Cause of the Bölling-Allerød & Younger-Dryas?

[Piney]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

He or she, I guess he, hasn't even established their hypothesis yet. I sense aliens, some rogue planet or interstellar ice storm. 

From what I gleaned, another comet. But he hasn't answered my question on evidence in North America.  Because no mass "kills" were found here and the deepest alluvial deposits are 600 ft., but that was from a Pre-Illinoian Glaciation from the Eocene.

You would think they would find whole herds of frozen mega-fauna. Not one or two that date thousands of years apart.

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

From what I gleaned, another comet. But he hasn't answered my question on evidence in North America.  Because no mass "kills" were found here and the deepest alluvial deposits are 600 ft., but that was from a Pre-Illinoian Glaciation from the Eocene.

You would think they would find whole herds of frozen mega-fauna. Not one or two that date thousands of years apart.

Therw would, literally, be mountains of evidence. There simply ain't any.

[Essan]

Anyone interested in the subject of frozen megafauna will, obviously, know the story of Blue Babe - and how that contradicts all the catastrophist nonsense     Guthrie's book is well worth a read.   There's a brief summary of the finding here: https://www.alaska.edu/uajourney/history-and-trivia/blue-babe-a-messenger-fro/

According to Guthrie, the excavation team ate some of the bison's flesh in a stew.   Proving that even after 36,000 years frozen meat is still edible!

As for debunking mammoth myths, well, I wrote this 12 years ago .....  http://www.geocities.ws/dolph322000/mammoth.html  (the format isn't that clever, but it's fully referenced )

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

As for debunking mammoth myths, well, I wrote this 12 years ago .....  http://www.geocities.ws/dolph322000/mammoth.html  (the format isn't that clever, but it's fully referenced )

I like how you talked about a wetter climate changing the plant life involved in their downfall and not human predation, but I also feel more diseases developed in the wetter climate also.

 

[Essan]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

I like how you talked about a wetter climate changing the plant life involved in their downfall and not human predation, but I also feel more diseases developed in the wetter climate also.

 

Mammoth 'flu?   Could have been even more deadly than man 'flu    But seriously, yes.  Wetter conditions would have reduced the (woolly) mammoth's insulation etc and made them more susceptible to illness.  

And as the population diminishes, more problems arise:  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/last-lonely-woolly-mammoths-faced-genomic-meltdown

[Howard West 2]

17 hours ago, Swede said:

Other than one 20 year old reference from a light-weight publication, the rest of your references are from 57-92 years in age. Do you commonly visit a doctor who relies upon research over half a century old?

.

Of course most are OLD: because, when I am told to read  a link as evidence. I quote the link references.

[Howard West 2]

6 hours ago, Piney said:

From what I gleaned, another comet. But he hasn't answered my question on evidence in North America.  Because no mass "kills" were found here and the deepest alluvial deposits are 600 ft., but that was from a Pre-Illinoian Glaciation from the Eocene.

You would think they would find whole herds of frozen mega-fauna. Not one or two that date thousands of years apart.

What I have found about most of my critics is they DO NOT READ what I say they make up things such as From what I gleaned, another comet. When on numerous posts I have stated COMETS are A SOURCE OF WATER.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

What I have found about most of my critics is they DO NOT READ what I say they make up things such as From what I gleaned, another comet. When on numerous posts I have stated COMETS are A SOURCE OF WATER.

But comets contain other elements, and chunks of debris. Pieces of it will leave craters. 

Where is that evidence? 

[Essan]

5 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

Of course most are OLD: because, when I am told to read  a link as evidence. I quote the link references.

Did it not occur to you to wonder why you were directed to articles written 100 years ago rather than within the past 10 years?  

If reading about modern transport, or medicine or sport or popular music and all the references were from before 1960, would you just assume nothing had changed or been discovered since?  

It's always worth checking out the latest research

[Essan]

6 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

What I have found about most of my critics is they DO NOT READ what I say they make up things such as From what I gleaned, another comet. When on numerous posts I have stated COMETS are A SOURCE OF WATER.

They certainly were around 4,600,000,000 years ago.  

Since then Earth hasn't really needed any more water, and since comets aren't just ice their occasional impact with Earth has been somewhat less welcome.  Just ask the good dinofolk of Chicxulub  

[Howard West 2]

12 minutes ago, Essan said:

Did it not occur to you to wonder why you were directed to articles written 100 years ago rather than within the past 10 years?  

If reading about modern transport, or medicine or sport or popular music and all the references were from before 1960, would you just assume nothing had changed or been discovered since?  

It's always worth checking out the latest research

That was the evidence (sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.133.3455.729 ) I was told by CRITICS was quintessential Evidence of their point and that I need to address. Their LINK USED those OLD references.  

[Howard West 2]

16 minutes ago, Essan said:

They certainly were around 4,600,000,000 years ago.  

Since then Earth hasn't really needed any more water, and since comets aren't just ice their occasional impact with Earth has been somewhat less welcome.  Just ask the good dinofolk of Chicxulub  

Again!!!! How do you stack up on land which is only 29% of earth surface enough Water ( Liquid or solid) to cover surface of the oceans which covers 71% of Earth surface 300 to 400(?) feet deep and have any place for animals to live. 

[Howard West 2]

Piny Said: But comets contain other elements, and chunks of debris. Pieces of it will leave craters. 

Where is that evidence? 

OF COURSE Pieces of it will leave craters, there is a huge crater a few miles from here.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Howard West 2
added pic

[Howard West 2]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

But comets contain other elements, and chunks of debris. Pieces of it will leave craters. 

Where is that evidence? 

Or did you  want the Tempel 1 data

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

Or did you  want the Tempel 1 data

Hi Howard

What type of impact areas are you suggesting, ice, water or dry ground? From what I recall reading in various threads over the years here there is a significant amount of study and documentation of impacts. That would include time, location, area of effect including weather.

