Support our work and discover more:Become a Patron!
Every now and then, there’s a new idea that sees the light of day and captures whole communities of researchers.
One of these new ideas is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. The Younger Dryas is the period between 12,900 to 11,700 years BP. During this period, the temperatures in Greenland suddenly started to drop.
It is now hypothesized that this could have been caused by a meteorite impact, the Clovis meteorite. The crater itself is named the Hiawatha Impact Crater.
Some researchers even believe that this Clovis meteorite was the cause for the disappearance of certain ancient civilizations. We studied this topic thoroughly and determined why this hypothesis is very unlikely.
Why? Because the hypothesis is flawed, suggestive, assumptive, and not even supported by any data. The patterns do not correlate in any logical way. We will offer an explanation in this analytical article.
Bedrock Anomaly
Recent radar scans showed an anomaly in the bedrock beneath the ice sheet of Northwest Greenland. The shape of the anomaly is roughly circular and it is massive, approximately 30 km in diameter.
Taking samples of the impact crater itself was impossible due to the massive ice sheet. That is why the researchers have chosen to take samples at the edge of the ice. Over the years, meltwater from the base of the glacier had deposited sediments. When sampled, these materials contained signs of an impact with “shocked” quartz grains having deformed crystal lattices and glassy grains that may represent flash-melted rock.
It is not unthinkable that the researchers are misguided by circumstances. Some scientists are eager to prematurely present a new discovery. Circular bedrocks are not uncommon and shocked quartz is formed all over the Earth due to countless small meteor impacts. Their “proof” might appear to be compelling, but because it is indirect, it is not conclusive.
If the researchers have found the cause for the sudden Younger Dryas temperature drop, it should be supported by other data, and that appears not to be the case.
World Map with Meteor Impact Craters
The Younger Dryas Period
It is generally believed that the Younger Dryas period coincides with the end of the last ice age. That is indeed true. If we look at the data from Antarctica, whether it is from Dome-C or from Vostok, they both tell the same story; the last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago.
To postulate that the Younger Dryas relates to a meteor impact is short-sighted. That conclusion was reached by a lack of insight. If the researchers who stake this claim had done more research, they would have come to another conclusion.
But the internet seems to be teeming with impatient people who like to “adopt” new ideas now and then. Maybe is it because they are desperately looking for answers that mainstream science obviously prefers to neglect. The real truth is covered up with tons of nonsense that inevitably gets generated by alternative researchers as well as by mainstream scientists.
The Hiawatha Impact Crater on Greenland is believed to have been formed in the Pleistocene epoch between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago. This is not at all certain. But if we assume that this is correct, the crater can be dated at around 1.3 million years ±1.3 million years (smile). So that can indeed be some 12,000 years ago, but also 2.6 million years ago. That is the time frame we are actually dealing with, and that is adopted as an academic “fact”.
Temperatures in Antarctica Started to Drop 1800 Years BEFORE the Younger Dryas
Antarctica and Greenland Have Two Major Things in Common
Besides having a massive ice sheet, Antarctica and Greenland have one other thing in common, namely an aquatic conveyor belt washing their shores. Solar energy collected around the equator is being transported to areas that lack energy.
This is not something mystical, it is simply one of the consequences of the thermodynamic principles. From places where energy is abundant, it will be transported to areas where there is a shortage. This basic law or principle is the only reason why the Gulf Stream is running. Warm waters in the Gulf Stream cool as they flow north into the North Atlantic, then sink and loop south towards Antarctica as part of an aquatic conveyor belt.
The main driver of the Gulf Stream is the Sun. When the Sun goes into hibernation for a period of time, the Gulf Stream will slow down. This is visible in the ice cores. We do not have to look for any outlandish ideas for events like the Younger Dryas cooling.
Yes, large meteor impacts can be the cause of sudden temperature drops. But such notions must be accompanied by dust concentrations in the atmosphere, and that is not the case.
Why a Meteor Impact is Very Unlikely
Multiple Similar Temperature Dips Over the Last 100 Millennia
The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis would be much more credible if there was only one major temperature dip over the last 100,000 years. But, as we have shown, that is obviously not the case.
The ice cores from Greenland show that there were many more similarly-sized temperature drops. In Fig. 4 we show there were twenty (!) similarly-sized sudden temperature drops. And what was the cause?
If the Younger Dryas had been caused by a meteor of 1.5 km in diameter, it follows that the other dips must have been caused by twenty similarly-sized impacts as well. Everyone understands immediately how unlikely that is.
That twenty of such large meteorites have slammed into the earth within 100,000 years and within the same region is of course not very likely. The likelihood of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis to be correct or even remotely true is not supported by direct evidence and it is not supported by the ice core data. It is not supported by any means of logic.
We find it very strange that a scientific research team has been eager to publish such a dubious theory just to gain attention. We wonder how much public money was spent on this research.
Climate in Greenland – The Milankovitch Cycles
“As for the idea that a crater may have formed within the last couple of million years, it’s quite unlikely. Such strikes are rare in general, and asteroids barreling into the Earth are far more likely to land somewhere in an ocean. It would be at least a hundred times less likely that it could have happened so recently as to have affected the Younger Dryas.”
Clark Chapman, Planetary scientist, Southwest Research Institute
Climate in Greenland – Dust Concentrations
The Most Likely Cause for Climate Variability: Changes in Oceanic Circulations
The most likely candidate seems to be the changes in ocean circulation, i.e. changes in the Gulf Stream behavior. The Gulf Stream is propelled by the energy from the Sun and is, as we already explained, a direct cause of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In simple words, energy flows from hot to cold, not vice versa.
Where there is an abundance of energy, it flows “by design” to places where there is a lack of energy. Both poles receive much less energy than the equator. The oceans are the medium that transports this surplus energy to places where there is less.
When the Sun goes into hibernation for a period of time, this causes a shock in the energy transport to the poles. This then is the most likely cause of the dips that we witness in the ice core data of Greenland.
The “scientists” who came up with this new Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis do not contribute to real scientific research. They are mere sensationalists. It has certainly put them into the academic spotlight, and maybe this is even good for their careers. However, it is a pity that there are now a lot of alternative researchers who are confused and relate this new hypothesis to certain ancient “lost” civilizations and “extinction events”.
The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis has no supportive data whatsoever.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
https://mariobuildreps.com
Proofreading and editing: J.B.
17 Responses
The Gulf Stream is central to the Bolide collision narrative where shock melting leads to a massive cold fresh water pulse in the North Atlantic that forces a new circulation pattern starving Europe of warm currents. What compels me about the bolide notion is the widespread identification of microdiamonds and spherules (melt?) within the black mat layers. This speaks to exotic atmospheric conditions with at least locally extreme pressures and temperatures. Since Earth is 70% water, it is more likely an impact feature might still be hiding. That said, I am increasingly inclined towards cyclical micronova, an explosive shedding of outermost spent solar material. A hot wave of plasma, blobs and dust capable of resetting the clock.
First we have to recognize the sun has a lithosphere in order to proceed.
Dr Robitaille explains in a few videos this is one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erql613GO_k
This is my understanding on how the Sun has a lithosphere.
This is the original paper in 1865 that claimed the sun is a gas. It’s been officially a gas since this paper. The claim the sun spot proves it’s a gas because we’re looking at a cool spot. To this day we believe a sun spot is cooler which is why observed as dark.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/112100.pdf
That argument didn’t make sense in 1865 because if it was a cool spot then why would it create ejections? Whatever.
Now Nasa recognizes that Jupiter which is made up very much like a star is made up Metallic Hydrogen. Coincidentally The same substance that Dr Robitaille believes the sun is made of.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09aug_juno3
Here is one of the better images today of a sun spot.
https://ttt.astro.su.se/isf/gallery/images/2002/25sep02_7057.282-283.jpg
Found here:
https://www.su.se/isf/research/gallery/images/2002
Notice the plasma canyons and waves flowing around the sun spot. in other words we can visually see the surface.
We’re interested in the long term cycles.
Dansgaard–Oeschger 1500 years which is more noticeable during glaciation. Not recognized but it likely spanned from Roman warming to the Maunder Minimum)
Heinrich cycle 6000 years or a 6000 years cycle. (written history is the story of Noah)
12,000 years great flood in the bible (Gilgamesh and Hobabish betray a Babylonian provenance the first flood)
The smaller events seem to match up or take place at the same time as the larger events. Meaning Dansgaard–Oeschger and Heinrich cycle takes place at the same time. Then add the magnetic excursion that one is due.
Heinrich cycle’s we can date back many major events that has happened including coloration with Toba extinction event.
As Zero and Curtis Thompson in this thread has pointed out the black mat which covers most of north America which the temperatures reached around 800 deg F throughout north America.
The black mat and they’re tied with Carbonaceous chondrite CI group meteors (magnetic) are from our star. Officially they’re formed with our star. This suggests massive solar flares might be associated with these long term cycles. Carbonaceous always explode on entry. I’m not sure if that is because they have amino acids (only type of meteor that does.) or because how they’re formed is with a strong magnetic bond on the sun.
Framboidal iron oxide: Chondrite-like material from the black mat, Murray Springs, Arizona
framboidal particles
https://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Framboidal-iron-oxide-Chondrite-like-material-from-the-black-mat-Murray-Springs-Arizona.pdf
I missed an important point on why sun spots are dark.
Spectroscopy of Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) which is the closest compound that we can observe to Metallic Hydrogen. Metallic Hydrogen when observed is dark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hglyhvFuikw
Thank you.
Love you’re ideas.
First off, I don’t have a horse in this YD race. I simply find ancient history fascinating. What for you – besides a crater – would constitute direct evidence of an impact or is the only direct evidence a crater? Have you seen the work of Antonio Zamora re: Nebraska basins and Carolina Bays? Zamora and others use mathematics to arrive at their conclusion. A Nova doc, Last Extinction, focusing on the Ice age highlighted the possibility of impact ejecta in the form of ice boulders. Evidence in southern Chile, points to an extraterrestrial impactor at the YD boundary according to researchers. By the way, how long did it take for the scientific community to accept the “dinosaur killer” impactor?
Thank you for your comment, Richard. The data is clear: there is ZERO evidence for the YDIH. You must really believe in it like in a religion, because there is no data to support the arbitrary chosen timing of the impact some 12ky ago.
The timing of the “YD impact crater” is connected to a randomly picked temperature dip, similar as you chose a number on a roulette table. In fact, the most recent big dip was chosen, because that seems the most desirable one. People who are into lost civilizations are looking for a cause why such a civilization disappeared, and believe to have found one in this latest dip. Some 12ky ago sounds good, not too far away from their slightly widened paradigm, but larger than mainstream science, otherwise they would not have any new audience.
We appear to have stumbled on a lot of hostilities among not only among mainstream scientists but also among lots of the so called “free-thinkers”, because we have also kicked in their doors with only data and mathematics. Our research has shown that not less than four lost civilizations inhabited the earth over the last 350,000 years, and built many of the megaliths that we can find everywhere around the world. This time frame is something very few people are able to wrap their minds around, and that is because we are programmed to think in a Darwinistic linearly upward evolution. Homo sapiens is a species that is around for quite a while, and has not learned to built magnificent structures because they went to college. Building great works appears to be in our DNA.
Many speakers on “alternative” congresses fear our work because we contradict many things they claim and have written numerous books about. We threaten their business so to speak.
We only use data and mathematics. I have seen lots of ideas and theories but I’m very rarely impressed by their level of abstractness.
‘Thank you for your comment, Richard. The data is clear: there is ZERO evidence for the YDIH. You must really believe in it like in a religion, because there is no data to support the arbitrary chosen timing of the impact some 12ky ago.
