New studies adds support for Younger Dryas impact event

a reply to: peter vlar

PeterV,
I understand yours and Byrd's concerns about the the extinctions, but again I believe most people, both pro and con tend to look at it in terms of absolutes.
The early hyperbole from both camps has tainted the way in which subject is viewed, by both researchers and the casually interested.

Well then,
I posted another reply, and it is gone

so anyhoo,

From Wolbachs's biomass burning paper,

Firestorms from Encounters with Comet Swarms.

Although the blast damage from the Tunguska impact covered 2000 km2, the area of forest that was ignited was only a tenth of that (Florenskiy 1965). Conditions in the Siberian taiga of the twentieth century may not, however, extrapolate reliably to Earth’s Northern Hemisphere ∼12,800 y ago. The radiant energy of a megaton-class nuclear explosion unfolds over a few seconds, comparable to that from a Tunguska-type event, and the effects of an airburst are probably similar for both types of energy release. Therefore, we may use studies of wildfires following a nuclear war (e.g., Crutzen et al. 1984; National Research Council 1985; Mills et al. 2014) as rough guides to the consequences of multiple impacts. Crut-zen et al. (1984) quote minimum forest fire areas of 500, 1000, and 2100 km2 following 1-, 3-, and 10- megaton explosions, respectively, while the maximum spread areas quoted by Hill (1961) are about a factor of 10 higher.

The ignition threshold for wood is about 4 # 108 ergs/cm2, applied for 1–20 s. If the burn area required to produce the increase in soot and char- coal measured at the YDB is 107 km2 (eq. [3] in Wolbach et al. 2018), then an energy input of ∼4 # 1025 ergs is required, that is, about 103 megatons. Assuming that three-quarters of the external input does not directly affect flammable areas of Earth, then approximately four times this energy is re- quired to produce wildfires, possibly reduced by a factor of a few times (Hill 1961). This equals the kinetic energy of 1013 g of material entering the Earth’s atmosphere at the entry speed of Taurid material (30 km/s).

The best explanation for the available evidence is that Earth collided with a fragmented comet. If so, aerial detonations or ground impacts by numerous relatively small cometary fragments, widely dispersed across several continents, most likely ignited the widespread biomass burning observed at the YD onset.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Well then,
I posted another reply, and it is gone

so anyhoo,

From Wolbachs's biomass burning paper,

Firestorms from Encounters with Comet Swarms.

Although the blast damage from the Tunguska impact covered 2000 km2, the area of forest that was ignited was only a tenth of that (Florenskiy 1965). Conditions in the Siberian taiga of the twentieth century may not, however, extrapolate reliably to Earth’s Northern Hemisphere ∼12,800 y ago.

I'm not seeing where they'd get fires. The supposed comet supposedly hit on the Canadian ice shield (thick glaciers.)

Glaciers don't burn.

a reply to: Byrd

different impact from the fragmented comet (comets?) as far as i understand the paper

a reply to: punkinworks10

Early studies were met with derision and outright academic hostility.

You dont say. I guess the academia wasnt going by science that time. Shocking I know.

Fringe conspiracy theorists/forbidden archeology buffs have know this for a long time.

Good morning science. Welcome to the discussion.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: punkinworks10

Early studies were met with derision and outright academic hostility.

You dont say. I guess the academia wasnt going by science that time. Shocking I know.

Fringe conspiracy theorists/forbidden archeology buffs have know this for a long time.

Good morning science. Welcome to the discussion.

To be fair and honest, while “Academia” Dan be a little slow to embrace and accept new models, if the data is there the truth prevails in the end. When I was in school 20 odd years ago for example, Clovis First was the only model for the entry of HSS into the Americas and you were a nutter for bringing up possible evidence of pleistocene admixture events.

Today it’s eell documented that HSS were in the America’s prior to the advent of Clovis Culture and genetic models show that we definitely got our freak on with anything remotely human looking that we came in contact with as we spread out across the globe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Just because people in these fields need to make sure all of the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed before accepting the inevitable doesn’t mean that science is flawed or that the scientific method limits our scope of inquiry.

