More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Minimalist » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:57 am

Okay - in Quebec this time - but does the location really matter?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130902162707.htm

Sep. 2, 2013 — For the first time, a dramatic climate shift that has long fascinated scientists has been linked to the impact in Quebec of an asteroid or comet, Dartmouth researchers and their colleagues report in a new study funded by the National Science Foundation.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15435
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby E.P. Grondine » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:26 pm

Hi min -

Please get this straight:
The Holocene Start Impact Event is dated to ca 10,850 BCE.
That roughly corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
The Younger Dryas began about 1,000 years later.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Minimalist » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:43 pm

E.P. the only person I ever see talking about the "Holocene Start Impact" is you.

I'd say you have a lot more people to convince before you get around to me.

Why don't you go look for evidence in the OT?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15435
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:37 pm

Hi min -

Actually, the dating is well known to everyone who works with the well dated phytolith sequences for North America and Europe.

I will try to explain the two biggest mistakes I made in my impact research to you next week,
and how one of them led to this confusion.

In the meantime, my sincere apologies to everyone.

When you're doing pioneering work at the edge of time, you make mistakes.
Its what you do next that really counts.

Generally, I point out my mistakes and detail how I made them, in hope that the explanations serve as warnings to others of things to watch out for.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Minimalist » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:16 pm

Fair enough.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15435
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Tiompan » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:54 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi min -

Please get this straight:
The Holocene Start Impact Event is dated to ca 10,850 BCE.
That roughly corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
The Younger Dryas began about 1,000 years later.


The YD is usually dated about 10,800-9500 BC

George
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Cognito » Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:20 pm

The YD is usually dated about 10,800-9500 BC

These Danish guys dated the termination of the YD at 9703BC: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2150968/posts
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby E.P. Grondine » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:08 pm

Hi all -

If you look at "normal" glacial cycles, the most recent one ended too early.

What the phytoliths here in Ohio show is that:
The melt of the ice cap begins ca. 10,850 BCE. That corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
It continues for roughly 1,000 years, then the drainage of glacial ice water begins.
That corresponds to the Younger Dryas in Europe.
That drainage continues until ca 8,350 BCE.

That date is also roughly the time of the Atlantic crossing of the "Canadian Maritime Archaic" people from Europe.

That is the best that I can make out now.
However, I have been wrong before, and retain the right to be wrong both now and in the future.

Hopefuly, I will be able to set down a full discussion of major errors I have made in my work next week.
In the meantime, may I suggest checking your own work, and any data you may have used?
As you do so, remember that 14C dates for this period have been all over the place,
largely due to 14C production variations due to impact.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Tiompan » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:13 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:The melt of the ice cap begins ca. 10,850 BCE. That corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
It continues for roughly 1,000 years, then the drainage of glacial ice water begins.
That corresponds to the Younger Dryas in Europe.

Which is quite different from your earlier commnet

" earlier you had said "Please get this straight:
The Holocene Start Impact Event is dated to ca 10,850 BCE.
That roughly corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
The Younger Dryas began about 1,000 years later."

Does this mean that you now accept that the YD did not begin approx 9,850 BC but a millenia earlier ?

George
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby uniface » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:10 am

Looks like the same statement expressed two different ways, from here. Same information content.
uniface
 

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Tiompan » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:12 am

uniface wrote:Looks like the same statement expressed two different ways, from here. Same information content.


They are quite different . The first statement:
"The Holocene Start Impact Event is dated to ca 10,850 BCE.
That roughly corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
The Younger Dryas began about 1,000 years later."
Suggests the YD began c. 9,850 BC .Which is wrong .

The 2nd "The melt of the ice cap begins ca. 10,850 BCE. That corresponds to the Allerod in Europe.
It continues for roughly 1,000 years, then the drainage of glacial ice water begins.
That corresponds to the Younger Dryas in Europe.
Suggests that the YD corresponds to Allerod in Europe which began c. 10,850 BC and continued for 1000 years i.e. c.9,850 BC
which is clearly different .

George
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby E.P. Grondine » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:36 am

Hi George - I doubt if I can make it more clear to you.

When I first looked at this impact, the extinction of the mammoth and mastodon had dates from 6,000 BCE to as many other earlier dates as you can imagine. The problem was 14C produced in the impact event itself.

The variations in these 14C dates is what led Firestone to work on the problem.
At the time he suspected nearby supernova, with no impact mentioned.

At that time, I had a relatively secure local date for Remington, Virginia, and a regional cultural discontinuity, which I mistook for a continental one, largely due to the widely varifying dates.

In my defense, I can blame all of my mistakes in my work on archaeologists,
as I am not one, but use their work.

I did not consider plague in extinction events, other than those connected with impact and climate failure.
That was my mistake, and I own it. So I published 8,350 BCE in the Cambridge Conference.

As that date coincides with the Younger Dryas, I may be responsible for the entire Younger Dryas mess; but then again, likely not, as there were paleoclimate debates going on which ignored data.

And there still are.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Tiompan » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:04 am

E.P. Grondine wrote:Hi George - I doubt if I can make it more clear to you.



Hi EP ,it was perfectly clear , I highlighted the problem .

[/quote]
In my defense, I can blame all of my mistakes in my work on archaeologists,
as I am not one, but use their work. [/quote]

Archaeologists are not responsible for dating the YD .

[/quote]
I did not consider plague in extinction events, other than those connected with impact and climate failure.
That was my mistake, and I own it. So I published 8,350 BCE in the Cambridge Conference.As that date coincides with the Younger Dryas, [/quote]

That date doesn't coincide with the YD .

George
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby Cognito » Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:40 am

I did not consider plague in extinction events, other than those connected with impact and climate failure.
That was my mistake, and I own it. So I published 8,350 BCE in the Cambridge Conference.

What plague do you suppose impacted North America circa 8,350BCE? Many of the latter-day killers required people living in close proximity along with cattle, or the introduction of rodents. Plagues are difficult to transmit along the northern sea routes due to average cold temperatures.

With the above stated, I believe there is a possibility that the Norse Western Settlement in Greenland helped introduce smallpox into Labrador when they abandoned their homes circa 1342 (per Ivar Bardarsson, Bergen officialis). Smallpox had been rare in Europe for many years until 1340 when it was introduced/re-introduced by invading Mongols. A Danish ship then brought smallpox to Iceland in 1341 with the result that the entire island's 70,000 population took ill with about one-third dying.

Epidemics returned to Iceland again in 1257 and 1291 with similar outcomes, resulting in a disastrous population and economic decline. By the late 1200s the Dorset culture in Labrador had totally disappeared after thousands of years. The timing is highly suspicious given that a few hundred Norse vacated Greenland and apparently headed west across the Davis Strait without bothering to say "Good-bye" to the Eastern Settlement.

< Yes, I'm now completely off topic >
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: More Support for Younger Dryas Impact

Postby E.P. Grondine » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:19 am

Hi George -

8,350 BCE is a rough date for the end of the YD drainage.

Temperatures begin to warm in eastern North America.

You are right about the archaeologists and the lack of phytolith studies and exact tree ring dating.

In their defense, I need to point out that they usually have very limited resources and generally do what they can do.

Of course, their training generally knocks out their intelligence, and here in the US the field is very poorly developed.
The really good ones recover from their "training", but it is a very tough way to earn a living.
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.
User avatar
E.P. Grondine
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:36 am

Next

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron