Darwin's Valentine : Younger Dryas Impact Remnant Near Lake Nipigon?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:55:14 -0600, kT wrote:

My understanding was the ice was something like 3000 feet thick there at
the time...

I thought the thin ice model suggested around 500m, and the thick ice
model around 1000m, and both of those farther north. But I'm not up to
date on current thinking in this regard.

Most estimates are 1000 m to thousands of meters, particularly around
Hudson Bay. There was plenty of ice there during the period in question.

There are also issues of subglacial lakes, etc. The entire YD problem is
complex with lots of conflicting evidence, and I am looking for anything
which will tie together numerous disparate threads of evidence, across a
variety of interdisciplinary domains. If you don't look, you won't know.

I have easily discovered a geological feature which has the possibility
of solving one of the most outstanding problems of Holocene evolution.

Just as soon as I can get free of some outstanding commitments, you can
rest assured that I'm going up there and busting up the rocks, trust me.

... and what we I was searching for was evidence of a high
incidence, low grazing angle airblast of fragile carbonaceous asteroidal
or cometary material onto the ice. It has been postulated that the
object was already broken up and this my only be the largest portion of
the object exploding. Thus this looks just like what I would expect.

I don't know what I'd expect- I don't think that sort of collision has
been accurately modeled. I do know that I don't consider the evidence
presented so far for an impact event very compelling. But lots of people
are looking at this now. If something did happen, better evidence will
soon present itself.

But you don't provide us with any evidence why you find the evidence not
to be compelling. Skepticism without evidence is nonsense. Consider this
feature as 'evidence'. Feel free to try and shoot it down. My approach
to the problem was simple, an exploding cometary impact on or above the
Laurentide ice sheet around 12,900 BP was hypothesized, and it appeared
to me that nobody had tested the hypothesis by simple examination of the
terrain, and so I took it upon myself to look, and found it in minutes.

Somebody is going to have to go up there and take a look at this thing,
all I am saying is clearly this is a structure needing to be looked at.

You can't possibly miss it, it's like WOW!

Like I said, my impression is that there is no "structure", just a
landform from multiple geologic events. But that's only an impression.
Figuring out more from just a map isn't possible.

Show me anything else anywhere that looks like this. It's clearly
symmetric, stands out so loudly that it took me only minutes to
identify, is not referenced by any previous literature I am aware of,
short of an LPSC paper on comparison to Martian megaflood geomorphology.

I'm curious what you think of this 5 mile diameter structure here in
Colorado:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...85551&t=h&z=12

Click on terrain and expand it out :

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...85551&t=h&z=12

Nothing, that's a mountainous region. I went to this area in Ontario
specifically looking for some sort of symmetric impression in the
glacial terrain associated with megaflooding, and I easily found it.

Big difference.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:51:33 -0600, kT wrote:

But you don't provide us with any evidence why you find the evidence not
to be compelling. Skepticism without evidence is nonsense...

Actually, you have this backwards. Skepticism in the face of evidence is
nonsense. I'm skeptical because of a lack of solid evidence. The
geological record is very sparse (that is, the reports of certain
elements and isotopes layers in deposits). Those layers don't seem to
correlate very well with ash layers which are supposed to be related to
the same event, and none of the dates correlate very well with either
North American extinctions or with the apparent end of the Clovis
cultures. Also, there are other explanations for ash layers I find more
convincing.

Don't mistake me... I think this is a ripe area for investigation, and
I'm not saying there's anything at all wrong with your interest, or the
approach you are taking of looking for fossil impact evidence. I'm just
saying that, so far, the evidence I've seen presented doesn't make a
very strong case to me.

In any case, whether or not such an impact occurred didn't seem to be
the subject of this discussion. Your question had to do with a landform
you identified in satellite data, and you have my opinion on that.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:51:33 -0600, kT wrote:

But you don't provide us with any evidence why you find the evidence not
to be compelling. Skepticism without evidence is nonsense...

Actually, you have this backwards. Skepticism in the face of evidence is
nonsense. I'm skeptical because of a lack of solid evidence.

But you provide no evidence and you haven't bothered to define 'solid'.

You have it backwards. You are demonstrably not providing any evidence.

The
geological record is very sparse (that is, the reports of certain
elements and isotopes layers in deposits). Those layers don't seem to
correlate very well with ash layers which are supposed to be related to
the same event, and none of the dates correlate very well with either
North American extinctions or with the apparent end of the Clovis
cultures. Also, there are other explanations for ash layers I find more
convincing.

Feel free to point us to that evidence, or those explanations.

Don't mistake me...

There is no mistake, you haven't pointed me to a single bit of evidence.

I think this is a ripe area for investigation, and
I'm not saying there's anything at all wrong with your interest, or the
approach you are taking of looking for fossil impact evidence. I'm just
saying that, so far, the evidence I've seen presented doesn't make a
very strong case to me.

But at least I point you to evidence, and links to evidence.

You haven't posted anything that could even remotely be called evidence.

