Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis Takes Another Self-Inflicted Gunshot Wound

Guest “Really?” by David Middleton

H/T to my friend Brian Pratt…Introduction

For starters, the author appears to totally fail to grasp the principle of uniformitarianism…

Since its introduction in 2007, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) has received considerable attention, and sparked heated debate (Firestone et al., 2007). The occurrence of a global cosmic catastrophe, which the impact hypothesis suggests only slightly preceded the onset of human civilisation in the Fertile Crescent of south west Asia (as revealed by excavation of remarkable sites like Gobekli Tepe in this region), represents a paradigm-shift in understanding with profound consequences (Dietrich et al., 2012; Dietrich et al., 2017; Schmidt, 2012).

The debate surrounding catastrophism versus gradualism goes back at least as far as the great classical philosophers (Palmer, 2003). It was thought for many years to be resolved by Darwinian evolution and Hutton’s uniformitarian geological principles, at least within the general scientific community. But in recent decades, with the discovery of many large impact craters on terrestrial planets and moons, including Earth and our own moon, and with the discovery of over 1000 large (>1 km) asteroids in near-Earth space, the situation has reversed. Now, globally important cosmic impacts on Earth are expected on the timescale of millions of years (Harris and D’Abramo, 2015).

Sweatman 2021

Uniformitarianism doesn’t exclude impacts/bolides, never has, never will.

After babbling on about black mats and naonodiamonds, the author then cited the Hiawatha crater in Greenland…

Following this, Kjaer et al. (2018) report the discovery of a large impact crater beneath Hiawatha Glacier in northwest Greenland. From airborne radar surveys, they identify a 31-km-wide, circular bedrock depression beneath up to a kilometre of ice. They further suggest the impactor was over 1 km wide and unlikely to predate the Pleistocene, i.e. it is less than a few million years old (see Fig. 11). This maximum age is confirmed a year later (Garde et al., 2020). Clearly, this crater is a candidate YD-age impact structure.

Sweatman 2021

No… Hiawatha clearly isn’t “a candidate YD-age impact structure.”

From Garde et al., 2020…

One of these lumps yielded a non-finite 14C age of >43,500 yr B.P. (our sample Beta-471661). Most of the lignite consists of woody material.

[…]

Charcoal and abundant dispersed organic carbon in the impactite grains of glaciofluvial sand draining the Hiawatha crater come from local, thermally degraded conifer trees with a probable late Pliocene to early Pleistocene age of ca. 3–2.4 Ma.

[…]

In summary, the age of the organic carbon at Hiawatha is probably 3–2.4 Ma, and we favor the younger, 2.4 Ma age as the simplest interpretation and a realistic maximum age of the impact.

Garde et al., 2020

The probable age (3 Ma to 2.4 Ma) is far older than the Younger Dryas (12.7 ka). If it occurred at Younger Dryas time, they would have been able to obtain finite 14C ages.

Q-Fracking-ED

While the actual lines evidence for a significant Younger Dryas impact event are interesting, if not compelling, they’re almost all equivocal and most YDIH papers feature at least one “self-inflicted gunshot wound.”

References

Garde, Adam A., Anne Sofie Søndergaard, Carsten Guvad, Jette Dahl-Møller, Gernot Nehrke, Hamed Sanei, Christian Weikusat, Svend Funder, Kurt H. Kjær, Nicolaj Krog Larsen; Pleistocene organic matter modified by the Hiawatha impact, northwest Greenland. Geology 2020;; 48 (9): 867–871. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G47432.1

Sweatman, Martin B. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: Review of the impact evidence, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 218, 2021, 103677, ISSN 0012-8252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103677.

4 26 votes
Article Rating
229 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ralfellis
June 12, 2021 3:00 am

One person suggesting a flawed analysis, is hardly a gu.nshot wound to the YD impact theory.

The YD was an unusual 1,000 year cooling in the nascent Holocene interglacial, which has not been observed in any of the previous interglacials. It was therefore unprecedented.

The YD is associated with the Black Mats of cool damp conditions, that are likewise associated with numerous impact proxy materials, like nano-diamonds and a prominent platinum spike.

The YD is associated with the extinction of the megafauna, including extinctions in regions that should not have been unduly effected by a simple cooling climate event. (The tropics were never greatly effected during any ice age – cooling by only 1/4 or 1/3 of the large cooling in the polar regions.).

Professor Vance Haynes concluded that the demise of the megafauna was almost instantaneous in geological terms – within one century. This is better explained by an impact than climate change.

The YD is associated with the demise of the Clovis people. One might expect that an intelligent people could have adapted to colder climates, as did the Inuit, but the Clovis people were extinguished along with the megafauna.

There are curiously orientated oval depressions all over North America, which could be secondary impact craters – the Carolina Bays. These cannot be primary impact craters, but they could be secondary low-speed slush-ball impacts – emanating from a large primary meteor impact on the 3,000 m thick Laurentide ice sheet.

A low-speed soft slush-ball may well leave a shallow oval impact crater, containing precious few impact proxies, because it is simply composed of crushed Laurentide ice. The impactor then melts, leaving little or no trace of the formation of the Bay. The fact that the vast majority of Carolina Bays all point to one central radiant in the Great Lakes region, strongly supports this hypothesis. For some good LIDAR images and explanations of the Carolina Bays, please see Michael Davias’ Cintos dot org website.

Michael has done a considerable amount if work on this, but was ‘pressured’ by geologists to amend his dating of the bays to 800mky ago, due to the thermoluminescent dating of overlying silts. But there are many reasons why this dating could be incorrect, if the Bay rims were composed of original sedimentary silts that had been excavated and overturned by a low-speed impactor.

Ralph

Jay
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 3:45 am

Wasn’t it also bracketed by a pair of Huge melt-water pulses?

John Tillman
Reply to  Jay
June 12, 2021 7:00 am

It was caused by one, emptying into the Arctic Ocean.

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  John Tillman
June 13, 2021 2:21 pm

That is a hypothesis that is loosing traction (I understand). Waffly Broecker once implied that a meltwater event would have stopped the Gulfstream and thereby his beloved “Global Conveyor”. He later walked back from this idea (well sort of – a bit). Great_Ocean_Conveyor_broecker.pdf (uib-csic.es)
The idea of a great ocean conveyor is a gross over-simplification, at best,
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in High‐Resolution Models – Hirschi – 2020 – Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans – Wiley Online Library (See section 3.1.) And complete nonsense, at worst – in my opinion.
The earth’s surface-current circulations are a daisy-chain of wind-driven gyres which form a highly redundant (i.e. resilient) system. The drivers of the earth’s deep-water circulations are more of a mystery, but one thing is clear – they don’t drive the surface currents.
It is conceivable that the meltwater pulse might have caused the Gulf Stream/NA Current to deviate off-course somewhat. But it is hard to see how this could have affected the climate of the whole globe.
So, a volcanic or bolide related cause is attractive – but, as this post implies, the necessary evidence has not yet been found.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 7:10 pm

Meltwater pulses are periodical. Please see Heinrich Events.

John Tillman
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
June 13, 2021 8:49 pm

Volcanic and impact hypotheses are not only not attractive but totally unneeded. Influxes of cold fresh water have been repeatedly shown to cause climatic cold snaps, both during glaciations and interglacials.

John Tillman
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
June 14, 2021 2:53 pm

We know that melt water pulses do indeed affect global climate, both during glacials (Heirich Events) and interglacials (Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas and the 8.2 Ka Event). Support for meltwater pulses has never been stronger than now. Sediment from the Arctic Ocean seafloor is dispositive confirmation for the YD.

Please see the numerous recent studies I’ve linked below.

Broecker’s issue was with the route of the meltwater. It was clearly not down the Mississippi, but he had trouble finding evidence down the St. Lawrence. But in 2010 it was discovered that pro-glacial Lake Agassiz drained via the Mackenzie River. Since then that conclusion has been repeatedly confirmed ever more strongly.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Dueker
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:12 am

Please clarify “800mky”.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  John Dueker
June 12, 2021 7:25 am

800 milli kilo years. I agree, a better number is two score of scores annums.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Dueker
June 12, 2021 8:12 am

800mky is a typo. The ‘m’ is too close to the space-bar.
It should read 800 ky ago.
Sorry.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 5:51 am

Tony Zamora’s Hypothesis on the Carolina Bays https://youtu.be/vrFj5UT0htE

John Tillman
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 7:18 am

Couldn’t be more wrong. They’re much older than the YD. Nor are the dates right for other supposed impact markers:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513113605.htm

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 8:19 am

As I said, thermoluminescence dating cannot date upheavals in the strata, because the silica grains are only reset by prolonged exposure to sunlight.

Imagine a strata of silts or sands that was last reset by sunlight 800 ky ago, and is now buried by 2 m of subsequent wind deposition. Now you overturn that older material with a huge excavator (or supersonic slushball), so that it is now near the surface.

The surface material now dates to 800 ky ago, even though it was disturbed only 10 ky ago. Thermoluminescence cannot date an impact.

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 11:09 am

Besides thermoluminescence dating of the Bays’ rims, organic material from within their layers dated by 14C shows them far too old. Some of the matter was even too old for RC dating, and those at the limit gave minimm ages, not maximum.

The Bays are from tens of thousands of years before the YD.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 1:51 pm

The maximum date achievable for C14 dating, is some 35 ky ago. C14 cannot confirm the supposed 800 ky date for these ‘impact craters’.

Besides, old carbon can be churned up in a low-speed impact, which would contaminate the Bay rims and make them look older. C14 cannot be used to date a rim, if it has been disturbed or overturned by an impact.

RE

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:20 pm

Ralf, even the credentialed scientists advocating for the YDIH long ago gave up on citing the Carolina Bays as evidence. They’re clearly way too old.

R14C works for far longer than 35,000 years.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 4:11 pm

Tillman – Since C14 has a half-life of 5,700 years, how do you propose dating anything older than 35,000 years?

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:28 pm

Because plenty of the isotope remains after even a fraction of the half life.

It’s a fact. You could look it up, had you any interest in actual science.

ATheoK
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 6:53 pm

Not only are the Carolina bays dated as older than the alleged YD impact. The apparent angles of the Carolina bays do not center from one location. The angles are directional from all across North America. This can be validated using Google-Earth.

Or are people going to claim the slush-balls circled the Earth before landing?

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 6:10 pm

Even if 14C dating were only good for 35,000 years, which is not true, it’s enough to show that the Carolina Bays cannot possibly be associated with the YD.

whiten
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 5:54 am

“The YD was an unusual 1,000 year cooling in the nascent Holocene interglacial, which has not been observed in any of the previous interglacials. It was therefore unprecedented.”

The climastrologic triangle of unprecedented:

YD-Holocene-Anthropocene,

You know Holocene and Anthropocene are unprecedented, as much as YD is, yes?

You are not claiming that YD causes Holocene and Anthropocene, are you?

cheers

ralfellis
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 8:25 am

The Holocene interglacial is not unprecedented, as it is exactly the same as the interglacial 400 ky ago. The Holocene is an obliquity dominated interglacial, because eccentricity (and therefore precessional effects on climate) are minimal.

The Anthropocene is a nonsense – man’s influence on climate has been minimal. The only thing man has done, is save the biosphere by putting more CO2 back into the atmosphere. Plants were beginning to starve, due a lack of CO2 – so the oil and coal companies should be given medals, for saving the planet.

Ralph

whiten
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 8:49 am

So your answer to my questions are;

No, to the first.
and
No, to the second one.

Is that correct?

whiten
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 10:19 am

Ok Ralph.

If you would not mind another question of mine.

How many years are there in the downtrend of the current
Inter glacial, from the very top of the
Inter glacial Optimum to the present?

ralfellis
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 2:04 pm

.
The Holocene maximum was some 8 ky ago.

Because orbital eccentricity is currently low, precession is adding (and subtracting) very little to Milankovitch insolation in the northern hemisphere. (ie: cooler Great Summers and warmer Great Winters in the northern hemisphere.)

This means the Holocene interglacial is being primarily led by obliquity, which has a ~41 ky cycle. So the Holocene interglacial can stretch to almost the full half cycle of about 20 ky. Thus we are almost at the end of the Holocene and about to plunge into another ice age.

Although due to low eccentricity the looming NH Great Winter is very mild, and may not be cold enough to precipitate an ice age. We live in an era of very calm and mild Great Years, for at least the next 50 ky.

The interglacial 400 ky ago was similarly obliquity led, due low eccentricity, and thus similarly extended in duration. Using this as a template, I think we stand on the cusp of a new ice age in 1,500 years time – but again it will be a mild NH Great Winter and perhaps not cold enough to enter a true ice age.

RE

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:21 pm

The Holocene Climatic Optimum lasted from the Dryas-like 8.2 Ka cold event to 5.2 Ka, with fluctuations within it.

whiten
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:54 pm

Ralph, thank you for your lengthy reply.

But still, Interglacial and it’s Optimum is it, regardless of your Holocene “claptrap”.

Still I will accept validity of your point, in proposition of explaining YD, as within the clause of reality,
as per “unprecedented” stand point.

But that only so in the proposed “unprecedece”
of YD,
which still questionable,
in the prospect of Holocene.

As the Holocene simply a product to formalize, equalize,
and being utilized to jeopardize,
the meaning of the anomaly observed in the data.

Yes by the outset, you can claim validity of the offered explanation for YD, as you put it,
but only if YD is “unprecedented” for real.

I think, I can accommodate acceptance, in favour of your claim, but only if the premise of “unprecedented” not questionable.

And most probably it is not… or it is… but there is no way of telling…
for as long as “Holocene” considered as with some meaning in consideration of climate.

Ralph, thank you for your lengthy reply, again,
but as far as I can tell, you refused to answer my simple question.

It was within the clear meaning of the Interglacial, and not the added Holocene “claptrap”.

You still refused to properly address my question, as put.

My question to you was not about or regarding Holocene or it’s optimum.

Simple as that.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Renee
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 1:45 pm

Both terminations at MIS 11 and the Holocene show a clear temperature reversal, but the one in the earlier period occurs after interglacial warmth has already been achieved. Thus the reversal at about 420 kyr might be seen as analogous to the Antarctic cold reversal (ACR) that occurred during Termination I at around the YD. from EPICA, 2004.

CBD7C7E5-5D00-402F-A456-7E6FB527A789.png
ralfellis
Reply to  Renee
June 12, 2021 2:17 pm

.
Possibly, but the others do not.

Both MIS11 and the Holocene are obliquity-led interglacials, because eccentricity was low. So why would obliquity interglacials have a notch, when the others do not?

An obliquity interglacial has less warming than a precessional interglacial, so one might suggest they are more susceptible to slipping back into glacial conditions.

But a fresh water pulse does not explain the demise of the megafauna and Clovis man, the cool Black Mats, nor the platinum spike.

comment image

RE

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:33 pm

The megafauna, Clovis Man and the black mats all have explanations which have nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional impact. Nor does the timing work out. YDIH advocates have less than nothing.

The 41,000 year tilt cycle is the main driver of all ice age fluctuations. The other orbital and rotational cycles affect this basic rhythm.

At the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, ice age rhythm changed from 41,000 years to an apparent 100,000 years. But in fact, the obliquity cycle continued to rule. It’s just that some interglacials became stillborn, so that 82,000 and 123,000 year intervals averaged out to about 100,000 years.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 4:23 pm

.
The difference between us is that I present evidence, and you provide empty assertions.

And you are wrong on the driver of interglacials. It is clear that the primary driver of the majority of interglacials is precessional maxima (NH Great Summers), not obliquity.

And the reason that many precessional maxima (and obliquity maxima) do not precipitate interglacials, is a lack of dust.

There is only one feedback variable that is consistently associated with and precedes interglacials, and that is dust. No dust, no interglacial.

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:31 pm

You provide only antiscientific drivel. I provide facts.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that axial tilt is the driver. Before the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, glaciations followed the 41,000 obliquity cycle. Then, with increasing cold, some of them became interstadials rather than interglacials.

You have no scientific evidence whatsoever. Just mythology.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:50 pm

You have presented zero valid scientific evidence. Here is the dispositive evidence from last year for the meltwater origin of the YD:

Sea level fingerprinting of the Bering Strait flooding history detects the source of the Younger Dryas climate event

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/9/eaay2935

Ruleo
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 5:36 pm

I would say the same for GHE proponents…

ralfellis
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 5:38 pm

So you ignore the Cosmic Tusk site, which lists 160 papers on the YD impact theory, and resort instead to insults. How professional.

Actually, the majority of papers on this site are supportive of the impact theory.

https://cosmictusk.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-bibliography-and-paper-archive

R

ATheoK
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 7:30 pm

Odd.
One would expect the papers to be sorted by main research/analysis topic, in detail.
That would bundle arguments for each research position clearly.

And allow the refutation papers against that line of research to clearly demarcate pertinent lines of research they refute.

Instead, fuzzy research/topic lines of research are well intermingled into a confusing mess; e.g. papers researching Hiawatha Crater are imaged as if they support the YD hypothesis.

It is also puzzling to see so few refutations. I know I’ve read at least two papers regarding alleged YD impact nanodiamonds, yet do not see them included.

Renee
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 9:21 pm

The main cause of the significant indentations during interglacial periods is when northern and southern local insolation cross. Atmospheric temperatures are in the transition period now with the appropriate lag time.

95F6C928-1867-443C-92D5-72CE940BEF97.jpeg
ralfellis
Reply to  Renee
June 13, 2021 3:55 am

Other than MIS11 and the Holocene, interglacials are entirely dominated by NH Milankovitch insolation, so why do you think that SH insolation would be important.

MIS11 and Holocene are obliquity dominated, but again, why would the weak SH precessional signal have any relevance at these times?

R

John Tillman
Reply to  Renee
June 12, 2021 2:24 pm

Antarctica participated in the meltwater pulse which caused the YD, but was not the main contributor. That’s a really outdated citation, and influenced by the Consensus Church of CACA.

Data from recent years shows decisively that the YD was caused mainly by the giant meltwater pulse from the North American ice sheets.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 5:32 pm

Cosmic Tusk lists 160 papers on the YD impact theory, and the majority of those are supportive.

https://cosmictusk.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-bibliography-and-paper-archive

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 5:58 pm

Most of Cosmic Tusk’s citations are utter drivel.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 13, 2021 3:58 am

They are recognised papers from recognised sources, so what precisely do you dislike about them.

Besides, talking of drivel, you cited as evidence a tourist brochure that talks about ‘brown jumbos’ (presumably a reference to mammoths).

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 11:22 am

The site doesn;t include the wealth of papers showing what’s wrong about those supporting the hypothesis.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 6:58 am

The cause of the Younger Dryas is the same as of the Older and Oldest Dryas and other cold snaps before and after it during the last deglaciation and previous terminations, ie meltwater pulses.

Black mats are caused by accumulation of wind-deposited dust in wetlands. They’re common in the US SW, Mexico and Chile’s Atacama Desert and on other continents. They range in age from 6000 to 40,000 years ago. They do not contain ET markers.

