วีดีโอ

Thanks

The problem with this diagram is that it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The sun is the only source of energy in the diagram, which is 342 Wm-2. Now add up the energy being absorbed by the earth's surface: 168+324=492Wm-2. That is simply not possible.

Venus caused the extinction. Velikovsky was right.

Nicely explained

Lithium Citrate battery

Silicate is toxic to kidney and Brain etc.

The thermohaline overturning circulation is a wrong hypothesis. It looks like it will be believed for another 50 or 100 years. This was suggested by Wally Broeker, and it is wrong.

Greenland ice core variations are NOT indicative of global temperatures. This is a wrong assumption. Period.

Thank you from 🇧🇩❤❤❤

I don't have a dog in this hunt but I'm smelling a lot of bs from the "no impact evidence" side. For example I'm sure they are aware of the Tunguska air burst event yet they keep stating that they can't find an impact site as if that's the end of the discussion.

this is so cool, thank you for sharing!

Ok?

lISTENING TO THIS IN MY HEADPHONES REMIND ME OF 1984 - PROPAGANDA BY NPC'S VOICES

Looking at the chart, the temperature start to drop way earlier before that, gradually.

I also believe the St Gulf Lawrence and the extended continental shelf is evidence of this flood emptying into the Atlantic.

Wonderful video thank you for sharing.

So the two Spodumene dikes, were they magma or hydrothermal when intruded?

Cool video. #like and subscribe

There could have been 2 major hits. One around 12,600 BC over Siberia and then another around 9,600 BC over Greenland.

My groundwater got recharged just from watching this! Thanks @middgeology.

Is anyone have any information on the older wetas?

You may want to include the fact that Clovis points have only been found BELOW the Black Mat layer. Also, and impact on the ice sheets would result in huge amounts of melting very quickly - also producing freshwater infusion into the northern oceans. Impacts on the ice sheet directly would mute any surface craters, leaving little evidence. Thus, glacial outburst flooding and the impact hypothesis aren't competing, they are complimentary. It is difficult to imagine the energy required for that level of melting in such a short timeframe without invoking one or more impactors on the ice sheets themselves. An extended rainout would exacerbate this effect. Furthermore, evidence of massive flooding can be found all the way from the channel scablands of WA to the finger lakes of NY. The Missouri and Mississippi rivers are evidence on their own. These are 'misfit rivers.' Meaning that the size of the river basin (bluff to bluff) is much too large to have been caused by today's typical flow rates, regardless of the time allowed for that flow to do so. These two theories need each other. Good work presenting both sides of the argument. Well done.

Excellent ❤

10:00 Makes sense to me that there was a major flooding event that happened ca. 12,800 years ago, disrupting the gulf stream, the world cools, glaciers build up again and around 8,00-9,000 years ago glaciers advance, pushing previous evidence for the flood out to sea.

There is an error in your presentation around the 3 minute mark. Partial melting does not occur because of the melting of a single mineral (unless there is just one mineral present in the rock), but as a combinational melting event at mineralogical boundaries, producing a eutectic liquid for that particular parent rock mineral assemblage. You can see that clearly in experimental ternary phase diagrams.

hydrogen is the base for life.

The last glacial maximum saw full coalescence between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets. I’ve never seen a reconstruction like the one you’re showing - can you cite a source for this?

Dry ass...probably not the best pronounciation though...😂

I saw nothing about Carolina Bays. They seem to have been formed by giant ice bolders ejected from the impact ON TOP of the ice sheet. If ice is 2 miles thick, would a comet or meteor make it to the surface? Probably not. They would smash into the ice sheet and eject ice chunks with ballistic trajectories - some even out of the atmosphere. Carolina bays were formed in no other way. The long axis of the Carolina bays point back to common origins. My personal opinion is that the evidence supports a comet breaking up and the pieces impacting as the Earth rotated underneath (think Shumaker-Levy 9) so we had multiple "smaller" events in very close proximity vs one large event.

The audio is ear-braking with extreme high frequency noise. 🙉

I think Firestone's 2007 paper (revisited Sweatman 2021) needs the credit for reporting its findings on the impact theory hypothesis

What garbage.

Look what happened when we witnessed a comet pass close to Mars, a comet tail could displace atmosphere , cause electrical discharge, and transport and instantly freeze forests and megafauna ?

Does an extraterrestrial impact include electrical discharge?

At approximately t=5 minutes you speak of "theory 2, a bolide impact" as an alternative to "theory one, a stop of the thermohaline circulation because of meltwater dumped into the ocean". That logic is flawed, those theories are not necessarily alternatives, theory 2 is one of the possible causes for the event in theory 1. Both may have combined.

Fascinating!

at end of an ice age, so much of the oceans water is locked up in glaciers that the continental shelves get exposed. these become grasslands and the population of grazing mega fauna explodes. the methane from their collective belches drives temperatures higher. eventually a self reinforcing release of trapped arctic methane occurs. temperatures sky rocket and an extinction event results that begins the next ice age cycle.

Really interesting. Thank you from England.

That was fun. Thanks to all of you, at every step of putting this together. Respectfully, Dan

The asteroid that impacted the laurentine ice sheet was comprised of materials that are stripped from the surface of the planet during a solar nova. Those materials end up on a orbit with earth and come back at the same time as the sun novas to impact us.

I vote for impact. Too bad when I think that I could have had a wooly mamoth.

Now that knowledge of the YDE is becoming known to the mainstream, it won't be long before CNN blames it on racism. 🤡

The Laurentide Ice Sheet was over a mile thick! Between multiple impacts on the Ice Sheet and atmospheric explosion from a break-up of the impacter, there wouldn't be terrestrial craters. The Carolina Bays illustrate this impact on the Ice Sheet. The heating, shockwaves, and flooding from melted ice as well as torrential rain from the vaporized ice would have been sufficient to affect weather patterns as well as directly and indirectly cause the mass extinction of the megafauna. Impacts in the Hudson Bay and Great Lakes areas would have been sufficient to cause this scenario. Greenland impact is too old as the ice covering it is older than Younger Drias. The impacts on North American Ice could have sent enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to disrupt ocean currents as well. IMO

Go to google earth and look at the canyons, river channels, you see on the ocean floor. Look south of England and Ireland, look at the west coast of North America and Central America. The south coast of France in the Mediterranean, the entrance to the Black Sea, the South east side of the Persian Gulf. Look along the west Atlantic off Newfoundland Canyons but not like on other side as brunt of tsunami hit Doggerland. I also believe Atlantis is tied to this event.

so if an impact happened in Greenland thru an icesheet. Besides the instant change to steam and blow up thru the atmosphere. the resulting shock wave would shatter the ice sheet that would rain down on the open land covering all that lived. The resulting down draft after the first blast up would bring extreme cold down in areas which could be the reason we find flash frozen mammoths buried.

That was a really good summary of the science👍👍 THANKS😊 my only reservation was the young lady who seemed to want to make a them and us argument out of who was right🤦 they’re competing hypotheses you are describing, without more data you can’t say who’s right🤦 all sides have excellent ideas😊

Wes Watson.

Again, no one seems to be addressing this obvious and big problem in the various expositions on this method. If you don't have a pointed analysis of accounted-for sources of experimental uncertainty in this isotope signature (they are substantial) - then, by definition, there can be no assumption of reliable physics or characterization methodology in your presentation, because it is meaningless as a claim of physical history. I deal with this issue every day in far more rigorous areas of experimental physics than this loosey-goosey field called "climate science."

What about Volcanic eruptions? They can certainly kill off life and there are some real doozys on Greenland and Iceland or when much further away that can wipe out life.

Where would a meteor have to hit to cause a compound effect. Could an impact cause glacial failure and flooding