This was a bit easier to digest back when I was studying Anthropology and it seems that since the internet became our instant gratification portal that today, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks Graham Hancock is the bees knees because he makes a semi eloquent proposition seem not just plausible but likely to people without a formal background in science.

Unfortunately, to people who have actually studied it or have the desire to compare what Hancock and other proponents of woo to the scientific literature, journals and peer reviewed data, Hancock is just another Carnival barker looking to make a few bucks.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: punkinworks10

Early studies were met with derision and outright academic hostility.

You dont say. I guess the academia wasnt going by science that time. Shocking I know.

Fringe conspiracy theorists/forbidden archeology buffs have know this for a long time.

Good morning science. Welcome to the discussion.

To be fair and honest, while “Academia” Dan be a little slow to embrace and accept new models, if the data is there the truth prevails in the end. When I was in school 20 odd years ago for example, Clovis First was the only model for the entry of HSS into the Americas and you were a nutter for bringing up possible evidence of pleistocene admixture events.

Today it’s eell documented that HSS were in the America’s prior to the advent of Clovis Culture and genetic models show that we definitely got our freak on with anything remotely human looking that we came in contact with as we spread out across the globe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Just because people in these fields need to make sure all of the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed before accepting the inevitable doesn’t mean that science is flawed or that the scientific method limits our scope of inquiry.

This was a bit easier to digest back when I was studying Anthropology and it seems that since the internet became our instant gratification portal that today, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks Graham Hancock is the bees knees because he makes a semi eloquent proposition seem not just plausible but likely to people without a formal background in science.

Unfortunately, to people who have actually studied it or have the desire to compare what Hancock and other proponents of woo to the scientific literature, journals and peer reviewed data, Hancock is just another Carnival barker looking to make a few bucks.

What happened was that a couple of astronomers had a cool model and they thought they could explain the ice age ending by planetary impact. The thing is, they did not consult the people who actually knew about the Ice Age extinction - paleontologists and archaeologists.

This is a mistake I've seen academics make before with liminal research... they assume their disciplines will give he answer and don't consult the other applicable disciplines.

a reply to: Byrd

I agree wholeheartedly that a multidisciplinary approach is the most ideal approach for a variety of studies. Unfortunately, lay people, particularly those enamored by authors like Hancock look at any paper or study that doesn't jive with their confirmation biases and immediately jump to the fairly standard at this point, view all of "science" (as if there is some secret handshake and knock to get into the clubhouse) is operating some inane world wide conspiracy to keep the truth hidden away from the general public while we all sip brandy, smoke cigars and have a good laugh at their expanse. It blows my mind how often I see people rant and rave about the Smithsonian hiding artifacts and physical remains that would disprove the Darwinian notion of human evolution. No amount of explaining will change their minds despite the fact that "Darwinian" evolution hasn't been a thing for 70 years now since the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis threw away the falsifiable aspects of Darwin's hypotheses and added in genetics. Sorry for the long winded rant haha

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't quite agree with your statement. It seems like no matter which camp one falls in the other side gets described in extremes.
As a layperson (per your term and not stated with any malice) I find what Hancock puts down about an ancient culture or cultures dominating the planet to be compelling. And yes it is because it jives with something I have long felt...there are patterns in ancient cultures that in my mind indicate a possible common source.
I have never believed in flying chariots or that the "Alanteans" had great powers and understanding of the mind. I do not believe there is a tone that makes stone or rock malleable.
It's why I enjoy reading from the resident skeptics on my thoughts. I have found Byrd and Hanslune and others to be a excellent source of information.
Still...I get what you are saying because I cannot tell you how many times I read a post where things sounds great but then down the thread it becomes unraveled with their conspiracy type nonsense.
I wish I could be alive in a 100 years to see what science has found. As we further explore the sunken depths we find more and more things "lost" to history

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't quite agree with your statement. It seems like no matter which camp one falls in the other side gets described in extremes.