The Carolina Bays and similar features on the Great Plains were not caused by slush balls from the Laurentide Ice Sheet. They’re far older than the YD.

Pleistocene megafauna went extinct over tens of thousands of years, usually wiped out by people. If an impact k!lled them, then why didn’t ground sloths on Caribbean Islands die out at the same time as those on the continental mainlands? Instead, they survived thousands more years, until humans arrived.

The odds against an impact by a four km object at the YD are 1015 to one. There is no valid evidence for such an event.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 9:00 am

.
If the YD was caused by meltwater, then why did none of the other interglacials appear to have these meltwater pulses?. Conversely, if there was a meteor strike on the Laurentide ice sheet, it is highly likely to have resulted in a meltwater pulse.

The black mats are the result of damp climatic conditions, dominated by ferns and mosses. There are numerous papers that have discovered impact proxies in these mats, and platinum spikes.
Try: Sediment Cores from White Pond….
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51552-8

The Carolina Bays only appear older because thermoluminescent dating cannot date an impact and the resulting upheaval in older sand strata. This method is dating the original deposition of the strata, and not its upheaval.

According to Prof Vance Haynes the extinction of the megafauna was ‘instantaneous’. There were megafauna below the Black Mats, and absolutely none above. He estimates they all went extinct within a century. If you disagree with Haynes, you will have to explain why.

Plus simultaneously hunting ALL the megafauna to extinction is unlikely. Hunter and prey are normally in a close symbiosis, so that as the number of prey decreases, the number of hunters has to decrease in proportion. To be able to exterminate ALL the megafauna food sources all at once, across several continents, is not logical. Was Clovis man coordinating his hunting techniques with European and Asiatic man? By emails, perhaps?

And there are NO odds on the arrival of meteor impact – they are essentially random.

Ralph

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 9:06 am

.
For Prof Vance Haynes’ explanation for the megafauna extinction, please see this paper:

Younger Dryas Black Mats and the Megafauna extinction:
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/18/6520.full.pdf

Quote:
The megafaunal extinction and the Clovis-Folsom transition appear to have occurred in 100 years, perhaps much less, and are defined stratigraphically by the Z1–2 contact. This contact and the initiation of YD black mat deposition appear not to have been time transgressive (Fig. 5). This implies that extinction of the Rancholabrean megafauna was geologically instantaneous, and essentially catastrophic.
Endquote.

Ralph

ralfellis
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 9:39 am

That does not seem to conflict with what Prof Haynes was saying.

He maintains there was a catastrophic extinction of the remaining megafauna – in less that 100 years – at the onset of the YD. The previous extinctions have no bearing on the apparent fact that there was a final catastrophic extinction. And Clovis man cannot finish off 16 species of megafauna in less than a century.

Do you disagree with Prof Haynes?

Ralph

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 11:17 am

Haynes does say that the extinction period could have been as short as one century, but concludes too little is known, hence more research is needed to improve understanding.

In any case, he rightly rejects the YDIH. He’s an expert on black mats, so knows that they weren’t caused by fires from an impact.

His explanation for megafauna extinction at least in North America is the combo of drought and hunting by Clovis people. But everywhere outside Africa where people have gone in the past 50,000 years, mass extinctions occurred.

Again, consider the Caribbbean islands were megafauna weren’t wiped out at the YD onset, but thousands of years later, when people arrived.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 2:26 pm

.
The Black Mats are not the result of fires, they are the result of cool climatic conditions. And if a meteor had struck the Laurentide ice sheet, and blanketed the stratosphere and meosphere in a shower of ice and water vapour, then a prolonged period of cool conditions is likely.

Do note that Black Mats and Carolina Bays do not seem to appear together – you get one of the other (unless you can demonstrate otherwise). Again this mutual exclusivity might suggest a YD date for the Carolina Bays.

RE

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:47 pm

The whole point of the original bogus Carolina Bays argument was that they happened at the same time. They didn’t. The Bays are much older and the black mats occurred over tens of thousands of years.

It’s all total garbage.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 4:29 pm

.
As I said before, thermoluminescent dating can only date strata, not the date of an impact. If the Bay rims are disturbed and overturned material, the dating will be incorrect.

And your continued bald assertions to the contrary, without the necessary evidence, carry no weight.

R

ralfellis
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 6:11 pm

(Middleton).
If you have to resort to semantics to bolster your position, you have obviously lost the entire argument.

Yes, one is a light reset, while the other is a heat reset.

Secondary slushballs would have been entering the atmosphere at mach-7 or thereabouts. And at 80,000 ft they would have been glowing with a stagnation temperature of about 4,000 degrees centigrade. Much the same as the Space-shuttle used to do.

This would explain the vitreous wood sample discovered by Firestone et al. How do you think that vitreous wood samples appeared in a Carolina Bay, if there was no impactors? Carbon only melts at 3,600 degrees centigrade – look up the carbon phase diagram.

R

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 5:34 pm

Where is your evidence that the Bays are older? Your word is not the oracle.

R

ATheoK
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 8:07 pm

Nor is “Geological investigations of Herndon Bay” included in the “Cosmic Tusk” alleged research papers.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 10:15 am

They occur at average intervals, the length of which depends upon size. Little meteors hit often; big ones rarely.

All deglaciations show meltwater pulses. Where did you get the idea that they don’t?

Meltwater pulse recorded in Last Interglacial mollusk shells from Bermuda
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016PA003014

Similar freshwater pulses occur during glacials, resulting from iceberg armadas, ie Heinrich Events.

Not all megafauna were hunted to extinction. Mammoths for instance were wiped out by humans on the continents but survived on Arctic islands until rising sea levels reduced their habitat below the area required to support populations. So in their case it was a combo of hunting and climate/biome change.

Clovis and South American people wiped out North American fauna after European, Asian and Australian hunters. Madagascar, New Zealand and Hawaiian fauna weren’t wiped out until people reached there much later, as on other islands.

No shred of evidence supports the YDIH, and all the evidence in the world is against it.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 12:23 pm

Here’s a meltwater-induced cold snap from way back in the MIS 11c interglacial:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092181811200094X

The cold interval was briefer than the YD, more akin to the 8.2 Ka Event. But the point is that meltwater pulses cause cold snap interruptions in all terminations. They’re a natural feature of deglaciation.

The YD lasted longer since it was caused by a big and long duration outflow. The volume of ice-dammed water extended far south between the two ice sheets during peak melting, creating the Ice Free Corridor in western North America, combined with outflow from other ice sheets.

No need for an impact to explain the YD.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
AndyHce
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 12:23 pm

Lorenz was hired by IBM to figure out why their early digital data transmissions had so many errors, no matter what they tried to do about it. He discovered a pattern in the error occurrence that was the same pattern at any scale he investigated. This pattern was expressible mathematically (unfortunately I can’t recall, or currently find, its name – fibonacci sequence?). If I am not confusing two different things, that same pattern is found in many natural processes that reoccur over time. Unless there has been some great breakthrough since I last read about it, this is widely observed but not understood.

The statement by John Tillman
“They occur at average intervals, the length of which depends upon size. Little meteors hit often; big ones rarely.”
brings up an interesting speculation. I rather doubt that there is enough data, and certainly not the precision of data, to make a decent analysis, but it would certainly provide a very different view of cosmology if the same pattern was found to apply to meteors/asteroids interactions , hot/cold intervals, volcanic eruptions, or other large scale events.

John Tillman
Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2021 1:21 pm

There are sufficient data. As noted, small objects frequently collide with Earth. There is an inverse relationship between the size of the object and the frequency of impacts. Lunar cratering records shows that the frequency of impacts decreases as about the cube of the resulting crater’s diameter, which is on average proportional to the diameter of the impactor.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103579900095?via%3Dihub

Asteroids one km. in diameter strike Earth every 500,000 years on average.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265496068_The_Frequency_and_Consequences_of_Cosmic_Impacts_Since_the_Demise_of_the_Dinosaurs

Large collisions with five-km objects happen approximately once every twenty million years.

https://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEarth/ImpactEffects/

The last known impact of an object of 10 km or more in diameter was at the K/Pg extinction event 66 million years ago.

Thus, the estimated four km. impactor in the YDIH is highly unlikely, to say the least.

AndyHce
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 1:46 pm

I am not arguing in favor of the YD impact hypothesis, or anything YD hypothesis, but the average spacing of random events says nothing about any particular event. If they are truly random, several “extremely unlikely” occurrences could come almost immediately, one after the other, or only after intervals of many, many times their average. If fact, if truly random, there will, sometime, eventually, be multiple occurrences within a short time frame.

On the other hand, if there truly is some kind of relatively regular time interval between events of the same magnitude that is probably a strong signal that they are not random.

John Tillman
Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2021 2:06 pm

They could be random, but there are far fewer large bodies, so naturally they strike less frequently. The data are observations of actual impacts and the average time between them, ie scientific facts.

The fact is that the larger the impactor, the less often will one of that size hit Earth.

ATheoK
Reply to  AndyHce
June 12, 2021 8:41 pm

That has all the earmarks of an urban legend.

I’ve been working in computers since the late 1970s, most of that time using various IBM mainframes, transmitting and receiving large amounts of data.

Several times, I had workroom floor operations managers try to claim error in the data was caused by the system.
Each time data transmissions and their sources were dissected to the bytes.
No data errors were caused by the computers, modems, transmission lines or tape or disk storage.
Extremely rarely was a computer program found to be at fault.

