craters without requiring an undiscovered mega crater.
pbh

Steve Garcia
Reply to  McComberBoy
July 28, 2015 1:21 am

McComberBoy – You are asking good questions – the right KIND of questions… And putting things together in pretty close to the right way to think about them.
But… Chelyabinsk convinced me that an airburst even as big as Tunguska would not have sufficient energy release to be an extinction-sized event or an event that put impact materials over a 50 million square km area. Both of those, seem to have been meteors, even though for DECADES everyone said that Tunguska couldn’t have been a meteor. A meteor OR a comet would have to be more dense and BIGGER than Tunguska in order to make it to the ground and have enough energy left over to do much more than dig a hole and a little bit. Barringer crater was about 50,000 years ago, and is 1.6 km wide (1 mile), and it didn’t do much to kill off the mammoths, even though it hit only a few hundred miles from Clovis, where the humans killed a few mammoths. So something bigger than that had to have hit. (And if it hit on the ice, add a LOT to that size, because the ice would have attenuated so much of the energy.)
YES, again a good question about comet or not. NO, it doesn’t have to be a comet. A meteor was blamed for the K-T dinosaur killer, and there is no reason a meteor wouldn’t do it. A comet, because of the higher relative velocity (up to 70 km/sec) packs more momentum energy in one way (square of the velocity), but less energy if it is less dense.
Be aware that comets as dirty snowballs doesn’t hack it anymore. Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as well as comet Itokawa, turned out to have very little ice and were mostly denser stuff. Similarly Halley’s wasn’t mostly ice, either. A funny thing, too: All three of those are peanut shaped.
Carolina bays – they are not part of the YDB hypothesis. In addition, no – and I do repeat: NO – meteorites have ever been found in a Carolina bay – of which there are over 44,000 counted so far.

Jim payette
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 29, 2015 11:52 pm

Actually, no meteorites are found in any impact craters. The largest metallic meteorite found on earth in Namibia – the size of a station wagon was just sitting on the surface. The moon meteorites found in Antarctica just sitting on top of the snow and ice. No meteorite found in that big crater in Arizona. That said, the Carolina Bays are not meteorite impact craters, most likely formed by impacting ice at less than hypersonic speed

F. Ross
July 27, 2015 5:15 pm

The researchers used Bayesian statistical analyses of 354 dates taken from 30 sites on more than four continents. By using Bayesian analysis, the researchers were able to calculate more robust age models through multiple, progressive statistical iterations that consider all related age data.

[+emphasis]
Couple of small nits. “… more than four continents…” Did they lose count after four? Why not just state the number?
And …”robust” has almost become a dirty word to use in describing the merit of a study.
Interesting study otherwise.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  F. Ross
July 28, 2015 1:24 am

Good and valid criticism of the wording. It is four. N America, S America, Europe (Belgium), and Asia (Syria).
Where is it that “robust” got a bad name” That is new to me…
Not CLIMATE SCIENCE, I hope! . . . LOL

F. Ross
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 8:11 am

Hi Steve.
For several “robust” examples check out this link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/12/robust-analysis-isnt-what-it-is-cracked-up-to-be-top-10-ways-to-save-science-from-its-statistical-self/
Sample quote from that post:
“… I would add one more to that top 10 list:
0. Ban the use of the word “robust” in science papers.
…”
Of course “robust” is just another word used to reinforce the idea that a study’s author has done his job well — but, in my opinion, much overused and often abused.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Steve Garcia
July 28, 2015 7:07 pm

F. Ross –
Yeah, I have to pretty much agree with you. There ARE times when robust IS robust, but the work should display that itself.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  F. Ross
July 29, 2015 7:04 pm

That is Anthony’s mistake, which I have suggested (below) that he correct. At this late date I don’t think he will see it.
The paper never says “…more than four continents…”
It says “…on four continents…” 3 times
It says “…across four continents…” 4 times
It says “…over four continents…” 1 time (as in “spread over four continents”)
So, to answer that question, the authors DID state the number of continents, It was Anthony who presented this wrong.
Yes, they can count to 4 – on one hand, even, if necessary.

July 27, 2015 5:30 pm

“…a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.”
Earth scientists, eh? How do extra-terrestrial scientists refer to it?

asybot
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
July 27, 2015 10:31 pm

Thanks for the laugh, I wonder now if those extra terrestrials “scientists” weren’t lobbing comets at us.
(it could have been their kids on a Friday night).

Steve Garcia
Reply to  asybot
July 28, 2015 1:30 am

Hey, if the comets were spinning, we could call it the War of the Whirls.

1 2 3