Which statement? The one agreeing that a multidisciplinary approach yields better results with less confirmation bias or the one regarding folks who approach the topics with a closed off mind because they feel that all of academia is perpetrating a world wide conspiracy to hide the truth while eating up any claims made by people like Hancock, Von Daniken, Bauval etc...?

As a layperson (per your term and not stated with any malice) I find what Hancock puts down about an ancient culture or cultures dominating the planet to be compelling. And yes it is because it jives with something I have long felt...there are patterns in ancient cultures that in my mind indicate a possible common source.

And likewise, the term layperson wasn't meant as a slur. It was simply to differentiate the 2, often very opposing, approaches to the subject matter. As for your point of view on the works of people like Graham Hancock, it was a similar thought process that gave me the kick in the ass to go back to school and study Anthropology and later on with a focus on the Paleo side of things. Particularly Pleistocene hominids. I had a keen interest in Paleontology and Anthropology since I was quite young and in high school I came across several books that would likely be considered somewhat fringe material that looked at then unexplained things like the origin of Indo-Europeans, Hueyatlaco and the Antikythera Mechanism. After getting hurt during my stint in the Army, I was home watching TV one night and a show narrated by Charlton Heston came on called 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'. It, at the time, blew my mind and I wanted to know more and see what other evidence there was to support the claims made by the people interviewed on the show. That led me to matriculate into an Anthropology program at a decent University near where I lived at the time. The knowledge I absorbed in the first 4 years gave me the necessary tools to engage in appropriate due diligence. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorist in me, the results of my fact checking made me feel quite naïve for embracing the premise of the above mentioned show.

I have never believed in flying chariots or that the "Alanteans" had great powers and understanding of the mind. I do not believe there is a tone that makes stone or rock malleable.
It's why I enjoy reading from the resident skeptics on my thoughts. I have found Byrd and Hanslune and others to be a excellent source of information.
Still...I get what you are saying because I cannot tell you how many times I read a post where things sounds great but then down the thread it becomes unraveled with their conspiracy type nonsense.

This sets you apart from a lot of posters on ATS, you're a rarity around here. You enjoy postulating all of the what if's because it makes sense to you but you are also open minded enough to look at both sides of the equation and weigh the evidence for both sides. My experience is that the vast majority seem to believe that there is some world wide conspiracy headed up by the Smithsonian that somehow involves every credentialed professional in their respective fields will not entertain any evidence that refutes their personal paradigm. They seem to believe that we are all in cahoots and sit around in our secret clubhouse high fiving and laughing about the public and how we've pulled the wool over their eyes. If those same people were to attend any given conference pertaining to Anthropology, or Archaeology or related fields, they would quickly see that there are many competing viewpoints on many hypotheses. There is no international cabal of scientists hiding data or information because anyone with independently reproducible data or experiments that would alter what we know or think we know of our past, their career would be fast tracked, not buried in the sand or boxed away in some warehouse owned by thr Smithsonian like the Ark at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I wish I could be alive in a 100 years to see what science has found. As we further explore the sunken depths we find more and more things "lost" to history

i'm right trhere with you. The things we've learned and former hypotheses proven true by new data in the last 20 years alone is mind boggling. I would love to see what we have discovered by the turn of the next century and which paradigms fall to the wayside.

a reply to: Byrd

Come on..

Do you realize an object THAT size going THAT fast would vaporize any water it hit almost instantly. Send a shock wave out for hundreds if not thousands of miles and carry with it air that is super-heated to 900F+ that would incinerate anything that was not underground.

Look what just an air burst did over Tunguska. Smoldering trees for 770 square miles and all stripped down to their trunks. That rock was only 100meters (a baby in comparison) in size and blew up at an altitude of 5 miles. It was equivalent to 15 megatons of TNT.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Byrd

Come on..

Do you realize an object THAT size going THAT fast would vaporize any water it hit almost instantly. Send a shock wave out for hundreds if not thousands of miles and carry with it air that is super-heated to 900F+ that would incinerate anything that was not underground.