All errors found were caused by:
A) mismanagement (workroom floor managers making wrong decisions).
B) Input errors (where employees keyed in wrong data, disconnected modems, turned computers off improperly; but mostly failing to input data at required times.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 2:29 pm

I see no meltwater pulses in previous interglacials, except possibly in MIS11.

comment image

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 3:10 pm

Your graph is far too course to pick up the effect of pulses affecting temperature on the scale of hundreds to at most 1000 years.

Every single deglaciation shows such cold snaps. All of them.

How could it be otherwise? Meltwater from shrinking ice sheets doesn’t trickle out at a steady pace for 20,000 years. It is held back by ice dams at various points around the continents, then released in outwash floods, like the Bretz/Missoula floods but on a continental scale.

The YDIH is repeatedly falsified conjecture vs. observed reality on every scale.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 2:35 pm

So explain the widespread YD platinum spike.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51552-8

Do you have a link to late-date mammoths in the Arctic?

Ralph

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 2:53 pm

Pt spikes occur all the time, usually associated with volcanic eruptions, as in the YD case. They aren’t ET markers. The supposed YD marker lacks any association with supposed other impact markers. As with all else YDIH associated, it’s total garbage.

Mid-Holocene mammoths on Alaskan and Siberian islands are common knowledge among people who follow paleontology:

https://alaskamagazine.com/authentic-alaska/wildlife-nature/the-last-mammoth-in-alaska/

It’s not the least bit controversial. It’s a scientific fact, ie an observation of nature.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 4:32 pm

.
Again, assertions without evidence.

It is almost as if you have found a religion.

R

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:40 pm

Here is a quote from the paper I cited above:

Quote:
Petaev et al. report a large Pt anomaly within annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) ice core that date to the onset of the YD. They conclude that the likely source of the Pt enrichment was from multiple atmospheric injections of platinum-rich dust following an extraterrestrial impact and the subsequent 21-year-long deposition of platinum within interannual layers of ice. Following this discovery, an independent contribution by Moore et al.4 reported a widespread Pt anomaly at 11 geographically-separated and diverse terrestrial sedimentary sequences across North America. These results are consistent with those previously reported by Petaev et al.and indicate the Pt anomaly is a robust chronostratigraphic marker or datum for the chronostratigraphic position of the YD onset in terrestrial sedimentary sequences. These results are also consistent with the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), which proposed that an extraterrestrial source contributed Pt along with other reported impact proxies (e.g., microspherules, nanodiamonds, soot, etc.) over large portions of the Northern Hemisphere and likely over the entire globe (e.g., Firestone et al.3; Kennett et al. 6; Melott et al.7; Bunch et al.8; Israde-Alcántara et al.9; Wittke et al.10; Andronikov et al.11; Kinzie et al.12; Andronikov et al.13; Andronikov and Andronikova14,15,16). Recent studies by Wolbach et al.17,18have provided additional evidence in the form of multiple proxies for large-scale biomass-burning and a brief impact winter triggered at ~12,800 years ago. Those studies were based on analyses of large numbers of terrestrial, lacustrine, marine, and ice core records with peaks in biomass-burning proxies such as charcoal, pyrogenic carbon (soot and aciniform carbon, as described in Wolbach et al.18), and combustion aerosols, such as ammonium. These previous studies are significant in that they point to rapid global climate change and ecological disruptions/reorganizations that occurred at the beginning of the YD

Ralph

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:52 pm

I linked to the study falsifying this hypothesis. Please read my links before further embarassing yourself.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 5:01 pm

Within four years of the cockamamie, unsupported hypothesis, real geologists and paleontologists had already conclusively shown the baseless conjecture false in detail:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/httpblogsscientificamericancomhistory-of-geology20110727the-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis/

Since then, every lame claim has also been further falsified. The whole false narrative has been busted in every which way.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 4:51 pm

I provided evidence. You just make assertions based upon a religious belief. No supposed evidence for the YDIH has withstood even cursory scrutiny.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 7:14 pm

Apparently you missed all my links to frequency of large impacts and every other paper I cited. Why is that?

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 5:35 pm

The Cosmic Tusk site lists 160 papers on the YD impact theory, and the majority of those are supportive.

https://cosmictusk.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-bibliography-and-paper-archive

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 6:00 pm

Cosmic Tusk cites drivel from lunatics.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 6:20 pm

Cosmic Tusk cites a variety of papers from reputable sources. If you are disregarding evidence based upon your preconceptions and opinions, you are following a religion, not science.

R

ralfellis
Reply to  ralfellis
June 12, 2021 6:25 pm

>>Cosmic Tusk cites drivel from lunatics.

And you cited a tourist information site that talked of ‘brown jumbos’…!!

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 5:36 am

My references cite real science. Cosmic Tusk cites frauds without any scientific education.

Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 9:58 pm

Let’s discuss, John. George A. Howard. Cosmic Tusk. 919-334-9105

ralfellis
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 4:16 am

(Let’s discuss). Nice offer George.

Personally I think the evidence is still 50-50, or perhaps 60-40. But I do so hate the way that Tillman and Middleton will ignore the evidence in favour of an impact, and slip into denigration quite so readily.

It is not as if impacts have never happened in the recent past. But for some reason this particular impact generates a lot of animosity, which restricts unbiased research.

.

For instance nobody has (or will) research the morphology resulting from a soft low-speed impactor – a slush-ball. Something like a mach-5 impactor made of crushed ice. Would it form shallow oval depressions, upon impacting sands and silts?

My own experimentation with very slow impactors on beach sand, did indeed form shallow oval depressions with elevated rims. But that experimentation was not very scientific, and had no high-speed cameras.

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 5:50 am

We ignore nothing. We’ve repeatedly showed you what’s false about the alleged evidence of an impact at the YD onset.

OTOH the evidence for a meltwater pulse is overwhelming. Your claims are not just false but absurd. Every termination has meltwater pulses, producing cold snaps interrupting the deglaciation, contrary to your false, baseless assertion. I provided instances from Terminations II and V.

Outwash floods still occur today on smaller scale. In the past, they’ve carved many familiar geographic and geologic features, such as the Strait of Dover, Great Lakes and Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington.

The meltwater pulse which caused the YD left indelible marks on North America, the Arctic Ocean seafloor and Bering Strait.

There is no reason to imagine a fictional impact, the odds against which are greater than 1000 to one. There is no evidence for such a fantasy, starting with lack of a crater.

ralfellis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 6:17 pm

>>Little meteors hit often; big ones rarely.

Which is exactly what we see with the Carolina Bays – numerous smaller Bays and only a few larger Bays.

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 5:38 am

The Carolina Bays are not impact features. They’re created by wind.

ATheoK
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 8:20 pm

Mammoths for instance were wiped out by humans on the continents but survived on Arctic islands until rising sea levels reduced their habitat below the area required to support populations.”

How do mammoths occupying large land areas where humans were especially sparse get hunted into extinction when elephants in Africa and SE Asia were not hunted into extinction in spite of much higher populations of humans.

Also curious how dire wolf, cave bear, saber tooth tigers get hunted into extinction in the same unpopulated areas while their smaller less ferocious less dangerous relatives are essentially unharmed until the 19th-20th century?

With large populations of tasty much less dangerous critters throughout North America, why would tiny bands of humans hunt very dangerous game?

The human caused extinctions of megafaunas are a hypothesis with almost zero real evidence.
And no, having carrion eaters, like early humans, use their flint knives or marrow bone cracking stone axes on fallen game is not evidence for extinction.
Another perfect example of rough correlation does not equal causation.

ralfellis
Reply to  ATheoK
June 13, 2021 4:02 am

AtTheoK.
Stop asking logical but difficult questions that conflict with Tillman’s religion.

R

John Tillman
Reply to  ATheoK
June 13, 2021 6:02 am

As I already pointed out, African animals were used to humans. Asian elephants and Sumatran rhinos survived in dense forest. The elephants were domesticated.

Large predators died off when their prey were wiped out.

Wherever modern humans with Aurignacian culture or higher appeared, megafauna went extinct. Eurasia, Australia, the Americas, Madagascar, Hawaii, New Zealand, Mauritius and down to recent times. We k!lled off the auroch, dodo, great auk, Carolina parakeet, Caribbean monk seal, passenger pigeon, Atlantic gray whale and almost other big whales and the American bison, but for conservation efforts. To name but a few from the past four centuries.

John Tillman
Reply to  ralfellis
June 13, 2021 7:09 am

Here is what caused the YD:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0169-6

Cold, fresh meltwater pulses also caused the Older and Oldest Dryas and the 8.2 Ka cold snap during the 10,000 year long main deglaciation, which of course has continued more slowly during the rest of the Holocene.

As noted, similar cold snaps interrupted prior ice sheet terminations. Meltwater pulses from ice dammed lakes are a regular feature of deglaciations. One created Dover Strait. Lake Missoula emptied repeatedly during Termination I. They are giant jökulhlaups.

June 12, 2021 3:08 am

Where is this suggestion published? I would like to write to it? Looks like a way to publish some long words based on no substance in the science.

Clearly there is almost no correlation between the age of the suggested impact crater and the Younger Dryas – or am I missing something? 2Ma is rather a large error/time. Also the YD is during a period when Greenland was deeply covered in ice so the ice sheet would take the impact and show the evidence in both form and substance. Also the ice cores on NH and SH would show a deposition line characteristoc of such an event at this time, the proximal Grenland cores rather variable and the Antarctic uniform?

THis would also separate an impact from from a super volcano event, for example.

Does it/do they? How come such a suggestion gets past peer review process – which supposedly makes them good science, allegedly. Like the tropical fish that turn left instead of right in Nature. There was no ice in Greenland to take the impact 2Ma ago so that timing appears more likely, there us even some evidence to support the assertion.

You can’t make it up. that’s consensual science’s job.

PS It didn’t cause the Older Dryas either. But something else witha similar effect might have

I have wondered about this causal matter WRT the DRyas events, but not a lot, because they happened, and whatever it was it provided some observational evidence for a new idea, about what warms the oceans when the surface on land in the NH has returned to near glacial but the ice sheets keep melting, and the oceans rising, unaffected?

A super volcano seems the more likely cause of the Dryas events, Perhaps the older in the NH, affecting the NH more than the SH. THis happened at a time when volcanism is known to be at a maximum, confirmed by emissions observations, due to MIlankovitch cycle orbital forcing, It just seems more likely, that’s all. This happened during the last and well documented interglacial warming, when the oceans continued their rise unabated, melting the huge ice sheets on land, as evidenced by the ocean level rise throughout the older and younger Dryas. How did that work? Simples! I cover this in my own pre-pub paper.

And fInally, In ice age terms this could be considered unfortunate. No major events during all the prior interglacial warmings, then two come along, one after the other. You can’t make it up. Really. That’s MIchael Mann’s job.

Sara
Reply to  Brian R Catt
June 12, 2021 4:47 am

Instead of a supervolcano, how about a series of volcanoes erupting in sequence – something like a long-chain reaction to too much magma pushing upward, trying to break through. That’s just as likely as a single eruption.

Any idea how much gas the newest Icelandic volcano is putting out? That also has an effect on weather and if it goes on long enough, The Climate.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 9:41 am

Maybe we can set up our own vanity publishing journal so we can make money from similar authors?

We can read the submissions and then call it “peer reviewed”. After a while we could get new suckers, sorry authors, to reference previously published papers in the same journal so they can start improving their h-index.

We could call it “pal review”. They could also review other peoples nonsense too, making them “journal reviewers” as well as authors in the “peer reviewed” literature. An entire vanity science career beckons and we as the journal owners can make loads of money. I am sure the BBC, The Guardian etc would also sign up and pay as library subscribers.

Hang on, now I come to think of it, hasn’t climate science and climategate already done this?

Last edited 1 month ago by ThinkingScientist
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 9:54 pm

Why the heck does Anthony give you guest post privileges dude? You are a misinformation machine. Earth Science Reviews, for better or worse, is the #2 of 187 earth science journals with regard to impact, in the corrupted world of scientific publishing. You, on the other hand, are a troll. https://academic-accelerator.com/Impact-Factor-IF/Earth-Science-Reviews#:~:text=The%202019%2D2020%20Journal%20Impact,is%20just%20updated%20in%202020.

(Feel free to disagree and even argue over it, but the personal attacks doesn’t help your credibility here) SUMOD

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
shortie of greenbank
Reply to  David Middleton
June 16, 2021 3:53 pm

Sweatman has published books and has a ‘fairly’ active youtube channel on the topic of the history of ancient peoples. He also has a long series of videos about 23 up to 1/2 hour each going through what papers exist on the YD making it in the form of a back and forth on both sides, what was wrong with each paper etc. The channel is named Prehistory Decoded.

I’m not claiming to understand the topic myself but his methodology in breaking down those studies seemed sound to an outsider to the field like myself.

John Tillman
Reply to  Brian R Catt
June 12, 2021 10:53 am

There was a large (VEI 6) volcanic eruption in Germany about 12.9 Ka, but it wasn’t big enough to have caused the YD. It could however have ejected the platinum anomalies upon which YDIH advocates have seized as evidence of an ET impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See

Ron Long
June 12, 2021 3:22 am

Good to call baloney on any author denying uniformitarianism, David. The claim that they Younger Dryas event is unusual, and therefore needs an unusual explanation, doesn’t take into consideration of the error rate in dating events becoming longer before present the event occurs. I teach uniformitarianism on my way to guide a tour into the Neuquen Basin, in Argentina. We stop at a small river crossing and look at the flood record, gravel bars, tree debris, some dead animals, etc, then go into the Cretaceous and see the same things, just dinosaur bones instead of cows or goats. Geologists love this and others are surprised.

Reply to  Ron Long
June 12, 2021 4:33 am

I just read what unformitarianism means. It means that the causes of change are common and usual around the Galaxy/Universe. So, to me, gradual and catastrophic change that are repeated in cyclic and random time scales are self evidently both normal and natural and fall within this definition, unless unusual. One clas is unpredictable and down to chance, that’s all.

So I don’t even understand why this word is used, except to confuse non geologists and exclude them from religious “expert” conversations. How can a volcanic eruption be considered continuous, for example?

Quick observation. There are two natural cyclic time scales in the large cyclic (vs. unexceptional but also random events), the solar related cycles and the orbital Milankovitch cycles. Also the Galactic orbit, of course. All cause well known cyclic change, those tyat are external to the oceanic control system if convective equilibrium forming clouds as negative feedback to SST change require a new equilibrium to re balance total heat flows. These are the ice ages over orbital change periods and the short term 2 deg range at 0,8 deg per century rate superimposed upon them throughout by the effects of solar winds on cloud cover. Simples! More ice core evidence than you can shake a hammer at.

Michael House wrote the long term orbital forcing stuff up in the 90’s. as far as the long term goes, which is what I learnt from while trying to quantify how MIlankovitch cycles cause interglacial events by orbital forcing that isn’t insolation. The answer was not to keep looking in the wrong consensual place. You might find it interesting.

https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/85/1/1.full.pdf

House, M. (1995), Orbital forcing timescales: an introduction, Geological Society, London, Special Publications; v. 85; p. 1-18

anthropic
June 12, 2021 4:03 am

Lyell’s contribution was an appeal to causes currently in operation that are known to produce the effect in question. That did not necessarily refer to gradual causes.

John Tillman
Reply to  anthropic
June 12, 2021 6:40 am

Lyell specifically mentions catastrophic events such as floods and earthquakes, which happened in the past as well as present.

James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 4:10 am

Scientists have found many frozen Woolly Mammoths in Siberia, so quickly frozen that the meat was still able to be eaten by the locals. Flowers were still in their mouths.

Temperature changed quickly and didn’t warm up.

Whether it was an impact or something else, it was sudden and for the animals, catastrophic.

James F. Evans
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 5:47 am

No, Mr. Middleton, you are wrong.

You are willing to ‘just make stuff up.’

B.S,ing hurts your credibility.

James F. Evans
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 6:28 am

I withdraw the comment, as argumentative and, indeed, there is dispute as to the speed of the freezing of Mammoths… an ill temperate comment. I am sorry, I apologize.

hiskorr
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 6:39 am

Flash-freezing is one explanation for undigested flora in their stomachs. Do you have another?

pochas94
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 10:28 am

The world’s most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,000 years ago, which was the start of the Younger Dryas. I have read about other species extinctions which happened because of the flooding at that time.
Were the mammoths simply one of the species caught in the floods?

John Tillman
Reply to  pochas94
June 12, 2021 11:30 am

The Holocene officially began after the YD, about 11,400 years ago. But there was another, comparable meltwater pulse-caused cold snap 8200 years ago, as deglaciation continued into the Holocene. The date of the epoch’s onset is debatable, but it really shouldn’t have its own epoch. It’s just another interglacial.

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 12:34 pm

John,
you should know better.

12K years ago happens to in the territory in between the start of the Interglacial and the Interglacial optimum.
The Interglacial itself had already started some 2.5-3K years earlier.

Ok, Holocene is simply in way utilised as a trick to divert attention from such as.
At the very least.

As a counter to the big problem with the degree of warming in uptrend, versus the degree of cooling in the downtrend.

There is some thing like
6-8C in the Interglacial uptrend (as per the molested paleoclimate data),
versus not even 1.5C in the downtrend, for almost the same length in time in both trends.

But hey what is 3K years in between pals… nothing, isn’t it!
Especially when needed to “justify” the big or huge deficit of cooling observed in the downtrend.

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
John Tillman
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 1:36 pm

According to the IUGS, the Holocene began 11,650 calendar years ago, after the end of the YD.

As you might recall, the IUGS rejiggered Holocene subdivisions in 2018, with the Greenlandian Stage from ~11,700 to 8200 years ago, ie from after the end of the YD to the 8.2 Ka cold snap, followed by the Holocene Climatic Optimum and Egyptian Warm Period of the Northgrippian (8.2 to 4.2 Ka). Since then, we’ve been in the Meghalayan.

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 1:56 pm

John, you understand that there is no way of some claptrap Holocene schist can be considered in consideration of any other previous Interglacials.

And still the starting point in time of the “mighty” silly Holocene does not correspond to the current Interglacial start.
Is this so difficult to address.

In this context, the current Interglacial can not be compared to any previous one, simply due to the claptrap pollution of the Holocene silliness.

There is no Holocene crap to consider in paleoclimate data previously to 12K years ago.
So no comparison of the current lnterglacial with previous ones, as this one “unprecedented”, due to the Holocene “pollution”… and well, also due to “unprecedented” YD too.

Even “intelligence design”, can not complete with this one.

cheers

John Tillman
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 2:09 pm

I agree that the Holocene shouldn’t get its own epoch, but that is what the IUGS has ruled, so we’re stuck with it.

It might prove a garden variety interglacial, or possibly a super interglacial, like MIS 11, whose Milankovitch cycles it resembles. In that case, natural warming might melt the GIS’ Southern Dome.

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 4:00 pm

John,

I expect you understand at least my main point as put forward in this conversation of ours,
either in the prospect of it being valid or not.
You or anyone else are not obliged to accept it.