The evidence for a YDIH is over a half a million elliptical depressions (Carolina Bays) spread up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States, with center line trajectories that ALL converge on Saginaw Bay Michigan. A best common sense guess would be that 12,000 years would be about the outside time frame for their formation because these depressions are in soil that eventually will erode and obfuscate all evidence of the elliptical impact pattern that formed them. Any more recent and they wouldn’t have filled in and developed into the diverse habitats that you now typically find within them. The best explanation I have ever heard offered for these Carolina Bays are that they are secondary impact craters caused by huge ice chunks blown out by a meteor impact in the Laurintide ice sheet at Saginaw Bay. If correct the size of the primary impact on the ice sheet would have been staggering. It has nothing to do with religion or internet hype – it is mathematics physics and probability. Run your statistics on that many trajectories converging on one place- 800 miles distant. Zamora’s work should not be dismissed. Ps I live within a few miles of several of these Carolina Bays. They are not a myth.
I think you believe in crustal displacement like a religion in order to ignore the massive amount of accumulated evidence from multiple sources which indicate that YDIH was very likely, if not indisputably true.
Black matte layers with nanodiamonds, iridium, and various other impact proxies showing a terrestrial origin have been found around the world–and can be dated to the time of the Younger Dryas onset. This is the same kind of evidence which proved the KT extinction event. This has been documented by scientists at over 36 separate sites around the world. For some reason, you unscientifically dismiss the hard evidence found of impact proxies around the Hiawatha glacier–why would that be?
Geological evidence in North America displays huge flooding from around the same time has the onset of the Younger Dryas. This evidence is everywhere, and indeed, the geology of North America has been carved out by these sudden floods.
Pretty much all mega fauna died out on or around the Younger Dryas period–there is no adequate explanation for this event, and the overkill hypotheses is moronic.
We know humans lived around this time–yet these people disappeared around the same time.
Meteor impacts threw huge amounts of material into the air ( Carolina Bays) and created a nuclear winter, which propelled the Earth into a further cold period for 1200 years. The release of so much melted fresh water into the world ocean affected the usual thermocline oceanic flows. But you are not capable of understanding this?
You must be aware of the work of the Comet Research Group, and yet you cavalierly dismiss their findings with a quote from Clark Chapman on the probability of a meteor impact? Seriously? This is your argument dismissing mountains of hard evidence from over 60 researchers?
I respect your findings regarding the orientations of ancient pyramids, monuments etc., and I believe you have found significant evidence to support a moving geographic pole. I do not respect your dismissive attitude to the YDIH, and for those who are convinced by the evidence accumulated thus far.
As I stated earlier, you are more like a religious acolyte, than a scientist or mathematician. Due to your monomania, you can see no other factors affecting the climate of the Earth except your own pet theory.
We are no believers, we use data to prove things. How much data do you need to understand simple things? What we show in the graphs (like graph 4) is very uncomfortable for YDI-believers, because they have never extended their view over a longer period of time than their measly 12,000 years. They cannot imagine (yet) that things are much bigger than they seem.
We ignore nothing, however, all the evidence for a comet impact during the Younger Dryas period is simply lacking. No matter how hard you look, 60 or 600 researchers, it is not there. Sure, there might have been an impact. The timing is absolutely uncertain and can be placed over a VERY wide time frame of 2 million years. So, don’t put your finger on the timeline, and say you are certain about it. That is very unscientific.
Mass extinctions are also no evidence for an impact event. It could also have been a massive CME or a nova outburst. The placement of the impact, at around 12,000 years ago, is arbitrary and comes from believers who want that impact to have destroyed ancient civilizations, because they have published tons of books (like Graham Hancock and his buddies) and so have put all their money on this event. It’s simply once again nothing more than a businesscase. Congresses, followers, believers, and people who buy tickets and books. This has nothing to do with real science. It is real business, and it is business as usual. If they say they were wrong all their books become kindling for the fireplace.
Impacts and crustal deformations can go hand in hand. We have no problems with that. The timing of around 12,000 years of the YDIH incorrect like we have sufficiently proven.
The USGS magnetic anomaly map shows a 64 mile diameter depression shaped like a crater in the center of Lake Michigan. Sheboygan is on the south west side. The trajectories of the Younger Dryas black mats, the Nebraska Bays and the Carolina Bays, corrected for the rotation of the Earth, intersect with this shape in Lake Michigan. Core samples taken by the Wisconsin ground water survey show what may be a complex crater near Sheboygan. Much of the Lake Michigan Triangle lies within this shape. Several III AB meteorites have been found in the area around this depression. The Cape York meteorites in Greenland are class III AB. The Mary Bay hydrothermal explosion in Yellowstone Lake, which happened around the same time, is thought to have occurred when a tsunami in the lake reduced the pressure above Mary Bay allowing the explosion. Ice splashing into the lake would have caused a tsunami.
I am thinking about what the ice age is. As a result, I came to the conclusion that most of the glaciers did not exist. There were no glaciers in North America or Europe. Glacial erratic and Cirque were created by an impact from the discharge. Discharge and expansion are related.
Thank you for this article. It really shows that this hypothesis is nonsense, although it is quite popular on the internet.
I did read all the articles on your website and I think that I did put in quite some effort to understand everything and to see if I missed something or was able to find some uncertainties.
The method and the results as presented are clear to me. But I think that I did find some uncertainties or aspects that I would like to learn more about.
1. Contrary to what Charles Hapgood believed, it is said that earth crust deformation is a slow process that takes thousands of years.
The reason to assume this is the match between the locations of the former poles and the temperature difference between the highs and lows in the dome-C and Vostok ice cores. However, what does this tell us about the speed of the deformation process? Could it be that during certain periods the deformation happened relatively fast? Or at least faster than is now assumed? If I look at the dome-C ice core data it seems to me that the largest part of the deformation during the move from pole II to pole I happened in the first temperature drop? Or is this wrong to assume?
2. According to this article, sudden temperature drops in the Greenland ice core data can most probably be explained by changes in oceanic circulations, which in turn seem to be caused by variations in solar power. I understand this can indeed be a good explanation.
However, I am not sure if the process of earth crust deformation still has some surprises left for us to discover.
Could it be that the rotational oscillations of the Earth do not only work on the landmass of the crust but also on the oceans? The oceans are less solid and could also react but in a different way. Because water is less solid, could it move in the same way as the crust, but faster and with the effect of changing the oceanic circulations? And could it be a precursor of crustal deformations, because of the lower mass of water at the surface level of the planet?
I’d like to give the example of a treadmill to clarify this idea. When the pulleys that move the belt are not rotating in sync this can cause the belt to slowly move sideways. This effect is also caused by the forces that the running person is exerting on the belt. The slow sideways movement in this case could be compared to a crustal displacement.
The belt of a treadmill can also show a different effect and this is the effect that the belt very suddenly is displaced in the direction opposite to the direction in which the belt is moving.
Could a similar effect happen with the oceans?
3. In the process of an earth crust deformation, the crust is slowly massaged and gets loose from the fluid layer that is below it. When the deformation happens the crust is compressed in some places, while in other places the crust is extended. And I guess in some places the crust is not compressed or extended. Could this compression and extension cause some kind of rippling of the crust?
4. In the movie about the living Earth you show that human actions do have a certain effect on the planet. What do you think about the ideas about solar energy from space? Could beaming rays of solar energy from collectors in space to Earth cause any disturbances in the rotational balance? I am worried about this development and it seems to be in serious development when I read articles about for instance China’s plans to launch a Sun simulator. I mean, how far can we go with our violence against nature?
Here is some background information about solar energy from space in case you are not yet familar:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940015667.pdf
Thanks for the good article. Lots to consider.