Look what just an air burst did over Tunguska. Smoldering trees for 770 square miles and all stripped down to their trunks. That rock was only 100meters (a baby in comparison) in size and blew up at an altitude of 5 miles. It was equivalent to 15 megatons of TNT.

Well, yes, I'm familiar with the physics of this (and I don't think you've got it correct). An air burst is not going to fry everything on the ground (inverse square law also applies to heat) and it's certainly not going to cause the American horse (which ranged as far south as Florida) to go extinct (which did happen). An impactor the size of Chixhulub might do it, but that didn't happen.

originally posted by: Byrd
What happened was that a couple of astronomers had a cool model and they thought they could explain the ice age ending by planetary impact. The thing is, they did not consult the people who actually knew about the Ice Age extinction - paleontologists and archaeologists.

I note that while the Anishnaabe oral tradition speaks of the coming of the ice, I have heard no mention of a comet.

a reply to: Byrd

A deep water oceanic impact would not leave a visible crater (not for long) and would send mile high surges in thousands of miles in access of 300mph.

Pretty sure that would do it.

As data continue to grow supporting the lesser dryas impact. It makes this theory more and more feasible.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Göbekli Tepe's Pillar 43 - The Vulture Stone - appears to predict the incoming object. They were smart enough to know they were screwed. Which is why they might of filled in the area with crushed stone to preserve a record of history prior to this impending doom.

Simple searching will yield you more info on this.

Experts at the University of Edinburgh analysed mysterious symbols carved onto stone pillars at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, to find out if they could be linked to constellations. The markings suggest that a swarm of comet fragments hit Earth at the exact same time that a mini-ice age struck, changing the entire course of human history.

Link

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Göbekli Tepe's Pillar 43 - The Vulture Stone - appears to predict the incoming object. Simple searching will yield you more info on this.

Who knows? I'm just citing a knowledge-keeper of my acquaintance. There is such a thing as an archaeoastronomer. Seems a better source than an engineer.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I'm just sharing information

just in case anybody is interested in the actual science of the subject I have organized my collection of studies. This is just about everything thats not behind a paywall.
Its mostly younger dryas with a smattering of bronze age.


www.dropbox.com...

I would suggest Kinzie;

ABSTRACT
A major cosmic-impact event has been proposed at the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling episode at ≈12,800 "
150 years before present, forming the YD Boundary (YDB) layer, distributed over 150 million km2 on four continents.
In 24 dated stratigraphic sections in 10 countries of the Northern Hemisphere, the YDB layer contains a clearly
defined abundance peak in nanodiamonds (NDs), a major cosmic-impact proxy. Observed ND polytypes include cubic
diamonds, lonsdaleite-like crystals, and diamond-like carbon nanoparticles, called n-diamond and i-carbon. The ND
abundances in bulk YDB sediments ranged up to ≈500 ppb (mean: 200 ppb) and that in carbon spherules up to ≈3700
ppb (mean: ≈750 ppb); 138 of 205 sediment samples (67%) contained no detectable NDs. Isotopic evidence indicates
that YDB NDs were produced from terrestrial carbon, as with other impact diamonds, and were not derived from
the impactor itself. The YDB layer is also marked by abundance peaks in other impact-related proxies, including
cosmic-impact spherules, carbon spherules (some containing NDs), iridium, osmium, platinum, charcoal, aciniform
carbon (soot), and high-temperature melt-glass. This contribution reviews the debate about the presence, abundance,
and origin of the concentration peak in YDB NDs.We describe an updated protocol for the extraction and concentration
of NDs from sediment, carbon spherules, and ice, and we describe the basis for identification and classification of
YDB ND polytypes, using nine analytical approaches. The large body of evidence now obtained about YDB NDs is
strongly consistent with an origin by cosmic impact at ≈12,800 cal BP and is inconsistent with formation of YDB
NDs by natural terrestrial processes, including wildfires, anthropogenesis, and/or influx of cosmic dust.