It consist in highlighting a serious discrepancy which can not be seen or addressed fairly, unless the Holocene “blindfold’ is put down and rejected for at least a moment.

cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
June 12, 2021 4:05 pm

ok, it supposes to be “compete”, instead of “complete”…

and I can blame it on the smart
auto correct…
🙂

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
John Tillman
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 5:46 am

Mammoth mummies have been found dating from 10,000 to 42,000 or more years ago. If there is a frozen carcass from the YD, I don’t know of it.

I also know of no instance of flowers found in a mammoth mouth. Grass has however been observed.

Mammoths aren’t “flash frozen”. The mummies died by various means, then were preserved in environments where they couldn’t be eaten or rot. Their cold steppe tundra habitat included many such conditions.

People don’t eat frozen mammoth “meat”. It’s unpalatable. The Evenki reportedly have fed it to their dogs. Paleontologists have put bits of it in their mouths to show how tough they are, but I doubt they chew or swallow it.

Fantasy and facts about alleged mammoth meals:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/permafrozen-dinner/604069/

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 10:27 am

True. But a fairly well preserved old cow from about 10 Ka was found in AK.

Those in best condition have been babies or juveniles, perhaps more likely to be preserved.

James F. Evans
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 7:36 am

Mr. Tillman, I take your points, they are well taken. I stand corrected.

John Tillman
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 10:55 am

Thanks. Glad to be of some use.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 8:53 am

I think the idea of “flash frozen” might have come from that documentary “The Day After Tomorrow “?

(I don’t actually need to put the /sarc do I?)

Last edited 1 month ago by ThinkingScientist
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 12, 2021 10:02 am

You might have at least put single quotes around ‘documentary.’

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 12, 2021 2:10 pm

Crockumentary.

pochas94
June 12, 2021 4:40 am

They’re way out in left field on this. It’s all related to the meltwater surge at the end of the ice age. Warming, not cooling.

James F. Evans
Reply to  pochas94
June 12, 2021 4:46 am

Is that how those Woolly Mammoths got frozen?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 7:45 am

James,

That’s the way “climate change” works . . . a little something over here, something else entirely over there . . . the sky’s the limit. 🙂

pochas94
Reply to  James F. Evans
June 12, 2021 10:36 am

No the YD flooding caused their demise.

June 12, 2021 4:57 am
June 12, 2021 5:28 am

Sorry for OT but it seems to be of interest:

The Termination Event
Something big may be about to happen on the sun. “We call it the Termination Event,” says Scott McIntosh, a solar physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), “and it’s very, very close to happening.”

If you’ve never heard of the Termination Event, you’re not alone. Many researchers have never heard of it either. It’s a relatively new idea in solar physics championed by McIntosh and colleague Bob Leamon of the University of Maryland – Baltimore County. According to the two scientists, vast bands of magnetism are drifting across the surface of the sun. When oppositely-charged bands collide at the equator, they annihilate (or “terminate”). There’s no explosion; this is magnetism, not anti-matter. Nevertheless, the Termination Event is a big deal. It can kickstart the next solar cycle into a higher gear.



Mike Maguire
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 12, 2021 9:20 am

Thanks Krishna!

pochas94
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 12, 2021 10:13 am

Termination event. Does that mean we’re all gonna die?

Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 5:55 am

For the Younger Dryas Curious, here is a complete compellation of all the papers Pro and Con at Cosmic Tusk. https://cosmictusk.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-bibliography-and-paper-archive/

I’ll take Sweatman’s review of the Impact Data https://cosmictusk.com/earth-science-reviews-younger-dryas-martin-sweatman/

Walter Horsting
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 6:27 am

The Hiawatha Crater has yet to have been cored….The YDIH doesn’t rest on this large impact. 10 Million tones of microspheres on four continents are proof.

https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-of-Cosmic-Impact-at-Abu-Hureyra-Syria-at-the-Younger-Dryas-Onset-12.8-ka-High-temperature-melting-at-2200-%C2%B0C.pdf

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 9:27 am

Walter, you seem to have a comprehension problem.

1. How can an impact with a youngest dating of 2.4 Ma be the cause of the Younger Dryas event which is (very reliably) dated at 12.7 ka? Was time travel involved?

Some further general comments:

2. How the fock did this get past peer review? Is it some sort of vanity publishing site where you review your own paper and then pay to have it published? Seems to be the only way it could happen.

3. How thick is the author to actually put their name to such an obviously self-contradictary argument?

As David M says, it’s a self-inflicted fatal flaw in the paper. Shot in both feet at close range.

Last edited 1 month ago by ThinkingScientist
Walter Horsting
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 12, 2021 10:06 am

Disagree Thinking Scientist,

  1. The crater in question can be as young as the YDI or older. It hasn’t been cored.
  2. Peer review really works with the Climate Alarmism group doesn’t it? Only 70-years ago Plate Techonics was a theory as was the Dinosaur Impact in the 1980s, or Covid-19 being manmade in 2020.
  3. https://cosmictusk.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-bibliography-and-paper-archive/ allows one to see all the papers pro and con…
  4. Middelton isn’t convincing me to date.
ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 10:20 am

Sweatman publishes and suggests that an impact currently dated at 2.4 Ma caused the YD at 12.7 ka.

How about Sweatman either (a) offers some evidence the dating is wrong or (b) publishes only when such evidence is available.

Note David M doesn’t reject the impact hypothesis for YD (read his post at the end). He just says it’s interesting but unsubstantiated. I agree.

Meanwhile, looking on the bright side at least it gave me a laugh today after having surgery this morning under general anaesthetic.

John Tillman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 12, 2021 10:32 am

Every claim upon which the hypothesis is based has been shown false.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 11:42 am

Another article by the fraud Allen West.

To get supposed impact debris in Syria from an alleged hit on the Laurentide Ice Sheet, the authors have to assume that the putative comet broke up and created air bursts en route to Canada.

The ostensible ET material is man-made:

Anthropogenic origin of siliceous scoria droplets from Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sites in northern Syria
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440314004403?via%3Dihub

John Tillman
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 10:31 am

The Hiawatha feature contains charcoal from trees which lived in the high Arctic during the Pliocene or earliest Pleistocene. It cannot be younger than 2.4 Ma.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 10:50 am

Even though no ejecta or impactites grains were found, the possibility of a Younger Dryas age of the Hiawatha impact crater remains open.

https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Impactites-from-the-Hiawatha-Crater-2020_Jacob-Gustafsson_msc-geology_60hp.pdf

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 10:58 am

Doesn’t answer my point about Sweatman. I could make any number of unsubstantiated evidence free observations about the YD, referencing totally unrelated events.

Without evidence, not a scientific paper or claim. How on earth did it get published?

Best wishes,

TS

John Tillman
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 11:43 am

It’s not even clear that the feature is a crater at all.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 23, 2021 5:18 pm

Gee if that is true, Sweatman has nothing since as YOU say, it hasn’t been “cored”

John Tillman
Reply to  Walter Horsting
June 12, 2021 10:44 am

The supposed ten million tons of microspherules on four continents has been falsified, in both senses of the term:

https://psmag.com/environment/comet-claim-comes-crashing-to-earth-31180

Firestone’s coauthor is a convicted fraudster without any scientific training, who changed his name after his conviction.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 12:10 pm

Wow!

John Tillman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 12, 2021 1:39 pm

The repeatedly falsified hypothesis keeps lurching along, zombie-like, because it’s a cash cow for its proponents.

Peter Morris
June 12, 2021 6:03 am

Wow. I’ve heard of being off, and missing it by “that much,” but that’s like planning a trip to Hawaii and then somehow winding up in orbit around Mars.

June 12, 2021 7:07 am

The Greenland crater(s) don’t show up in the Greenland ice bores so……duh…..the craters are older? Experiments have been done on impacts of ballistic objects on a ice pack. A small steel ball shot at an angle at high speed in a lab…..a warning siren was sounded before firing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anti_griff
Charles Higley
June 12, 2021 8:42 am

The best model I have seen is an impact on the main N. America ice sheet that threw huge chunks of ice in probably all directions. Interestingly, there are a number of lakes south of the former ice sheet that appear as oblong gouges with central axes pointing north to one place on the ice sheet.

Also interestingly, many think that we were coming out of a glacial period and then something threw Earth back into it for the Younger Dryas. It is hard to imagine an impact not adding a lot of energy to the Earth. Why would it go cold again?

However, an ice sheet impact near the end of the glacial period could easily throw Earth into a warm spell, with lots of energy and warm water, and then it returned to glacial conditions, the Younger Dryas, until it went interglacial naturally. This makes much more sense.

Reply to  Charles Higley
June 12, 2021 9:01 am

It is interesting how some people claim man exterminated the Mega-fauna in N. America….the same man who came over from Asia where there were – Mega-fauna. The Mega-fauna also apparently migrated over the land bridge or ice bridge to some extent. For some reason, man apparently tolerated Mega-fauna in Asia, but not N. America?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 12, 2021 9:33 am

It was because the gun laws were much less strict in N America!

pochas94
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 12, 2021 10:41 am

Maybe. But the flooding from the warmup after the last age caused many species to perish. And, I imagine, the land bridge to disappear, but the humans survived.

John Tillman
Reply to  pochas94
June 12, 2021 11:55 am

Correct that humans survived, but flooding alone couldn’t wipe out so many large animals. They had survived other, even warmer and longer interglacials, with higher sea levels.