Do any of your iceballs satisfy all of the criteria of sites known and if not where then would you show as impact sites. 

jmccr8

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Howard West 2 said:

Again!!!! How do you stack up on land which is only 29% of earth surface enough Water ( Liquid or solid) to cover surface of the oceans which covers 71% of Earth surface 300 to 400(?) feet deep and have any place for animals to live. 

Freeze the water into glaciers. Did you really NOT know that an estimated 25% - 32% of the Earth's land area was covered by glaciers during the Last Glacial Maximum? And as has already been mentioned some areas contained glaciers up to 1 - 2 miles thick. 

https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp 

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html

And as to animals not having any place to live, as you question, the above means that there was plenty of room for fauna to exist, particularly with 68% - 75% of the land area ice-free. 

The above doesn't take in account the sea-ice that existed at the same time as land-based glaciers.

cormac

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Howard West 2 said:

OF COURSE Pieces of it will leave craters, there is a huge crater a few miles from here.

and which crater is that one? 

 

2 hours ago, Howard West 2 said:

Where is that evidence? 

 

Where's the craters from the event in question? 

[stereologist]

Just checking the math here and it is really fairly simple.

Let S = surface area of t he Earth

Let w = fraction covered by water, then (1-w) fraction covered by land

Let p = fraction of land covered with ice

Let h = height in rise of the oceans

Let h' = height of ice on land

Then assuming the density of ice and water is the same,

h (S w) = h' (S (-w)p)

h' / h = w / (1-w) / p

The ratio of ice height to water height is 2.425 divided by p.

If p = 0.1 then h' / h = 24.25

Then 24.25 feet of ice on 1/10 of the land mass results in a sea level rise of 1 foot. 

A sea level rise of 300 feet is accomplished by piling 1.38 miles of ice on 0.1 of the land. 

A sea level rise of 300 feet is accomplish by piling .46 miles of ice on 0.3 of the land.

[stereologist]

On 10/28/2018 at 4:28 PM, Howard West 2 said:

 The IDIOT jasoncolavito.com
Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data

 

 

As a Cowboy I have dealt the preserving meat for a long time! Which the writer if this questionable information has not nor had he read the article I referenced. First thing you do is “GUT” or remove all the internal organs such as the stomachs, lungs, kidneys, heart and other interior things like fat. Then you skin the animal . The mastodons were found with all intact. The reason you do this GUTTING and SKINNING is so NONE of the meat spoils. The point is the skin and hair act as insulation speeding the process of spoilage this removal also exposes the damp flesh to speed up the cooling through evaporation cooling . And the mass of Guts hold their core temperature longer. The warmth of the internal organs such as the stomachs, lungs, kidneys, heart and other interior things like fat rot much quicker because that core temperature is prolonged because of the thickness of the animal along with acids made the internal portion ROT. The extremity like legs and surface meat had less mass and froze more quickly. The internal organs were the point of the article. Not the extremities like legs. The other point not addressed was the size of the ICE Crystals found in the carcass of the mastodon. The small ice crystals denote a very rapid freezing that could only be accomplished in an animal that massive is to expose it to temperatures below 300 degrees. Think I am Wrong go to your local market and ask a Butcher.

You are wrong. An intact mastodon does not mean no spoilage. That is your claim.

You are mixing being edible with being intact. Your cowboy knowledge has nothing to do with finding an intact organ. An organ can be  intact and inedible.

Recrystallization is common over time. Snow is an excellent example of a frozen material that recrystallizes over time.

Were the mastodons found with all intact? No. That is simply not true. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2009/05/mammoths/

Quote

Yet no carcass of any age was as complete as the creature Yuri Khudi had found

That is a a brazen falsehood you posted.

No spoilage? This most complete mammoth was pickled in lactic acid. Do some research before making more obvious blunders.

I think I'll stick with the well researched work of Jason Colavito who you labeled an idiot instead of a cowboy posting falsehoods.

Edited October 30, 2018 by stereologist

[Piney]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 cowboy posting falsehoods.

I'm questioning the "cowboy" part. He's too "in your face". 

[Carnoferox]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are wrong. An intact mastodon does not mean no spoilage. That is your claim.

You are mixing being edible with being intact. Your cowboy knowledge has nothing to do with finding an intact organ. An organ can be  intact and inedible.

Recrystallization is common over time. Snow is an excellent example of a frozen material that recrystallizes over time.

Were the mastodons found with all intact? No. That is simply not true. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2009/05/mammoths/

That is a a brazen falsehood you posted.

No spoilage? This most complete mammoth was pickled in lactic acid. Do some research before making more obvious blunders.

I think I'll stick with the well researched work of Jason Colavito who you labeled an idiot instead of a cowboy posting falsehoods.

As well as Howard being wrong on every other point, the carcasses found in Siberia are woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), not mastodons (Mammut americanum).

[Howard West 2]

20 minutes ago, Piney said:

I'm questioning the "cowboy" part. He's too "in your face". 

FUNNY  that is part of what makes a cowboy a cowboy

[Howard West 2]

31 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

As well as Howard being wrong on every other point, the carcasses found in Siberia are woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), not mastodons (Mammut americanum).

You are picky aren't you  but

My question REMAINS UNANSWERED  Where do you put the water (in ICE or LIQUID) to cover 71% of the Earth surface to a depth of 300 to 400 Feet on 29% of the surface that is dry land and where did the animals fine a place that was not covered.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Howard West 2

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I have a suspicion I have met Howard on another forum, given Adso is here is that you Jennings? 

[Carnoferox]

6 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

You are picky aren't you  but

It's not being picky when you can't correctly identify the animal being discussed.