Bunch;

It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet
impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and
other proxies across several continents, and triggered the Younger
Dryas cooling episode 12,900 years ago. Although many independent
groups have confirmed the impact evidence, the hypothesis
remains controversial because some groups have failed to do so.
We examined sediment sequences from 18 dated Younger Dryas
boundary (YDB) sites across three continents (North America,
Europe, and Asia), spanning 12,000 km around nearly one-third of
the planet. All sites display abundant microspherules in the YDB
with none or few above and below. In addition, three sites (Abu
Hureyra, Syria; Melrose, Pennsylvania; and Blackville, South Carolina)
display vesicular, high-temperature, siliceous scoria-like objects,
or SLOs, that match the spherules geochemically. We compared
YDB objects with melt products from a known cosmic impact
(Meteor Crater, Arizona) and from the 1945 Trinity nuclear airburst
in Socorro, New Mexico, and found that all of these high-energy
events produced material that is geochemically and morphologically
comparable, including: (i) high-temperature, rapidly quenched
microspherules and SLOs; (ii) corundum, mullite, and suessite (Fe3Si),
a rare meteoritic mineral that forms under high temperatures;
(iii) melted SiO2 glass, or lechatelierite, with flow textures (or schlieren)
that format >2,200 °C; and (iv) particles with features indicative
of high-energy interparticle collisions. These results are inconsistent
with anthropogenic, volcanic, authigenic, and cosmic materials, yet
consistentwith cosmic ejecta, supporting the hypothesis of extraterrestrial
airbursts/impacts 12,900 years ago. The wide geographic
distribution of SLOs is consistent with multiple impactors.

Andronikov 2016;

ABSTRACT. In the Northern Hemisphere, the Younger
Dryas cooling occurred between 12.8 and 11.7 ka BP.
This cooling is thought to have been the result of an
abrupt change in atmospheric and oceanic circulations.
One of the hypotheses explaining such a change suggests
that just before the onset of the Younger Dryas cooling,
multiple airbursts/impacts occurred over the Northern
Hemisphere.We studied the late Pleistocene sediments from
theNetherlands and Belgium to checkwhether a sudden short
event might have taken place just before the onset of the
Younger Dryas cooling. The geochemical features revealed
suggest that such events might have occurred. The presence
of products of biomass burning is suggested on the basis of
trace element features of sediments from the lower Younger
Dryas boundary. The presence of a volcanic component
and a component resulting from extensive biomass burning
in the sediments of c. 12.9 ka BP are indicated on the
basis of trace element features. The volcanic component
may be related to the Laacher See volcano eruption,
whereas the cause of the extensive biomass burning remains
unclear.

and

This biomass burning
was most likely due to the abundant fuel, generated
as a response to change in climatic conditions.
Although these wildfires likely ignited because
of terrestrial causes, a relation to an ET event
(local, regional, or global) cannot be excluded.
Another geochemical featurewas identified in a thin
sandy layer at the base of the Allerød to Younger
Dryas peat layer. This sandy layer combines
geochemical signatures of the volcanic and the
meteoritic materials, and in a few cases displays
a “charcoal-like” distribution of trace elements.
That is, the sediments experienced the addition
of compositionally anomalous materials during a
short event c. 12.9 ka BP. We tentatively connect
enrichment in the volcanic elements with the
eruption of the Laacher See volcano (12.88 ka BP)
according to the stratigraphic position of such
sediments. The presence of a possible meteoritic
component in the same sediments suggests that
an ET event occurred at approximately the same
time. However, whether the presence of the
meteoritic component is due to a local meteorite
impact/airburst or to a much stronger event remains
unclear. Anyway, it is quite possible that some
short and dramatic event took place just before
the onset of the Younger Dryas climate oscillation,
but, as was emphasized by Haynes et al. (2010),
an understanding of what happened at c. 12.9–
12.8 ka BP requires further research.
Since the suggested unusual events might have
taken place over a narrow time frame, it is
difficult to apply absolute age determinations
precisely. It seems to be more practical to use
relative stratigraphic positions of sediment layers
displaying anomalous geochemical characteristics
and restricted by time frames estimated on the basis
of absolute age determinations to correlate such
layers over the extended territory.