To update your impact crater list you may add the Decorah, Iowa location. Details can be found here:
https://www.livescience.com/27678-iowa-meteorite-crater-confirmed.html
Thank you for your comment and the update, Dave.
MB, I have to agree and your system explains it as the most logical; there is a current topic at the moment which I would like to comment on.
The magnetic pole movement from northern Canada towards Siberia has apparently speeded up and we’re heading for a complete ‘Flip’.
I see this as a final ‘snap’ back towards the geographical north pole from the last geo move or part of the new move. As I understand it (although the Electric Universe crew may disagree to some extent) the magnetic field is caused by the heavy molten metal core spinning and the effects of precession mean that the ‘field’ will always be playing ‘catch-up’. Added to that either the earth crust in continuous movement (all be it over millennia) or the earth expanding due to its changes in orbits around the sun and or effect of other planetary bodies, again over millennia. The effects will be continuous movement of magnetic north and subsequent volcanic and seismic activity around the world along the continental plates as the effects build up and , like an earthquake, will result in devastating consequences when it snaps.
What I now can’t accept is that the academics out there won’t accept that history as currently taught is fundamentally flawed and the inability of all these experts to look at the physical evidence for what it is and not feel they have to compliment the idea from over a hundred years ago. We now have a greater (and wider) knowledge of science, cosmology, mathematics and see them for what they are.
Thank you for your in depth comment, Terry. The magnetic North pole seems to be galloping towards Siberia or maybe to Europe, and that makes some people think this might be the start of a flipping event. There is however no 100% watertight evidence that flips ever occurred in the past. That is because geology has dismissed crustal deformations. An obvious moving magnetic field does not prove it can actually flip. Geology has never found a common ground on the flipping events due to the large amounts of conflicting data. We have found clues that this “noise” in the data and debate among geologists is caused by the deformation cycles of the crust in the data.
It might be so that extinction events are not caused by flipping events, or meteorite impacts, but mainly by intense growing pains of our planet. These growing pains result into massive crustal deformations (catastrophes for the species living on the surface), and by doing so a moving spin axis as seen from the crust’s perspective. The spin axis of the rest of the planet (the remaining 99%) has not changed significantly.
There is a very good book about paleomagnetism that is freely available on the internet from Robert F. Butler “PALEOMAGNETISM:
Magnetic Domains to Geologic Terranes“. It explains this relatively difficult scientific discipline in detail.
You are absolutely right, Terry. We are completely aware of the academics and their view and are not in a hurry. Paradigm changes require lots of time.
MB, thank you once again for a simple but logical counter argument against the ‘comet’ theory which I have to say almost had me convinced. However the physical evidence is still there, the seas rose considerably (but when?), The EU consortium will tell you that it was plasma discharges between moving planets; Dr Schock has said he believes some form of plasma burst from the sun, on his website he indicated molten rock around the pyramids of Giza and similar damage to sites in S America. Unfortunately there are no impartial voices out there, as you say in this article why do ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ make these claims? I t seems to be the revenues of their next book.
Thank you for your comment, Terry. The comet theory is not based on factual scientific observations, although many researchers believe it is the case. The oceans rose considerably indeed, there’s little doubt about that, but that was not cause by a comet impact.
If you look at the ice sheets that once covered the Northern hemisphere you’ll see that Greenland was at the center of it. This ice sheet is logically the last remaining part because of its immense thickness and deep frozen state (it was on the North pole). Due to a series of crustal deformations were the outer border of the large ice sheets moved to lower latitudes hence they started to melt quite rapidly.
Greenland as the center melts last because it is still largely located within the arctic circle. The melting process of Greenland is expected to take still a few thousand years from now. The gulf stream plays also a major role in this process. Imagine what would happen today if the gulf stream suddenly stops. It would become suddenly much colder on the Northern hemisphere.
There are indeed so many ideas out there. Most of them are outlandish and do not seem to care to look to the most obvious mechanisms. Outlandish ideas draw more attention. Talking about the gulf stream as the major cause is no head turner anymore.