7 ms·

Interesting. There’s a hypothesis that Earth was struck by an impact 12,800 years ago in North America but the impact site wasn’t identified https://en.m.wikip

Interesting. There’s a hypothesis that Earth was struck by an impact 12,800 years ago in North America but the impact site wasn’t identified https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothe... Could these be related?

qualeed 1y ago
I hadn't heard of this, but it says: >The hypothesis is widely rejected by relevant experts.[2][1][3][4] It is influenced by creationism [...] It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. [...] Authors have not yet responded to requests for clarification and have never made their raw data available Is there a reason why the widely accepted explanation isn't satisfactory?
- tigereyeTO 1y ago
  The publication of this research. One possibility discussed in the publication is that the sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz was caused by the Perkins Louisiana impact.
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    It happened at the end of an ice age, when mile-thick glaciers were melting away. That’s a lot of fresh water going to the oceans.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      The argument is that the impact event(s) are WHY the ice age ended.
      - dr_dshiv 1y ago
        Ohhh… cool!
        cluckindan 1y ago
        … and widely criticized as a creationist theory.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Which has nothing to do with the legitimate scientific question of whether an impact triggered the interglacial warming period we're currently in.
        cluckindan 1y ago
        The point is that it is not a legitimate scientific question, as those posing it are disregarding all evidence for geological and cosmological causes for rapid deglaciation. The YD impact hypothesis is motivated by creationist thinking (hyperbolically ”god threw a stone at us to relieve mankind of ice”) and the idea has been thoroughly refuted. Clinging to beliefs when there is ample evidence to the contrary is the very opposite of the scientific method.
        adastra22 1y ago
        The original paper proposing a YD impact was serious science put forward by serious academics, AFAIK: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1994902/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1994902/ That it was later a cause taken up by creationists is annoying, but it has no bearing on the scientific question (which is as yet unsettled).
        cluckindan 1y ago
        Too bad Dr. Firestone seems to have been the lead author in many articles which have been based on data that could not be reproduced by later authors. E.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908874106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908874106
deepdarkforest 1y ago
If you actually click on the link, it mentions this both in the abstract, and a detailed comparison of evidence in a whole table.
8bitsrule 1y ago
The evidence for multiple strikes around 12,800BP has been piling up for quite a few years now. There are other theories of course. A few papers : Alaska - https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695703 https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695703 South Carolina - www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51552-8 (plus Article: https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-that-an-extraterrestrial-collision-12-800-years-ago-triggered-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244 https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-that-an-extraterres... ) Chile - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y South Africa - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.017 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.017 Syria - https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w California, Channel Islands - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.006 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.006

qualeed 1y ago

I hadn't heard of this, but it says: >The hypothesis is widely rejected by relevant experts.[2][1][3][4] It is influenced by creationism [...] It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. [...] Authors have not yet responded to requests for clarification and have never made their raw data available Is there a reason why the widely accepted explanation isn't satisfactory?

tigereyeTO 1y ago
The publication of this research. One possibility discussed in the publication is that the sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz was caused by the Perkins Louisiana impact.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  It happened at the end of an ice age, when mile-thick glaciers were melting away. That’s a lot of fresh water going to the oceans.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    The argument is that the impact event(s) are WHY the ice age ended.
    - dr_dshiv 1y ago
      Ohhh… cool!
      - cluckindan 1y ago
        … and widely criticized as a creationist theory.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Which has nothing to do with the legitimate scientific question of whether an impact triggered the interglacial warming period we're currently in.
        cluckindan 1y ago
        The point is that it is not a legitimate scientific question, as those posing it are disregarding all evidence for geological and cosmological causes for rapid deglaciation. The YD impact hypothesis is motivated by creationist thinking (hyperbolically ”god threw a stone at us to relieve mankind of ice”) and the idea has been thoroughly refuted. Clinging to beliefs when there is ample evidence to the contrary is the very opposite of the scientific method.
        adastra22 1y ago
        The original paper proposing a YD impact was serious science put forward by serious academics, AFAIK: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1994902/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1994902/ That it was later a cause taken up by creationists is annoying, but it has no bearing on the scientific question (which is as yet unsettled).
        cluckindan 1y ago
        Too bad Dr. Firestone seems to have been the lead author in many articles which have been based on data that could not be reproduced by later authors. E.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908874106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908874106

deepdarkforest 1y ago

If you actually click on the link, it mentions this both in the abstract, and a detailed comparison of evidence in a whole table.

8bitsrule 1y ago

The evidence for multiple strikes around 12,800BP has been piling up for quite a few years now. There are other theories of course. A few papers : Alaska - https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695703 https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695703 South Carolina - www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51552-8 (plus Article: https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-that-an-extraterrestrial-collision-12-800-years-ago-triggered-an-abrupt-climate-change-for-earth-118244 https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-that-an-extraterres... ) Chile - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y South Africa - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.017 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.017 Syria - https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w California, Channel Islands - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.006 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.006