PeterVlar and Bryd, the first statement I bolded set me of on a suppostional tangent a few weeks ago when I re-read this paper after reading Turner 2009

Turner2009;

ABSTRACT: This study investigates changes in climate, vegetation, wildfire and human activity in
Southwest Asia during the transition to Neolithic agriculture between ca. 16 and ca. 9 ka. In order to
trace the fire history of this region, we use microscopic charcoal from lake sediment sequences, and
present two new records: one from south central Turkey (Akgo¨ l) and the other from the southern Levant
(Hula). These are interpreted primarily as the result of regional-scale fire events, with the exception of a
single large event ca. 13 ka at Akgo¨ l, which phytolith analysis shows was the result of burning of the
local marsh vegetation. Comparison between these and other regional micro-charcoal, stable isotope
and pollen records shows that wildfires were least frequent when the climate was cold and dry (glacial,
Lateglacial Stadial) and the vegetation dominated by chenopod–Artemisia steppe, and that they
became more frequent and/or bigger at times of warmer, wetter but seasonally dry climate (Lateglacial
Interstadial, early Holocene). Warmer and wetter climates caused an increase in biomass availability,
with woody matter appearing to provide the main fuel source in sites from the Levant, while grass fires
predominated in the interior uplands of Anatolia. Southwest Asia’s grasslands reached their greatest
extent during the early Holocene, and they were maintained by dry-season burning that helped to
delay the spread of woodland by up to 3 ka, at the same time as Neolithic settlement became
established across this grass parkland landscape. Although climatic changes appear to have acted as
the principal ‘pacemaker’ for fire activity through the last glacial–interglacial climatic transition (LGIT),
human actions may have amplified shifts in biomass burning. Fire regimes therefore changed markedly
during this time period, and both influenced, and were influenced by, the cultural-economic transition
from hunter-foraging to agriculture and village life.

Multiple studies, across differing disciplines, have shown that there was anomolous biomass burning at the YDB on every continent occupied by humans. One study in this collection is able to accountg for a century long ramp up of burning leading into the yd as a data artifact.
Now, one paper that I dont have is a recent one of dust and smoke loading of the atmosphere in response to the level of biomass burning and subsequent denuding of large areas of land surface(as much as 9% of earths biomass) caused by the proposed event.

The Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) cosmic-impact hypothesis is based on considerable evidence that Earth collided
with fragments of a disintegrating ≥100-km-diameter comet, the remnants of which persist within the inner solar
system ∼12,800 y later. Evidence suggests that theYDB cosmic impact triggered an “impact winter” and the subsequent
Younger Dryas (YD) climate episode, biomass burning, late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions, and human cultural
shifts and population declines. The cosmic impact deposited anomalously high concentrations of platinum over much
of theNorthernHemisphere, as recorded at 26YDB sites at theYDonset, including theGreenland Ice Sheet Project 2 ice
core, in which platinum deposition spans ∼21 y (∼12,836–12,815 cal BP). The YD onset also exhibits increased dust
concentrations, synchronous with the onset of a remarkably high peak in ammonium, a biomass-burning aerosol. In
four ice-core sequences fromGreenland, Antarctica, and Russia, similar anomalous peaks in other combustion aerosols
occur, including nitrate, oxalate, acetate, and formate, reflecting one of the largest biomass-burning episodes in more
than 120,000 y. In support of widespread wildfires, the perturbations in CO2 records from Taylor Glacier, Antarctica,
suggest that biomass burning at the YD onset may have consumed ∼10 million km2, or ∼9% of Earth’s terrestrial biomass.
The ice record is consistentwith YDB impact theory that extensive impact-related biomass burning triggered the
abrupt onset of an impact winter, which led, through climatic feedbacks, to the anomalous YD climate episode.

Wolbach2018
The study I dont have suggests that an event of this nature would enshroud the most earth in a dust/soot/smoke veil for a min of 90 days to a max of several years, taking only a few days to complete its envelopment.
Take that idea in terms of the evidence that shows humans had a hand in setting some of the fires of this period, what if humans set the landscape alight in response to a sudden darkening of their world?.