John Tillman
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 12, 2021 10:47 am

Humans wiped out the Eurasian and Australian megafauna before the Americas. More African megafauna survived because they were used to humans. Naive large animals on the continents to which people spread out of Africa were easy to hunt.

Mike Maguire
June 12, 2021 11:12 am

Using climate crisis alarmism/exaggeration tactics, can we speed up the Asteroid Impact Avoidance programs?
Instead of using flourishing polar bears as the global warming mascot………use the moon as the Asteroid Impact mascot.
All those impact craters. Many like that are on our own planet!
Tell people that there are thousands of large asteroids out there and that history assures us that some of them will hit the earth eventually.

Wait……………that would be the entire truth and how would it be used similar to how twisting the beneficial gas, CO2 into pollution is done for political and financial gain?

Dang, I guess that’s why we don’t hear much about it (-:

Funny though.

One realm features a climate optimum on a greening planet with the best weather/climate for life in at least 1,000 years……which is massively contributing to the quality of lives and helping to support the nearly 8 billion people.
The other one features the potential extinguishing of billions of humans in a very brief period.

Guess which one most people are afraid of?

Asteroid impact avoidancehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance

AndyHce
June 12, 2021 11:26 am

“the actual lines evidence”
David, what does that mean?

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 1:43 pm

Not persuasive evidence, to put it mildly. Here’s a much more likely ET Pt source scenario than the highly improbable YDIH:

Greenland Pt anomaly may point to noncataclysmic Cape York meteorite entry

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/52/E5035

The Pt signal in Greenland also isn’t asssociated with any of the other markers touted by YDIH backers.

Besides which, there’s the German volcanic eruption I cite above. Pt in any case doesn’t need to come from space.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 1:51 pm

IMO you’re being generous.

The end Cretaceous impact has everything going for it. The YDIH, not so much, as in nothing at all that withstands scrutiny.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 2:14 pm

Yes, as per the Cape York meteorite. But how significant is significant?

The odds of a four-km bolide are vanishingly small.

John Doran
June 12, 2021 1:52 pm

May I suggest reading GRAHAM HANCOCK’S 2019 book America Before.
Working with the COMET RESEARCH GROUP, a group of 60 ish scientists,
he posits ‘the impact’ as a 21 year series of impacts.
Most interesting.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Doran
June 12, 2021 2:01 pm

The Comet Research Group is headed by a convicted fraudster, who changed his name to Allen West. Their story keeps changing as every one of their new claims is shot down by real scientists.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 3:03 pm

Yes, it does, but only those who have built their careers on publishing papers on this nonsense.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 7:00 pm

Yet YDIH advocates continue touting the Carolina Bays, despite their having been conclusively shown too old for the YD and not having been made by slush balls.

Reply to  John Tillman
June 12, 2021 9:01 pm

Crawl back in your cave troll. Allen West is a wonderful human and even better scientist. He is a polymath genius who, along with many others, has opened a path of truly productive research to inform humanity of its past — and future. Here is a post of mine on the affair you misrepresent, which clearly and eerily resembles the attacks and set-ups perpetrated on AGW skeptics. Maybe that’s your kind of thing? Send me an email John Tillman and we can begin a correspondence about my involvement in Allen West’s fraud. I’m george@restorationsystems.com. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S7JA86EAAAAJ&hl=en. Who r u?

John Tillman
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 6:59 pm

I have not felt the need to change my name after having been convicted of fraud.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Geomythologists galore!

Why not? It sells books to the gullible, who abound.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 12, 2021 2:28 pm

Rated up for your implied mocking, not to validate such errant, evidence-free, shameless drivel.

The N@zis were big proponents of ancient advanced civilizations. Not guilt by association, but showing that birds of an ideological, evidence-free feather flock together.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Sheepfart
June 12, 2021 3:36 pm

Everyone loves a good apocalypse. I’ve even read a YD impact theory that has the comet going at a shallow angle and removing a chunk of atmosphere causing catastrophic cooling and flash freezing. I’ve not read enough about the geology of this time to be know if it is even reasonable, but it was an enjoyable theory.

John Tillman
Reply to  Sheepfart
June 12, 2021 4:34 pm

It’s complete fantasy.

Doug Proctor
June 12, 2021 5:38 pm

I live in Calgary Alberta Canada. The new 12,500 year time is also when the big glacial lakes catastrophically emptied (probably a domino effect) all down the province, into the States and west to the Pacific Ocean. It was a time of great upheaval in many directions.

The megafauna die off is mathematically consistent with over hunting by a rapidly growing population who had just come over from Asia. There was also the extinction of the Dorset people in the Arctic without apparent catastrophe. The Neanderthals might have been pushed into Extinction by a mega volcano, but the numbers ofDorset people was very low, likewise the Neanderthal. The Clovis people were clearly not super abundant as well.

We like to resolve big questions simply, with one answer, but there are a lot of small even of ts that can do it. On Banks Island several years ago, 40,000 caribou disappeared over a year. Possibly because big game hunters killed the alpha leaders. A wasting disease is wiping out western deer.

95% of Indigenous people were killed by European diseases in a couple of years.

Perhaps the introduction of Asia people or animals killed the megafauna. Dunno.

Lots of ways.

John Tillman
Reply to  Doug Proctor
June 12, 2021 6:04 pm

Please don’t confuse religious True Beleivers with facts.

Thanks!

Grumpy Bill
Reply to  Doug Proctor
June 13, 2021 11:37 am

I’ve often wondered why disease is seldom considered as a cause for mass extinctions.

Grumpy Bill
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 2:56 pm

I shouldn’t have used the word “mass”. Lupus induced brain fog, I guess.
But…all I ever see in print is how a few thousand humans managed to hunt entire North American species to extinction just after the glaciers receded. It’s just as likely a pathogen did the deed (maybe still the result of human migration), but this is seldom mentioned in the popular press…unless it’s humans spreading disease to other humans.

Disease is also a likely reason for the demise of some ancient civilizations.

Last edited 1 month ago by Grumpy Bill
John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 6:57 pm

Humans were the difference between the Eemian and Holocene. The previous interglacial was warmer and longer than the Holocene to date, yet the same megafauna species survived it no problem, while the largest went extinct once people were added to the stressors.

IMO the island and island continent extinctions are dispositive.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 7:49 pm

My sympathies.

I hope she’s taking hydroxychloroquine, which should protect her from COVID as well as relieve her lupus.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 14, 2021 2:55 pm

I think not!

shortie of greenbank
Reply to  David Middleton
June 16, 2021 5:00 pm

Not heard of any studies showing different rates of protection from infection for HCQ (ivermectin is another story for seeing studies as a preventative). Seen some weak epidemiology studies done on arthritis sufferers using various medicines, the ones taking HCQ had 27% lower incidence of mortality with wu-flu but no statistical difference in infection rates.

Auto-immune diseases like Lupus etc are terrible, I don’t know if these conditions (my wife has hashimoto’s disease) would of themselves contribute to an associative increase in incidence of negative cases or not. For my wife it will probably be her continued bread/cerealovore existence combined with high blood pressure (for which she medicates and tries to cut salt out as if that actually works) and a genetic heart condition.

June 12, 2021 8:41 pm

David Middleton is a anti-science virus who has long infected this true science blog. I am personally sick of it. His jihad against the YDI is impervious to informed argument, much like AGW hysterics. It is a cruel and long standing irony that some the most ill-informed, intellectually biased and unfair commentary on this well-published but radical idea is priority “guest posted” by Middleton on a blog that is generally a beacon of intelligent debate.

(BTW, who the heck is David Middleton? Is it a pseudonym? I have tried to look him up or find some bio on here, but no luck. Let me know if I have missed something. BTW I use my real name George A. Howard and am very easy to find lol)

The cruelest irony here is that the Comet Research Group — of which I am director — are old school researchers COMPLETELY uninfluenced by politics (myself excepted) — just the kind of scientists that deserve a break on WUWT. But no, some arrogant and uninformed yahoo slaps us at every turn on WUWT. But here is the more cruel irony, the YDI evidence is also — and most intensely — opposed by the AGW clique and lobby. The antagonists of this blog take comfort in the work of Mr. David Middleton. The idea of a climate crashing cosmic catastrophe 12,800 years ago does great damage to their “abrupt climate change” narrative. Take the internally forced “climate snap” scare argument out of the mix, and they ain’t got nearly as much to scare with. At best David Middleton is a useful idiot to the climate lobby. At worst he is a fellow traveler.

Martin Sweatman’s paper, btw, is brilliant. It is precisely the kind of brave independent review of competing “facts” the world needs. He could be wrong, I suppose, but we will never see a published coherent counter argument from David Middleton. His communications only come via thinly researched drive-by attacks on WUWT. Here is my post the Cosmic Tusk concerning Sweatman.

Anthony, you have been kind to host a link to my blog concerning the Younger Dryas Impact Event for many years now on your Blog Roll. However — solely in protest for the endless jihad of this rube — I respectfully request that you remove the link to the Cosmic Tusk. David Middleton is an embarrassment to science and your work.

Reply to  George A. Howard
June 12, 2021 9:43 pm

My apologies, I have found David Middleton now. Glad he is a real person. I look forward to engaging directly with him. David, my phone number is 919-334-9105. https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/about/

Reply to  George A. Howard
June 12, 2021 9:46 pm

I think it would be helpful to science to put you directly in touch with the “fraudster,” Allen West. I will do what I can to facilitate.

John Tillman
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 6:34 am

Do you deny that Allen West is Allen Whitt, fined by CA after conviction of impersonating a state-licensed geologist in order to defraud towns of fees for water studies?

And that after completing probation in 2003, he changed his name and hatched the YD impact fantasy?