In any case, whether or not such an impact occurred didn't seem to be
the subject of this discussion. Your question had to do with a landform
you identified in satellite data, and you have my opinion on that.

Opinions are not evidence. You may continue your arm waving.

It's amusing, if not informative. The general question is how can an
unremarkable glacial mel****er flow create an multimillennial regional
climate change, when even larger and more remarkable flows did not.

It could very well be that there wasn't an impact, and the flow was not
catastrophic, merely continuous and no longer into the southern route.
Termination II flows produced outright climate and sea level reversals,
so in the bigger picture the Younger Dryas isn't even that remarkable.

So the question indeed is, did a large Holocene impact occur or not?

These are indeed important questions, for if there was a YD/Clovis event
and if there was a 4800 BP Burkle crater event, that doesn't bode well
for the immediate future. And if ice sheet melting surges often, whether
they be climate induced or impact induced, or even volcanically induced,
then that is of great importance now because our ice sheets are melting.

On a planet with seven billion people, surges will be catastrophic. It
doesn't matter if you plop an asteroid down into the ocean, or you plop
one down onto an ice sheet, either way, the end result will be very bad.

You'll just have to trust me that you don't want to be poking around
into large and fluid heat reservoirs which have been relatively stable.

It will create a breeze, and you will find yourself very uncomfortable.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:

But you provide no evidence and you haven't bothered to define 'solid'.

Okay, I get it now. You don't understand how science works. I'm not
optimistic of your reception when you attempt to present your findings
to any trained scientist. Good luck with that.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 15, 6:18*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:
But you provide no evidence and you haven't bothered to define 'solid'.

Okay, I get it now. You don't understand how science works. I'm not
optimistic of your reception when you attempt to present your findings
to any trained scientist. Good luck with that.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Considering that you take instructions from a trekkie,who are you to
talk.The Kt guy is doing what empiricists have been doing since the
late 17th century,drawing conclusions and then looking for evidence to
support that conclusion.Darwin drew his conclusion from a study on
population and supremacy to pan-biological evolution ,a step that
should shock people to their core -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also;" Charles Darwin

The essay by Thomas Malthus is found online and is an enjoyable
read ,at least for those who love the old world sensibilities which
turn America and Americans into lab mice -

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.2.html

Knowing how you lot believe the most ridiculous things,even basic
astronomical facts are turned on their head,does not excuse those who
should know better.The contemporary conclusion that CO2 causes
climate variations and then modelling data to support that conclusion
is extremely dangerous because it eventually filters down into
political responses and I do not need to remind readers how Darwin's
view allowed the nazis could justify their racial supremacy when
Darwin's 'cause' for evolution is saturated in that unfortunate
precept.

I have the responsibility of presenting the core problem which started
with Newton's conclusion that terrestrial ballistics equate to
planetary motions and his maneuvering to get the original
astronomical; methods and insights to suit his agenda/conclusion.

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:33:09 -0600, kT wrote:

But you provide no evidence and you haven't bothered to define 'solid'.

Okay, I get it now. You don't understand how science works.

Sure I do, when you make a claim, such as your claim that you are
'skeptical', then you may at any time take the opportunity of providing
evidence of your skepticism. Thus far you have not attempted to do that.

Good luck with the skepticism thing. May I suggest alt.skepticism?

In the meantime, I will continue to search for evidence of Holocene
asteroid impacts and megaflooding. That's much more rewarding to me.

It's also quite a bit more important than my understanding of science.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:51:55 -0600, kT wrote:

Sure I do, when you make a claim, such as your claim that you are
'skeptical', then you may at any time take the opportunity of providing
evidence of your skepticism. Thus far you have not attempted to do that.

That's not correct. When you propose a theory, you must support it with
evidence. There is no burden on those who don't find the evidence
compelling to support the status quo with any evidence at all. Asking
those who disagree with new theories to somehow prove that the new
theory is wrong is one of the hallmarks of the pseudoscientist. If you
adopt this kind of approach, you place your credibility at risk.

The new theory in this case is that an impact or airburst occurred over
North America about 13000 years ago. It's an interesting theory, and
there is some limited evidence supporting it. So far, few geologists or
paleontologists consider the evidence strong enough to be convincing.
That isn't the same as saying they don't believe an impact event might
have occurred, it just means that most people are sticking with the
properly skeptical opinion that it did not, until better evidence is
provided. It doesn't mean they are out looking for counter evidence, nor
are they investing a lot of time trying to justify the status quo.
However, some of the evidence used to argue for an impact event (such as
ash layers) has been demonstrated to have other reasonable explanations.
Finding weaknesses in a new theory's interpretation of evidence is an
important part of the scientific process.

Again, there's plenty of supporting evidence for an impact to take the
theory out of the crackpot category and make it a valid area of study.
But it remains sufficiently untested that those who support it should
not be criticizing the true skeptics- those who prefer to see more
evidence before considering such a thing likely.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:51:55 -0600, kT wrote:

Sure I do, when you make a claim, such as your claim that you are
'skeptical', then you may at any time take the opportunity of providing
evidence of your skepticism. Thus far you have not attempted to do that.

That's not correct.

It certainly is. Your hypothesis is 'no YD impact'.

When you propose a theory,

It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis : impact at 12,900 PB.

you must support it with evidence.

I have :

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...9,1.153564&z=9


There is no burden on those who don't find the evidence
compelling to support the status quo with any evidence at all.

There is no burden on anyone, period. You can do or say whatever you
want. That's the whole beauty of science.

Asking
those who disagree with new theories to somehow prove that the new
theory is wrong is one of the hallmarks of the pseudoscientist.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. That fact that you've brought the
concept of 'proof' into the realm of science actually is an indicator of
your profound misunderstanding of science. All I'm asking you is for
evidence of your skepticism of the YD/Clovis impact hypothesis, for
which there is ample evidence. You have declined. That is your right.

My right is to point that you are not participating in the science.

You are arm waving to the extreme here. NOT EVEN A SIMPLE LINK.

If you
adopt this kind of approach, you place your credibility at risk.

My credibility is not evidence of anything, certainly not related to a
clear feature into the geomorphology at Lake Nipigon. Science is not
based upon credentials, it's based upon EVIDENCE. You have not supplied
a single link in this entire discussion. I suggest you review the
thread, the very first thing Curtis Croulet did was provide links.

The new theory in this case is that an impact or airburst occurred over
North America about 13000 years ago.

Sorry, nope, that's the hypothesis. We're hoping to develop that into an
theory of Younger Dryas climate change, megaflooding, the Laurentide ice
sheet collapse, megafauna extinctions, the Clovis disappearance and the
incorporation of agriculture into neolithic culture. Much more evidence
is required. You decline to participate, as is your right.

It's an interesting theory,

Nope. It's an interesting hypothesis. It's nowhere near a theory yet.

and
there is some limited evidence supporting it. So far, few geologists or
paleontologists consider the evidence strong enough to be convincing.

And until they offer their own evidence why they are not convinced, then
they are firmly in the pseudoscience regime. It's clearly not enough to
just say you are not convinced, you have to explain why you are not
convinced. You have to counter existing evidence with your own
alternative hypotheses which adequately describes that evidence.

That takes even more evidence. You have none. I have a landform.

That isn't the same as saying they don't believe an impact event might
have occurred, it just means that most people are sticking with the
properly skeptical opinion that it did not, until better evidence is
provided.

Which they, and you, apparently have declined to offer. Hilarious.

It doesn't mean they are out looking for counter evidence, nor
are they investing a lot of time trying to justify the status quo.

It means they have no evidence. They're skeptics without evidence.

There is a place for people like that : alt.skepticism.

However, some of the evidence used to argue for an impact event (such as
ash layers) has been demonstrated to have other reasonable explanations.

Absence of immediate ash layers is provided by the ice sheet outwash, or
explained by an atmospheric airburst very near a thick melting ice
sheet. Evidence for megaflooding is everywhere in the area, including
directly across the lake at Marquette and in many other Superior areas.

There is clear evidence in the stratigraphy for an impact or fireball,
far removed from the site which glacial outwash would not have affected.

Finding weaknesses in a new theory's interpretation of evidence is an
important part of the scientific process.

Then go ahead an find weaknesses. All you are claiming is skepticism,
which is ludicrous on the face of it. I have exposed your nonsense.

Again, there's plenty of supporting evidence for an impact to take the
theory out of the crackpot category and make it a valid area of study.

Then show us some. I offer an obvious landform in the area of interest.

But it remains sufficiently untested that those who support it should
not be criticizing the true skeptics- those who prefer to see more
evidence before considering such a thing likely.

In other words, you decline to participate in the scientific process.

I am not surprised. You have shown no willingness or abilities here.

Darwin drew his conclusion from a study on population and
supremacy to pan-biological evolution ,a step that
should shock people to their core -

No! Darwin had his evidence. He needed an explanation for it. Malthus
gave him a clue to the explanation. Whether or not you are offended,
Malthus's statement, as quoted by Darwin, is true as written. Darwin
summarized it as the "struggle for existence." Our society implicitly
acknowledges the truth of the proposition. Marxism tries to suppress it.
Capitalism celebrates it!
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message
...
Darwin drew his conclusion from a study on population and
supremacy to pan-biological evolution ,a step that
should shock people to their core -

No! Darwin had his evidence. He needed an explanation for it. Malthus
gave him a clue to the explanation. Whether or not you are offended,
Malthus's statement, as quoted by Darwin, is true as written. Darwin
summarized it as the "struggle for existence." Our society implicitly
acknowledges the truth of the proposition. Marxism tries to suppress it.
Capitalism celebrates it!

If you are trying to suggest that Capitalism is Malthusian, you are just
another stupid Marxist. Go back to Russia where you belong pinko.