Conversation with an author of “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact ∼12,800 Years Ago”

I mentioned in my previous post that I sent an email with an attached .pdf to as many of authors as possible of the papers mentioned in the title (above, accessible here). Since then I’ve had an ongoing conversation with one co-author, and it is copied below.

Co-author’s reply:

“Nanodiamonds resulting from comet on ice sheet impact is not my argument

I am not insisting that a comet impacted the Laurentide ice sheet and generated nanodiamonds.

I don’t really work with nanodiamonds. I know that they can form during the activated charcoal process in industry under high temp/low oxygen conditions.

Comets are dirty ice so perhaps there is some carbon,  Apparently there is CO2 ice

In my view, we do not know if it was a comet or some other impactor.  I do know from my own research that there was a thermal pulse, enough to melt quartz. Much of the energy from this pulse would have gone into converting ice to meltwater.

The likely drop in temperature around 12,900 years ago would be due

  1. nuclear winter from the soot and dust in the atmosphere blocking the sun for up to a year AND
  2.  the freshwater pulse (meltwater from the ice sheet)  into the Atlantic  freezing over the North Atlantic and stopping the Thermohaline cycle

I don’t think our paper says anything about no flood ever.   

We know there was Meltwater pulse 1A around 12,900 years ago, likely from a catastrophically melting Laurentide Ice Sheet.

In addition, sea level rose about 400 feet to its present day level.  This would have drowned many shorelines worldwide.  There are so many archaeological and paleontological sites underwater now.

My areas of research are <omitted to preserve author’s anonymity>.

I have used geochemistry, charcoal, pollen, macrofossils and other things found in lake sediments for reconstruction of past environments.

I hope this is helpful.”


My reply:

Thank you for the note. I appreciate it. However, I wonder: what of the other authors, particularly the geologists? I have not heard from any of them.

To the matter at hand:

–        Your paper identifies effects caused by a cosmic impact 12,800 ybp. However, it fails to identify the most important effect, the worldwide flood.

–        Your paper does not identify the impact site, something I accomplished in my letter.

–        The Southern Ocean impact site accounts for all effects cited in your paper, as well as the flood.

–        The massive IO impact would have created an incredible dust cloud. However, the melting of the IO-introduced ice would have been the proximate cause of the temperature drop at that time.

–        As stated in my letter, the sea level rise delivered by the IO’s melted ice was more than two miles.

About the supposed 400’ sea level rise you mention:

–        As the IO-introduced waters flooded the planet from the abyss upward, there would have been a significant pause in the sea level rise as the Med flooded through the Strait of Gibraltar.

–        Survivors around the planet would have enjoyed a respite from their upward flight as the Med filled, which is why we find their artifacts at a depth slightly above the Strait’s water-passing elevation.

–        Once the Med filled, the newly introduced waters continued their rise to the point that we encounter them now (modern sea level). Thus, the submerged artifacts are at depths attainable by divers.

–        Remnants of early human activity will be found in the deep abyss. As an archaeologist, then you might consider how the fates of Lemuria (Mu) and Atlantis fit into the worldwide flood. These remnants are at depths attainable only by sophisticated equipment (about which: are you related to <name redacted to preserve anonymity>?).

That you cite the supposed sea level rise and attribute it to melting ice caps means that you overlooked the most important consequence to all that is associated with the matter at hand: all of modern science, beliefs, and worldviews are adversely affected by geology’s “no flood, ever” error.

My interest in this matter began while I was on the NPS faculty in Monterey, CA, just as Google Earth (and Maps) were made available. When I saw Monterey Canyon, and then when I read geologists’ explanations for its formation, I was inspired to investigate why it is that we scientists believe that there was never a flood. And that led me to Sedgwick and the history of the “no flood, ever” belief. What I found: “no flood, ever” is indisputably wrong. Because it is wrong, and because all geology and associated sciences follow from it, then we have a very, very big problem.

Unearthing geology’s error allows this comparison: Google Earth the historical equivalent of Galileo’s telescope, for each ‘device’ provided data that overturned significant scientific errors. Related: geologists have been fitting data to theory, which, per Kuhn, is anti-science or fantasy.

For most of the past decade, I’ve been trying to get geologists to recognize the error upon which rests their “science.” What I’ve found: as soon as “flood” is mentioned, great prejudice and condescension follow, something profoundly ironic, for the geologists are clinging to their ‘no flood’ belief as though it were religious dogma. That they cannot understand the error and its consequences is simply incomprehensible.

Thus, I am justified in wondering, how does one break geology’s erroneous “no flood, ever” paradigm?


Author’s reply:

“Why do you expect a response from all 30 co-authors?

Our paper focused on biomass burning, not flooding.  There has to be some focus and scope to any given paper.

Your idea of an impact crater in Antarctica does not hold up for at least the reason I already told you. No extinctions in Africa.  Do you see evidence of late glacial fire in Africa?  Have you taken marine cores and studied them for your hypothesized impact site?  if not, then you are engaging in speculation.  Now you must collect some data.”


To which I replied:

– I expected something from the geologist authors due to the historic nature of the matter: their “science” is based on an error.

– There were extensive forests in pre-flood Africa (e.g. It is not a stretch to say that they burned soon after the floodwaters established the new, post-flood ecosystem.

– Careful: no one has any idea how many species became extinct due to the worldwide flood. See Fig 7.

– The impact was not in Antarctica but rather in what is now the Southern Ocean.

– Had I the resources, then I would explore for the remnants of human activity in the deep abyss. I discussed finding such remnants – as well as cores taken from within the impact crescent (obtained nearly 50 years ago) whose contents include minerals consistent with known comet composition – in this talk I gave to the Explorers Club in NYC about three years ago:

– Google’s maps are data.

– I have exercised the scientific method based on that (new) data.

– The maps led me to uncover the biggest error in the history of science, one that causes you, your colleagues, and all of science to *speculate* on the cause of the YD impact and to miss the impact’s primary effect, the worldwide flood.

– Perhaps one day you will recognize the error and its consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s