If he’s a scientist, in what and from where are his degrees, and what research has he conducted other than spewing the YD impact garbage?

Why hasn’t he sued the reporter who revealed his identity and criminal record, who also suggested that he planted spherules? Nor those who’ve repeated the allegations?

https://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/climate/clovis-comet-fraud-2011.html

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 7:43 am

West’s affiliation is with something called GeoScience Consulting in Dewey, AZ. The only references to it I can find on line are in his YDIH papers.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
June 13, 2021 8:08 am

The author of the story, Rex Dalton, was Nature’s West Coast correspondent. He’s a reputable reporter. The fine was real.

As for scientists supporting the YDIH, Michael Mann is a member of the NAS.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 13, 2021 8:45 am

The name change also checks out:

https://www.anywho.com/people/allen+west/dewey+az/

Hit “View Profile”. Jon Allen West changes to Allen J Whitt.

The reporter was right.

Dewey is in Yavapai County, the seat of which is Prescott.

Reply to  George A. Howard
June 12, 2021 10:10 pm

And David when you call me at 919-334-9105 we can discuss fracking. You and I agree entirely on this. Just another reason your jihad against the YDI disgusts me. Here I am fighting the good fight. https://bluenc.com/content/mccrorys-denr-pick-conflicted-they-come

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 1:41 am

George, you are way out of line here regarding David Middleton. Step back, take a deep breath and maybe retract your comments and apologise. DM is a professional geologist who likes to mix humour in his posts.

Play the ball, not the man. Don’t like his arguments? Give counter arguments. It’s not personal, it’s science.

And why would you want to take it off line in a phone call? That’s quite….weird. Also posting your phone number is a pretty crazy thing to do on a high traffic web site like this. Still, it’s your phone number so you can do what you like with it.

Additionally, as far as I can see from the thread, it was John Tillman who said Allen West is a convicted fraudster, not DM who said it:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/12/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis-takes-another-self-inflicted-gunshot-wound/#comment-3267849

That’s why I commented “Wow” to John’s post. It’s also why should take up that point with John Tillman, not DM, and apologise to DM for suggesting he originated the comment.

While we’re at it, can you confirm if John’s post about about Allen West being a convicted fraudster and changed his name is true please? You seem to know him personally.

Last edited 1 month ago by ThinkingScientist
John Tillman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 13, 2021 6:45 am

The original 2007 paper lists Allen West’s affiliation as GeoScience Consulting, Dewey, AZ.

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.short

The only references I can find to this supposed company are in his subsequent YDIH papers. Fishy.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 13, 2021 8:48 am

Please see my replies to David above.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  John Tillman
June 14, 2021 3:36 am

Thx, very interesting. The “company” has no footprint on the the web at all

John Tillman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 15, 2021 1:11 pm

In 2018 (above), he said he was retired. In 2020, he used what appears to be his home address as his affiliation:

Comet Research Group, 2204 Lakewood Drive, Prescott, AZ, 86301, USA
Allen West

John Tillman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 15, 2021 1:06 pm

Here, “West”, using his alias, bills himself as “a retired geophysicist who owned GeoScience Consulting in Dewey, Ariz.” He was convicted of fraud and misrepresentation of credentials in CA. He later convinced a judge to void the old plea, after his colleagues found out. The Cosmic Tusk site admits he was fined.

According to Nature‘s correspondent, as noted, West (originally Allen Whitt until he legally changed his name in 2006) has no formal academic affiliation and a degree from a Bible college which he wouldn’t name. The next year he somehow convinced his cedentialed co-authors that he was onto something, with magnetic spherules, since claim repeatedly discredited, same as every other line of putative “evidence”:

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/ancient-cold-snap-causes-heated-debate

Real geologists interviewed rightly point out that there is no valid evidence of a YD impact. The only mystery surrounding the YD before 2010 was how the meltwater from Lake Aggasiz drained. Now geologists know that it was via the Mackenzie River into the Arctic Ocean, not down the St. Lawrence into the Atlantic.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 15, 2021 1:29 pm

One of the numerous papers calling BS on the “hypothesis”:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155470

Each new attempt to support the YDIH draws yet more responses showing them false.

John Tillman
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 9:52 am

David has provided numerous cogent explanations showing pro-YGIH papers false.

The cause of the YD has long been, ie the drainage of giant proglacial Lake Agassiz. As dating of both events has improved, the correlation has been confirmed as causation. The only issue was in which direction the lake drained. It was known not down the Mississippi. There was not conclusive evidence for the St. Lawrence. But since 2010, evidence has accumulated confirming the Mackenzie River as the outflow course.

A few papers on the topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42833941_Identification_of_Younger_Dryas_outburst_flood_path_from_Lake_Agassiz_to_the_Arctic_Ocean

https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2014/12/17/new-evidence-massive-flood-mackenzie-river-13000-years-ago/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0169-6

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379117310636

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339518933_Sea_level_fingerprinting_of_the_Bering_Strait_flooding_history_detects_the_source_of_the_Younger_Dryas_climate_event

The evidence is overwhelming.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  George A. Howard
June 13, 2021 8:33 pm

It’s so far from brilliant, that he doesn’t even understand what uniformitarianism means. Fundamentally flawed at the freshman in college level.

GUILLERMO SUAREZ
June 12, 2021 9:06 pm

Could it be African humans disliked the taste of Pachyderm dermis , thus the African Pachyderms had no need to fear humans ,therefore , lived as one big happy family for eons in the dark continent . Thus , the African megafauna which immigrated to the America’s had no fear of humans , grew lax, and let their hair grow long , and sang kumbaya while being slaughtered by the newly arrived Asians . Plausible ? Perhaps the whole shebang is best explained by a recurrent micro nova of our sun, in the face of a cyclical weakening of Earth’s magnetic field every 12,000 years or so .It is becoming more evident with every passing day that we puny humans live on a spec of dust which is connected ( not isolated) to the Universe . Thus , what happens “out there ” , has an effect on us here, sometimes catastrophically . Yep, just turn the CO2 control knob to the appropriate setting , and everything will be a o kay. “There is no pace like home, there’s no place like home”.

Reply to  GUILLERMO SUAREZ
June 12, 2021 9:43 pm

Deleted mispost.

Last edited 1 month ago by George A. Howard
Al in Cranbrook
June 12, 2021 10:25 pm

Just finishing up third read of “The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes” by Firestone et al. Awesome read, would recommend some here give it a go. Too many critical details to get into, and I’m not one to cherry pick, if you get my drift. Thoroughly documented research by accredited scientists who have dared to venture where the hard evidence leads.

Was there an “Event” circa 10,500 BC? Absolutely! One recounted in the mythologies of hundreds of cultures worldwide. The similarities, allegorical or otherwise, are far beyond chance. Common theme: Devastation to each of their familiar worlds.

Clovis first? Nonsense! Via Beringa? More nonsense. Overhunted 35 species of megafauna into extinction? All at the same time? Seriously??? What utter rot! Forget that the Solutreans of Europe crafted spear and arrow heads virtually identical to the Clovis culture, while no such matching evidence of craft can be found in eastern Asia from where they are supposed to have arrived.

People ask me why I don’t believe in religion? Answer: I’ve read too much.

That’s become my same response regarding conventional science.

This planet is awash with stuff science can’t explain, or more to the point, don’t want to even try to explain…or even be bothered. Stuff that simply does not fit within the operating narrative…so it’s ignored, marginalized, or merely declared impossible. And those who persist in defying the narrative are too often literally persecuted, careers crushed. Modern science has little over the Church of Rome who blessed western civilization with the Dark Age, enforced ignorance, fanaticism, and the inquisitions.

Our education system is a pathetic joke, and our universities primary task now is to indoctrinate a generation with their ideological Marxist crap. And the oligarchs of Big Tech get to decide who has the right…more specifically, who doesn’t…to say or do anything about it.

The world we live in, eh? We’ve progressed so much.

Al in Cranbrook
Reply to  Al in Cranbrook
June 12, 2021 10:36 pm

I should add…

As Freeman Dyson put it so perfectly: The world needs more heretics.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Al in Cranbrook
June 13, 2021 2:33 am

I lost interest in Erich von Daniken after my childhood when I entered my teens.

This sounds like the same, except aliens (popular in the 1960s) are swapped out for some cataclysm.

Vincent Causey
June 13, 2021 12:22 am

Given that such climate changing impacts happen many millions of years apart, what’s the chance of it happening just at that time? Unlikely.

John Tillman
Reply to  Vincent Causey
June 13, 2021 6:13 am

Over 1000 to one.

June 13, 2021 2:52 pm

Well spotted Brian and Dave.
As I have several times commented, the YD isn’t really a thing. It’s just the gap between the Bolling Allerod warming peak which is just one of about 20 sharp warming-then-cooling excursions which have a name – the DO events (Dansgaard-Oersger).

So a bolide is the only way abrupt cooling can happen? Then please provide us the evidence for the bolides responsible for the termination of the other 19 DO events during the last glacial interval.

The sharp DO excursion peaks are best understood as flicker of a system feeling the pull of an approaching new attractor.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/flicker-an-explanation-for-the-d-o-events-rapid-climate-fluctuations-of-the-last-glacial-period/

John Tillman
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
June 13, 2021 3:00 pm

Also the rapid cooling Heinrich Events caused by armadas of icebergs in the North Atlantic during glacial intervals. The effect of all that cold fresh water on oceanic circulation is the same as the meltwater pulses such as those which caused the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryases and the 8.2 Ka Event. The YD did indeed end Bolling-Allerod warmth.

%d bloggers like this: