"Greenland" was called that in part to attract immigrants, but it's not a _complete_ lie. The fjords where people lived were covered in lush plantlife for a surprising fraction of the year. Sure, 90-odd percent of the island is covered by ice, but the places where people lived and farmed (or set up pastures) were heckin' green.
@@eerolz8758 But it seems like a strong reason, following the pattern of how they named a green island Iceland to keep not to many coming there and an icy island Greenland to lure them there instead.
@@fheedpexx9267 Oh I already deleted my comment after reading a bit more.. There is article from National Geographic that does not think that Icelands name has nothing to do with not wanting people there. But Greenlands name remained because they wanted people there. Quote from National Geographic: "Alas, Garðar’s Isle was not so kind to its next arrival, a Viking named Flóki Vilgerðarson. Flóki’s daughter drowned en route to Iceland, then all his livestock starved to death as the winter dragged on. Depressed and frustrated, Flóki, the sagas say, climbed a mountain only to see a fjord full of icebergs, which led to the island's new name."
You are by far the easist.....how to put this.......it is easier to understand you when things get overly technical than anybody else on the internet by far. AVE does a damn good job and CodysLab is kick ass also but u explain things, that are way over my head, so most everyone can understand. Thanks
It's his sensibilities, voice coupled with his really pleasant accent and down to earth ness despite his lofty topics. Dude should do radio programs and interview astronomers. Would be genius.
Love your work Mr. Manley, breaking down complex issues for the rest of us. You’ve helped my children with their homework and projects a lot. You touch a lot of lives with your ability to communicate what you know, thank you. Every time I see a new video from yourself, it restores a little faith in humanity imho.
About the invention of beer brewing 13.000 years ago: According to my unscientific theory, a few hundred years later someone in Greenland invented Moonshine. And shortly after shouting "More power!", the still blew up, as these things tend to do. And now there is a crater....
That’s the crater impact that was theorized to have ended the ice age in a day, flooding the coastlines in a few hours and turning west Africa into a heap of mud.
Hyperus That’s where the Egyptians said it was, funnily enough there is a structure in west Africa that closely resembles the description of a ring city, and coincidentally has several dead river deltas leading into and out of it.
Erik the Red was a quick learner. He learned that no one wanted to move to a place called Iceland, so when he was trying to convince people to move to this new place he'd discovered, he came up with a more marketable name for it.
Exactly, but in around year 985 where he discovered Greenland, it was actaully quite green along the southern coasts, they raised cattle. With success. He was born in and thrown out of Norway, fled to Iceland where he killed some more people and then ended up in Greenland. Not the most pleasent character, I hear.. :-)
Yup, it was basically a marketing name to try to help lure immigrants over and make it sound "nice" ahead of time with the "green" sounding name ;) And of course there were green areas along the southern coast, lol. They still knew what they were doing with the naming scheme though. They knew what was lurking up north on the rest of the giant island ;)
@@0x0michael He is not a researcher he is a Journalist - he IS reporting on mainstream Archeology, you just do not know enough about it. Of course he is reporting on a lot of other things at the same time - "throw enough stuff and some of it will stick" - this is why they call him crack-pot and a crook, Hancock is essentially a walking, talking clickbait.
@@Kwodlibet Exactly. It is honestly scary how many people buy into everything Randall and Graham put out... Randall has been wrong on so many occasions I can't listen to him anymore. Extraordinary claims requires extaordinary evidence.
Though should we find Norwegian surveyors fleeing the crater chasing a Dog, rather than send in Kurt Russell this time around lets just nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
@MetalMastodon Couldnt agree more. Highly recommend getting it on Blu Ray as its well worth it due to the cleaner picture quality as well as the cut bits.
A lot more than a little is on the menu. And the kitchen is cooking away like mad. The cooks? The fossil fuel companies. The waitstaff serving it up? Our cowardly "pragmatic" politicians.
@@NemoConsequentae The thing (1982) was very close to the original story you mention. Only the ending from the original story "who goes there" was a lot more uplifting lol.
graham hancock called a meteor impact for the younger-dryas event decades ago, but got criticized by mainstream archaeologists. then geologists started finding more and more evidence to support his claims for ancient civilizations. now, graham hancock is being proven correct with finds like huge ancient complexes from ~12k years ago (and 12k y/o beer?). the sea level was more than 100m lower than it is now, and civilizations almost always build around sea level. one key hypothesis of hancock is that whatever evidence of civilizations that existed back then are underwater. with improved underwater (with ground penetrating) technology, we can actually start searching in more promising spots.
Thank you for providing some much needed skepticism regarding the headlines surrounding this paper. I read it through and much more study is needed to better constrain a timeline. All those headlines saying "ZOMG we found the asteroid responsible for YD" are simply clickbait. Paleoclimateology is fascinating in it's own right without clickbait headlines and conspiracy theories.
Do you think this gives The Impact Hypothesis from Randall Carlson more credibility? I think some near cataclysmic event happened around 12.5k yrs, but I'm torn between Robert Schochs Theorie (MCE) and Randall Carlson's. Carlson delivers more concrete evidence for his theory than Schoch does in my opinion.
This could fit right into the Carolina Bays-Michigan impact. Especially when we consider the Shoemaker-Levy impact of Jupiter being a string of objects.
@Can't Pave The Dave The basic hypothesis of Carlson, Hancock, etc that it is likely that a huge impact event happened 12-13k ago is solid. Based on hard empirical evidence from dozens of mainstream scientific sources. However non of this in any way supports the insanely speculative and IMHO 100% whoo whoo conclusions that they draw. That an ancient high tech 'precursor' civilisation existed prior to the impact and the impact is the EXCUSE for lack of any physical evidence of said civilisation.
It does make sense, not only is it possibly from the same time period, but also the same area they predicted it would be. I'd be very interested to hear what their reaction is to this news.
@cbale2000 No it does not make sense, on any level ... its the definition of tenuously connecting something you have actual evidence for with something you have absolutely 0 evidence of. If this is what you call "making sense" you must find most flat earth or ancient aliens claims compelling evidence too. Also the idea that they predicted this impact event independent from mainstream science is garbage, what they did was use the findings and speculations of mainstream science to support the outer fringes whoo whoo they indulge in.
Don't you think that the height of the crater walls could be affected by the thickness of the iceshield, that might have been ontop of the area at the time. Ice under high pressure acts a little bit like rock. This even leaves the chance that the impact crater was bigger than what we see today, but the upper half, made of glacier ice, has molten away since then, or was filled up again with ice. Maybe this event would have been much more destructable had there been no glacier.
This. Plus the ejecta would've largely been scattered over the top of a thick glacial ice sheet. One that moves slowly over time and would end up spreading deposits of the ejecta along it's path just as it does with the glacial rocks they picked up and deposited far away.
Exactly my thoughts. Add miles of thickness to the top of this crater and you could have a 30 mile wide crater. And if there were multiple impacts like most actual meteor strikes have, you could have 3-4 smaller strikes to the ice sheet with no real evidence even left behind other than the catastrophic flooding we have been shown evidence of, with this large one just being the main body.
You really need to do more takes. There's the Younger Dryas flub, but you also completely mangle the glaciation terminology. The ice age is the whole of the last 2.5 million years. The really cold bits are the glacials. The less cold bits are the interglacials. We are currently in an interglacial: there is no evidence to suggest the ice age has ended. Ice ages are not based on solar cycles or Milankovitch cycles or anything else cyclic. Ice ages are based on fundamental continental configuration with trigger events to set things going (such as massive removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by newly evolved land plants triggering the Karoo ice age). The current one was started by the creation of the Isthumus of Panama and the consequent alterations of ocean current circulation. So until there are substantial movements of the continents we will remain in an ice age. That could be tens of millions of years. In fact technically the current ice age is 33 million years old since that's when the Antarctic ice cap first formed.
To be more specific, previous to about 2.5 million years ago North and South America were separate land masses, with an ocean channel between them. What we now know as the Gulf Stream went through that channel and up the west coast of North America. When North and South America "bumped into each other", that channel was closed off, and the Gulf Stream was re-routed up the east coast of North America. That caused a climactic change.
Thanks for the compliment, but I encourage you to fact-check these comments (including my own), just to be safe. At the very least, you'll get a better picture of what we're talking about.
Indeed, to be clear, I’m aware of the mechanisms driving the ice ages, just not at the same level that I understand orbital mechanics. I did record most of this ad-lobbed with bullet points rather than a script so there’s always room for clarification and more detail.
The small section that the Vikings colonized was actually fertile enough to support farming until the climate cooled later. The Vikings didn't care about the size of the inland glaciers anymore than they cared about the snowy mountains of their homeland.
When the first Viking settlers established themselves in Greenland, it was during a period of climatic warmings and the summers were far milder, permitting some agriculture. Only a generation or two later, they either left or starved to death...
No, that is wrong. We are certain that the Vikings lasted in Greenland until at least 1360 AD and maybe until 1400. We have written records in the Vatican of them paying their tythes around 1340. And we have excavated their settlement on Nova Scotia (well a small island right next to NS).It is dated to about 1000 AD. We're pretty sure it is Vinland.
There's something comforting in finding a feature as big as 31km wide that was unknown before. Its easy to feel disheartened in the modern era that there's not much left on Earth to discover.
Interesting video. About the Young Dryas and this crater's link: the paper gives a pretty wide age range for the crater. from 10k years to 3 million years, if I remember. When we have more accurate estimates about the age of this crater, it will be interesting to see if the Younger Dryas theory finally gets its bog proof.
Long story short on Greenland, an Icelander named Erik the Red (a warrior who didn't back down from a fight but had a Hatfeild and McCoy style fued with a family of antagonistic neighbors in Iceland he was just sick of dealing with) named it Greenland to lure others into settling the land with him. Pure PR and entirely intentional. Interesting stuff!
I remember seeing a program on the same thing they think one might have hit Canada to but it was two mile thick I see that's why they couldn't find any evidence of it besides space dust and micro diamonds or nanodiamonds pardon me. You know your stuff my friend.
Hey scott i have a question regarding the speculation that the asteroid may have come in on an angle... I thought it wouldnt matter what angle the asteroid came at because it is going so fast it would just explode equally in all directions. hence why you only see circular craters on the moon. so wouldn't that mean there is an even spread of ejecta as well? I'm no expert this is just something i heard.
Awesome video, Scott! There should be lots of scientific output pumped out of this crater in the coming years. The event was really huge, planetary-wide scale.
Your graph at 5:37 is incorrect. Since the 0 age is on the left, time is running from right to left (instead of the typical left to right). So your “Abrupt Change” arrow is pointing to the END of the Young Dryas, not the beginning.
Saw the NASA upload, and then an upload from one of the more corporate media outlets on YT, but I don't have the full story until it's gotten a solid Manley revision and analysis. I had to look up how big the Chicxulub meteor is estimated to have been. At first wiki glance it looks like 10-15km compared to 1km (est.) for this one. Now I'm really curious how these play out in real life. Are they big enough to encounter significant gravitational effects? How big does an object need to be for the Roche limit to affect it before more than just an atmosphere alone? In relative terms Mt. Everest is listed at just over 8.8km tall. So does a 'metal' lump, 1.5 times the size of Everest (Chicxulub meteor), make it to the ground before turning into buckshot? ...or... How much bigger does the rock need to be before Roche is guaranteed to get rowdy with it? -Jake
It would also depend on how cohesive the rock is. Roche Limit takes time to tear up orbiting objects through (I think from memory) tidal forces. An object headed for impact would not be subject to that long enough to be broken up, unless it was an aggregate. (A ball made up of gravel just hanging together by it's own gravity.)
Tidal breakup takes longer than the passage through the atmosphere. It's possible that the breakup can occur on a prior go around, see Shoemaker-Levy 9. But for a straight on impact at 20 km/sec? Well, the roche limit for a comet is about 18,000 km, and for the Moon about 9500 km, that gives 425-900 secs to separate. The tidal forces aren't going to string it out very far before it impacts.
@@Markle2k Thanks. That's what I was looking for. This was just a rather elementary thought experiment, but one I hadn't encountered before (that I can recall). It was one of those kinds of ideas where it just wasn't 100% intuitive to me. My interest in Astronomy/Astrophysics is more casual infotainment than anything. Thanks to everyone for helping me play simple (lazy) 'connect the dots.' :) -Jake
@@Markle2k You could have a slower impact, if the object was on what is essentially a converging solar orbit, but it would have to be one very close to Earth's to have a slow enough approach for something as small as the Earth to spaghettify something. While I can see it as _possible_, I can't see it as ever happening.
Greenland was one of the first major examples of marketing/branding. In the late 1st millenia-early 2nd millenia CE. Norway, which at that time held claim to the territory, was concerned that not enough people moved there, and too many people were moving to modern day Iceland. So, they gave them the Old Norse equivalents of the names they possess to this day, and it helped for a while. During the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland had FAR less ice coverage, and even vast forests according to the records of the Norse.
Way to go Scott! Your explenations of everything celestial are easy to understand and explaining everything in layman's terms helps even the most novice of people understand. Keep up the great work mate.
If you, Scott Manley, actually were interested in the younger dryas hypothesis you might actually research it as it seems you know very little about the overwhelming evidence of this event. I suggest you check out the plentiful research done by Randall Carlson and many others. Good stuff, I enjoy your content very much, cheers!
The reason Greenland is called Greenland is because it was greener when the Vikings first settled there. You can see in the archaeological records (core samples) that they produce plenty of wheat and raised livestock there. But the arrived in a very warm period, so when that brief "good times" ended the settlements were abandoned as they could no longer supported the Viking way of life.
Not a scientist, are you, Supergecko8? This crater MAY aid Carlson's hypothesis, but it requires a vast amount of further research before the word 'may' even becomes 'could' (way, way before it makes sense to use the word 'does'). Carlson's hypothesis is not peer reviewed and fails to take into account, let alone explain, many conflicting facts and other evidence against it. Time will tell (perhaps) if he was on to something... or completely wrong.
@@Jabbatic What are some of these facts and evidence that contradict his claims? The man has had a pretty much open invitation to anyone who wants to debate him on his hypothesis for a while now. Yet no one has taken the challenge yet. He's very clear on his position possibly being incorrect, and he would love for someone to show him where he may be in error. He's not some BS pseudoscientist, the man knows his stuff. So again, can you give me some examples of evidence that contradict his claims?
@@fuzedcorn Hello Bob. I suspect you might not fully understand the import of my original comment. Did you not recognise the great significance of my observation that Carlson's ideas have not yet been peer reviewed? As far as I can discover, he has not even submitted his work on the Younger Dryas Event (YDE) for that process. His first duty and responsibility for getting any of his scientific ideas accepted is to submit them, with his claimed supporting evidence, for peer review. Until they pass though that extremely honest, focused, disciplined (even brutal) process, all 'debate', 'challenge' or need to 'show him his errors' are utterly irrelevant. He has nothing about YDE to offer the scientific world UNTIL and unless peer review confirms that he is correct. No-one needs to debate or correct him until that moment - scientists do not have time to waste. Why would they bother until Carlson has something real for them to consider? Furthermore, I do not need to provide contradictory evidence to your, or his, satisfaction. If you think I should then you prove only that you DO NOT understand how science works. Carlson must first provide the evidence to prove his ideas are correct. He has not yet done so. I suggest, therefore, that YOU go and do some decent research so you can understand WHY he has not yet proven his ideas. You wrote "he's not some BS pseudoscientist'. My reaction? What do Carlson's background, reputation, qualifications, experience, etc, have to do with his claims? With facts? With evidence? You could quote his grand-mother's cousin's best friend's choice of hair style for use on sunny Tuesday evenings and not be any more irrelevant. If Carlson's ideas are correct, then peer review will establish that fact. If his ideas about the YDE are not correct, peer review will expose why not. In the latter case, any honest, decent scientist would do more research and modify their hypothesis appropriately - or even scrap the original completely. Any modified or new hypothesis worthy of the name must survive peer review to be accepted. Until then, the rest of us must go about our own work and pursue our own scientific discipline or area of expertise in whatever field we call 'work'. If you are like me , you don't have time for much else. As a much more able and wonderful person than me once wrote: "Science! It works, bitches!" Best you get used to that particular fact, if you haven't done so already. It's all about the scientific method, mate! Cheerio! (with the best in British humour, plus a gentle overtone of sarcasm) from the UK ;-)
Younger Dryas is a theory propped up by layers and layers of hand-waved scaffolding. If the story around this new crater discovery holds up it might help eliminate some of the murkier parts and help it fit observed reality a lot more closely. No longer would we have to ignore evidence of human habitation dated to be going on "beneath miles of glacier ice" or push the Beringian Mongoloid incursions so hilariously far back in time.
Please don't mistake me for a "denier." I just think the story is very complicated and we are missing many pieces of a four dimensional puzzle. Theories are great. We need stories in order to process facts, that's how our minds work. The trick is to avoid falling into dogma traps until we can travel back in time and do proper surveys... something probably not possible for us even as mere observers.
I don't think that it is really going to work. The event has a few things that aren't right to have a global impact. First is the extreme latitude. Volcanoes in Kamchatka and the Aleutians don't affect global weather because their effects are reigned in by the polar vortex and jet stream. This is stronger when the climate is cooler. You need an eruption in the sub-tropics to maximize global effects. Compare Novarupta and Pinatubo. Pinatubo at 15 degrees North depressed global temperatures up to 2 degrees for two years. Novarupta in 1912, at 58 degrees North, despite ejecting over 2-1/2 times more stuff, had no effect on global temperature. In fact, the temperature record shows an increase between 1910 and 1915. Tambora, erupting in April 1815 at 8 degrees South, was followed by "the year without a summer" when temperatures fell 1.2 C globally. The 535 AD and 1883 explosive eruptions of Krakatoa (5 degrees South) were followed by major climate disruptions for a few years, half a decade in the 1883 event. Second, volcanic and impact events, as I noted above, don't have climate effects that last a millenia. Disrupting the overturning circulation of the oceans with multiple freshwater inputs from glacial lakes into the region where saltwater sinks could cause century to millenium length disruptions of climate as the returning current reaches all the way to Antarctica. What we call the Gulf Stream is only part of the larger Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Meltwater pulses from South America and Antarctica coincide with similar events in the southern hemisphere. If you had an impact that threw ejecta out of the atmosphere and caused a mini-Chicxulub, you'd expect to see that in the geological record. There is only one impact event here, but there are multiple deep and sudden climate disruptions during the three Dryas period stadials and the interstadials that came between. This lines up with the multiple fill and drain cycles that are seen with continental size glacial lakes. Lake Agassiz alone held more water than all of the freshwater currently on Earth. This as a cause for one of three similar northern hemisphere events gets shakier and shakier the more I think about it.
@@Markle2k i'm just spit balling here but the impact evidence from before showed the ejecta showering in a south west direction. If this new impact was associated with those, the ejecta was sent in a direction to bring the cloud to southern areas. Another thought is volcanoes eject up, meteor ejecta often has a lateral path. The two are hard to compare
@@ZacLowing Something else to consider is that it seems very plausible that impacts (even powerful airbursts) could affect volcanic activity leading to eruptions. I think the two phenomenon are more related than we know. Not to mention solar activity and other celestial mechanics as possible triggers for increased volcanic activity. In reality, we know very little about the inner workings of the earth, or how the planet reacts to powerful external stimuli.
If the ejecta was pushed into the south west, that would be interesting to see if their spray patterns line up with any of the “Carolina bays” that are thought to be caused by a strike on the ice sheet sending giant chunks of ice into the southern and mid-western U.S. Would also be plausible that this strike wasn’t just one large meteor. Most space rock isn’t just one large chunk, but multiple pieces loosely clinging together by their minimal gravity. This one could have just been the “main show” and various smaller chunks peppering the ice sheet. If it was 2+ miles thick, theoretically speaking, you could just completely not have evidence of them hitting other than dust layers....which even then, depending on their size, could be minimal or even undetectable given their impacting an ice sheet that no longer exists.
@@mrbork7218 We have been keeping records for less than 200 yrs. Which is not even a blink of the eye in Earth's history. We know that the Earth's climate is highly variable with warm and cold phases. Its only human arrogance and stupidity that thinks the planet should stay the same for us or that we can do anything about it.
Right? This topic is pretty much ignored in the popular press. We wouldn't want the masses to have some sort of collective existential crisis now would we?
CNN is a privately owned mass communication company, it's not news. it's basically a giant billboard they can put up whatever they want, real or not, important or not. Important is determined by how much money it brings in for its owners.
Excellent summary of the new-found crater. I've been interested in the cataclysmic impact theory of the Younger Dryas since hearing Randall Carlson on Joe Rogan, and this guy does a great job of touching on all the potential points regarding this new discovery (unbiased).
It's was named Iceland to confuse the Vikings from going and conquering greenland... or something like that... edit.. to keep them from conquering Iceland...
nah,the ellegedly first Norseman that went to iceland from sweden/norway went during a particular heavy winter and he misunderstood that place to "Iceland" ,and Greenland was named like that caus another exiled norseman wanted to attract settlers there.
Well, no. Not if you mean the Noadic flood legend. Of course, there are various floods myths at various supposed times with various different outcomes describing who survived what and why. Floods are common factors in the stories of different civilizations because they are devastating and because humans often set up civilizations near major bodies of water. Thus nearly every old civilization has a flood legend. Now, there is an impact crater in the Indian Ocean that could have been associated with a tsunami that would have flooded the Tigris/Euphrates valley quite sufficiently to cause a flood horrible enough to get mentioned in ancient folklore of that region. This could be the origin of the story mentioned in Tablet III of the Atra-hasis Epic. Most would say that contains the original flood story later adapted in tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Elements of both myths then eventually wound up in the Genesis account written by Ezra. For any civilization that thinks they are the only people on the planet, a massive flood would be interpreted as wiping out the entirety of civilization. So all of them end up exaggerated beyond possibility. For example, it is impossible that at any point in history the entire world was covered by water (as it says in Genesis). And it is equally impossible that a genetic reset ever occurred as described (if human civilization was ever reduced to a single family), let alone consistent with the observed distribution of animals on different continents. If a tsunami accompanied the associated impact in Greenland, it is unlikely that the waves thereof wold be noticed in the middle east. Given the area had even MORE ice at the time of impact, it is likely this caused no flooding at all. Just a nice nuclear winter resetting the ending ice age for a bit as described in this video.
@@gregorypdearth Well, the sea did rise several meters since the "last ice age" and many old ruins are found bellow the current sea level, so the question is how fast could it rise, and is an asteroid like this capable of melting enough ice to cause a sudden rise of sea levels "over night". -I am not just talking about tsunamis from an impact.
If you check out the ideas of Randall Carlson involving multiple impacts on the North American ice sheet, and realize the effects of the vast amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, rain for "40 days and 40 nights" is also quite reasonable, although the sea level rise would be due to meltwater rather than precipitation. With the discovery of the myriad of smaller impacts in the Carolinas, and the record of several extremely rapid shifts in climate, in both directions, it seems not only reasonable, but almost certain, that we have had many impacts in relatively recent history, meaning during the period of modern homo sapiens.
The flood stories common in the Middle East and Europe are more likely based on the sudden innundation of the Black Sea around 5600 BC. At the time the Black Sea was a freshwater lake surrounded by farming communities in a basin several hundred feet below sea level. As global sea levels rose the Mediterranean eventually flowed over the barrier, quickly scoured a channel hundreds of feet deep and completely flooded the basin in a matter of weeks or months. The seawater would have created a massive waterfall at the west end of the basin, with huge amounts of spray carried by the prevailing winds coming down as week after week of steady rain. Anyone who survived lost their homes and everything they couldn't carry and would have spread terrifying stories of the entire world being drowned. People who escaped into Europe and eventually to Greece left the myth of the flood of Deucalion. Those who fled south into Mesopotamia left the Sumerian flood myth, the core of the Biblical story.
Yea that was my first thought, but as scott mentions that needed a north american impact.Maybe it'll still work. Also he's stopped with the impact theory and is now banging on about solar flares big enough to cause lightning falling like rain, causing the shocked quartz. Or is that the other dude?
@@Skunkwurx That would be Robert Shoch, a geologist and friend of Graham Hancock. This might not be a smoking gun to that particular event, but there may have been others that nuked us back to the stone age, long before. Either way, this is a grim reminder we should invest heavily on protecting earth from such impacts.
Definitely, no need to jump to conclusions yet. But it sure is exiting to hope that the lost civilization hypothesis may be true. It could redefine our understanding of human history.
Thanks for your awesome videos Scott! This crater is fascinating and serves as a reminder that the Dinosaurs had no space program. We do. :D BTW, when you get to Es'hail-2, that object at T+06:00 - 6:03 is pretty fascinating. I'm guessing it's a big ice chunk that probably fell off at stage-separation, but for a moment it looked like it could've been a fairing-half. In any case, the apparent trajectories really interesting.
Thank you for making questions of the mind, scientific wonders and past to current future discovery. A blast. I find way my back to your Chanel for the need to learn something new every day. Thanks!!!
Hey Scott, just wanted to let you know that TH-cam may be having problems with automatically unsubscribing again, as I noticed that I wasn’t subbed when I know I previously was. Anyhow, great video!
Ice ages are not the same as glaciation. We are currently in an interglacial period of an Ice Age. An Ice Age is a period when the Earth has ice at the poles.
My information, from American PBS no less, testifies Greenland was green with a large (approx. 25k) nordic population, large trees, forest, and a relatively warm climate before about 200AD. But after 200AD, Greenland climate changed. With climate change, Greenland residents could no longer survive and ended occupation by 400AD. But since a previous warm hospitable Greenland contradicts homeopathic global warming, such information remains elusive.
@@jshood3353 Not going to call you ignorant, but there is climate data going back 100,000+ years in the ice sheets.. That means ice has been a big part of Greenland for a very long time. There may have been some green on the southern edge but the only tree's further north grew there between 400,000 and 800,000 years ago. Most of the island has been locked under ice for the bulk of human history.
As for the ice sheet you showed, I do believe NE Ohio was covered in ice at some point many years ago. There's an area down by Beach City, Ohio that geologists determined to be moraines. When the glaciers melted the water created streams that eroded the soil down to bedrock making some very interesting places to wander through the woods. There are some falls were the streams run over rock formations.
Greenland was named as such partly due to viking propaganda, as naming Iceland hadn't proven a big winner. It should also be noted that during the medieval warm period it was green enough for viking farmers to grow crops. I can only imagine that civilisation back then used lots of 4x4 vehicles to produce that level of global warming. Of course if we agree they didn't have CO2 belching vehicles then why were temperatures were warmer back then than they are now?
Doom2pro volcanism is associated with global cooling as the crap injected into the atmosphere tends to cut sunlight. The medieval warm period was punctuated by a few years in 6th Century recorded in Britain as "years without summer" attributable to volcanism.
David Gifford why are you asking? Your questions have been answered many times, so clearly your just choosing to ignore them. Or you didn't bother to actually look them up.
50 years ago, a 20 tons iron meteorite, called Agpalilik, was found 300 km south of the newly discovered impact crater. Scientists was actually already looking for a crater, when new improved maps and data, made easier to "look" under the ice.
I'm realling digging this whole weekly news thing you got going on lately. I really really like it! I can see a headline in the news and be like "Ah, I bet Scott is going to talk about that, I'll just wait for the video" - and sure enough, there it is.
I don't know if I am interpreting these images (8:35 left) correctly but it looks like the land to the North and to the West of the crater is free of ice. Is it and if it is does is that just a coincidence or is there some significance to that ?
Scott, actually, the Younger Dryas Impact Theory hypothesizes an impactor (likely a comet) that was very large, but broke up on approach. The impact is theorized to have been spread across Canada and the North Atlantic; possibly as far as northern Europe.
around 900-1200AD when the Norse were establishing colonies there the southern part of Greenland was mostly wheat fields and pastures. this came to an end as temperatures dropped during the little ice age. the temps are now recovering somewhat and the ice is again retreating
03:45 "...One of the problems with the impact hypothesis..." Could it be that this impact occurred before there was an atmosphere on earth? (much farther than 12,000 years)
we all need to get guys like scott together and get this type of content into middle and high schools around the world, it seems about the age where most youths lose their appetite for wonder and amazement
Scott, I'd really enjoy hearing your take on the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis. With regard to this newly found crater, I've already seen some say that there might have been a single larger meteorite that broke in to pieces, one large chunk impacting Greenland and a second large piece impacting near modern day Michigan.
I think Scott is secretly very concerned about how this impact affected beer-making.
Impact beer-making*
@@NoNameAtAll2 "Hypervelocity Impact", the only beer with the unique taste of Greenland Asteroids.
I laughed so hard when I read you comet
Of course the North American impact was by a giant feather pillow hence Lite Beer
So there was no beer during that dip in the global temperatures? Dry As!
"Greenland" was called that in part to attract immigrants, but it's not a _complete_ lie. The fjords where people lived were covered in lush plantlife for a surprising fraction of the year. Sure, 90-odd percent of the island is covered by ice, but the places where people lived and farmed (or set up pastures) were heckin' green.
@@eerolz8758 But it seems like a strong reason, following the pattern of how they named a green island Iceland to keep not to many coming there and an icy island Greenland to lure them there instead.
@@fheedpexx9267 Oh I already deleted my comment after reading a bit more.. There is article from National Geographic that does not think that Icelands name has nothing to do with not wanting people there. But Greenlands name remained because they wanted people there. Quote from National Geographic: "Alas, Garðar’s Isle was not so kind to its next arrival, a Viking named Flóki Vilgerðarson. Flóki’s daughter drowned en route to Iceland, then all his livestock starved to death as the winter dragged on. Depressed and frustrated, Flóki, the sagas say, climbed a mountain only to see a fjord full of icebergs, which led to the island's new name."
Medieval Climate Optimum
That guy, red something (read beard?), found it when it was summer and green.
(He was banished from his group)
Cool! Now I can’t wait for all the ice to melt so I can go explore the crater!
Every time I go to a crater I want to become a geologist.
@@scottmanley we will get you eventually scott!
Lets build a large bonfire on it!
You need to extrak mineral from the ice
Why do you want it to melt
You are by far the easist.....how to put this.......it is easier to understand you when things get overly technical than anybody else on the internet by far. AVE does a damn good job and CodysLab is kick ass also but u explain things, that are way over my head, so most everyone can understand. Thanks
Well said!
It's said that the better one understands something, the better he can explain it. I think there is some truth to that.
It's his sensibilities, voice coupled with his really pleasant accent and down to earth ness despite his lofty topics. Dude should do radio programs and interview astronomers. Would be genius.
I find that CuriousDroid has a similar “easy to understand” vibe as well.
Except for the names of non-native-English persons. Both Scott and Paul tend to butcher foreign names with glee.
Love your work Mr. Manley, breaking down complex issues for the rest of us. You’ve helped my children with their homework and projects a lot. You touch a lot of lives with your ability to communicate what you know, thank you. Every time I see a new video from yourself, it restores a little faith in humanity imho.
Scott clearly hasn't watched any Joe Rogan podcasts with Randall Carlson.
Clearly.
First thing I thought was 'ohh Hancock is going to be all over this' lol
Exactly
Too bad John Anthony West isn't with us to share in the excitement...
I think Joe would roast him for working for Apple. A steve Jobs disciple. Very unsavoury.
About the invention of beer brewing 13.000 years ago: According to my unscientific theory, a few hundred years later someone in Greenland invented Moonshine. And shortly after shouting "More power!", the still blew up, as these things tend to do. And now there is a crater....
TL:DR
@@MichaelMantion moonshine go boom, leaves crater.
Someone run the numbers on how much moonshine they needed to make it this big
I like this explanation better.
Replying so I can see how much moonshine would be needed if anyone does the calculations.
That’s the crater impact that was theorized to have ended the ice age in a day, flooding the coastlines in a few hours and turning west Africa into a heap of mud.
Seems Randall Carlson was right then.
@@kernal1127 Yup that is exactly what i was thinking
Isnt Atlantis theorized to be on westafrica aswell?
Hyperus
That’s where the Egyptians said it was, funnily enough there is a structure in west Africa that closely resembles the description of a ring city, and coincidentally has several dead river deltas leading into and out of it.
@@MDPToaster that structure is called "Eye of the Sahara" or "Eye of Africa". There is a very good video about it on youtube from Bright Insight.
Erik the Red was a quick learner. He learned that no one wanted to move to a place called Iceland, so when he was trying to convince people to move to this new place he'd discovered, he came up with a more marketable name for it.
Exactly, but in around year 985 where he discovered Greenland, it was actaully quite green along the southern coasts, they raised cattle. With success.
He was born in and thrown out of Norway, fled to Iceland where he killed some more people and then ended up in Greenland. Not the most pleasent character, I hear.. :-)
@@JoakimMiller67 Nah, ya just needed to get to know the guy.
@@David-qi1ys :-)
@@JoakimMiller67 he was banished from ALL viking kingdoms for being too much of a viking!
Yup, it was basically a marketing name to try to help lure immigrants over and make it sound "nice" ahead of time with the "green" sounding name ;)
And of course there were green areas along the southern coast, lol. They still knew what they were doing with the naming scheme though. They knew what was lurking up north on the rest of the giant island ;)
Iceland was already taken. And at the time of the Vikings it was "Green-land". Then a mini-Ice Age hit the area covering it.
Are they gonna dig up megatron?
No but the entrance to a buried pyramid where Predators killed Aliens as rite of passage
If it were in Antarctica, you might expect to see a Shoggoth
@@a.square8658 so it would be an antishogghoth?
@@a.square8658 Teka-li-li!
@@a.square8658Amuse-bouche for Predators, my friend
[Graham Hancock nodding in the distance]
People have called him a crack-pot, crook, crazy man for years. But a lot of his theories make more sense than mainstream archaeology.
@@0x0michael He is not a researcher he is a Journalist - he IS reporting on mainstream Archeology, you just do not know enough about it. Of course he is reporting on a lot of other things at the same time - "throw enough stuff and some of it will stick" - this is why they call him crack-pot and a crook, Hancock is essentially a walking, talking clickbait.
@@Kwodlibet
You spelt David Icke wrong.
ponpojp and receiving a call from Randall Carlson! Lol!
@@Kwodlibet Exactly. It is honestly scary how many people buy into everything Randall and Graham put out... Randall has been wrong on so many occasions I can't listen to him anymore.
Extraordinary claims requires extaordinary evidence.
Now we just need a little bit of global warming and we can study it in detail!
Though should we find Norwegian surveyors fleeing the crater chasing a Dog, rather than send in Kurt Russell this time around lets just nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
@MetalMastodon Couldnt agree more. Highly recommend getting it on Blu Ray as its well worth it due to the cleaner picture quality as well as the cut bits.
A lot more than a little is on the menu. And the kitchen is cooking away like mad.
The cooks? The fossil fuel companies. The waitstaff serving it up? Our cowardly "pragmatic" politicians.
@@anarchyantz1564 I just want to know, Who Goes There? (John W Campbell Jr)
@@NemoConsequentae The thing (1982) was very close to the original story you mention. Only the ending from the original story "who goes there" was a lot more uplifting lol.
graham hancock called a meteor impact for the younger-dryas event decades ago, but got criticized by mainstream archaeologists.
then geologists started finding more and more evidence to support his claims for ancient civilizations.
now, graham hancock is being proven correct with finds like huge ancient complexes from ~12k years ago (and 12k y/o beer?).
the sea level was more than 100m lower than it is now, and civilizations almost always build around sea level.
one key hypothesis of hancock is that whatever evidence of civilizations that existed back then are underwater.
with improved underwater (with ground penetrating) technology, we can actually start searching in more promising spots.
HOW did this pseudo-science artist get such a cult following amongst fans of science channels... It baffles me.
Thank you for providing some much needed skepticism regarding the headlines surrounding this paper. I read it through and much more study is needed to better constrain a timeline. All those headlines saying "ZOMG we found the asteroid responsible for YD" are simply clickbait. Paleoclimateology is fascinating in it's own right without clickbait headlines and conspiracy theories.
Do you think this gives The Impact Hypothesis from Randall Carlson more credibility? I think some near cataclysmic event happened around 12.5k yrs, but I'm torn between Robert Schochs Theorie (MCE) and Randall Carlson's. Carlson delivers more concrete evidence for his theory than Schoch does in my opinion.
This could fit right into the Carolina Bays-Michigan impact. Especially when we consider the Shoemaker-Levy impact of Jupiter being a string of objects.
@Can't Pave The Dave
The basic hypothesis of Carlson, Hancock, etc that it is likely that a huge impact event happened 12-13k ago is solid. Based on hard empirical evidence from dozens of mainstream scientific sources.
However non of this in any way supports the insanely speculative and IMHO 100% whoo whoo conclusions that they draw. That an ancient high tech 'precursor' civilisation existed prior to the impact and the impact is the EXCUSE for lack of any physical evidence of said civilisation.
It does make sense, not only is it possibly from the same time period, but also the same area they predicted it would be. I'd be very interested to hear what their reaction is to this news.
@cbale2000
No it does not make sense, on any level ... its the definition of tenuously connecting something you have actual evidence for with something you have absolutely 0 evidence of.
If this is what you call "making sense" you must find most flat earth or ancient aliens claims compelling evidence too.
Also the idea that they predicted this impact event independent from mainstream science is garbage, what they did was use the findings and speculations of mainstream science to support the outer fringes whoo whoo they indulge in.
How to tell if a theory is credible or batshit: when given the choice between peer review and youtube, you decide to go with the Josh Rogan Podcast.
Don't you think that the height of the crater walls could be affected by the thickness of the iceshield, that might have been ontop of the area at the time. Ice under high pressure acts a little bit like rock. This even leaves the chance that the impact crater was bigger than what we see today, but the upper half, made of glacier ice, has molten away since then, or was filled up again with ice. Maybe this event would have been much more destructable had there been no glacier.
This.
Plus the ejecta would've largely been scattered over the top of a thick glacial ice sheet. One that moves slowly over time and would end up spreading deposits of the ejecta along it's path just as it does with the glacial rocks they picked up and deposited far away.
Exactly my thoughts. Add miles of thickness to the top of this crater and you could have a 30 mile wide crater. And if there were multiple impacts like most actual meteor strikes have, you could have 3-4 smaller strikes to the ice sheet with no real evidence even left behind other than the catastrophic flooding we have been shown evidence of, with this large one just being the main body.
The Younger Dryas Catastrophe, the most interesting and important event in human history no one ever talks about.
When trying to register their Google national account, the name Iceland was already taken.
*+Quecksilber*
They could've just slapped a 'New' onto it. As in 'New Iceland' like, 'New Zealand'.No? Yeah, probably not.
@@SueMead Account names do not allow a space between two names, but your idea was not bad. :)
You really need to do more takes. There's the Younger Dryas flub, but you also completely mangle the glaciation terminology. The ice age is the whole of the last 2.5 million years. The really cold bits are the glacials. The less cold bits are the interglacials. We are currently in an interglacial: there is no evidence to suggest the ice age has ended.
Ice ages are not based on solar cycles or Milankovitch cycles or anything else cyclic. Ice ages are based on fundamental continental configuration with trigger events to set things going (such as massive removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by newly evolved land plants triggering the Karoo ice age). The current one was started by the creation of the Isthumus of Panama and the consequent alterations of ocean current circulation. So until there are substantial movements of the continents we will remain in an ice age. That could be tens of millions of years.
In fact technically the current ice age is 33 million years old since that's when the Antarctic ice cap first formed.
To be more specific, previous to about 2.5 million years ago North and South America were separate land masses, with an ocean channel between them. What we now know as the Gulf Stream went through that channel and up the west coast of North America. When North and South America "bumped into each other", that channel was closed off, and the Gulf Stream was re-routed up the east coast of North America. That caused a climactic change.
These answers are the reasons I read TH-cam comments, thanks for the info!
Thanks for the compliment, but I encourage you to fact-check these comments (including my own), just to be safe. At the very least, you'll get a better picture of what we're talking about.
most yt videos are done by amateurs who do not use a script combined with no rehearsals.
Indeed, to be clear, I’m aware of the mechanisms driving the ice ages, just not at the same level that I understand orbital mechanics. I did record most of this ad-lobbed with bullet points rather than a script so there’s always room for clarification and more detail.
First.
The name "Greenland" was essentially clickbait.
Colony bait*
@@h.plovecat4307 I guess
get rid of the first and ill like
The small section that the Vikings colonized was actually fertile enough to support farming until the climate cooled later. The Vikings didn't care about the size of the inland glaciers anymore than they cared about the snowy mountains of their homeland.
@@jeffbangle4710 Still, Erik the Red lured his companions to Greenland, dissing their current abode as Iceland.
2 planes nonchalantly fly into each other in your crater home video
Just Friendly plane kissing each other nonchalantly.
The naming of the island is a first example of the marketing policy :D
When the first Viking settlers established themselves in Greenland, it was during a period of climatic warmings and the summers were far milder, permitting some agriculture. Only a generation or two later, they either left or starved to death...
Should have moved to Vinland en masse...
Yep they moved to Iceland an the Interior.
No, that is wrong. We are certain that the Vikings lasted in Greenland until at least 1360 AD and maybe until 1400. We have written records in the Vatican of them paying their tythes around 1340.
And we have excavated their settlement on Nova Scotia (well a small island right next to NS).It is dated to about 1000 AD. We're pretty sure it is Vinland.
Do you want me to send you back, to where you came from? Unemployed?! In Greenland??
This comment brings me happy memories.
No more rhymes now I mean it!
@@MyBiach anybody want a peanut?
8:25 what is that in the sky???
I hope you can someday do a segment on the Carolina Bays and the Saginaw impact which is speculated to have created them.
Doesn't seem like his milieu.
There's something comforting in finding a feature as big as 31km wide that was unknown before. Its easy to feel disheartened in the modern era that there's not much left on Earth to discover.
Interesting video. About the Young Dryas and this crater's link: the paper gives a pretty wide age range for the crater. from 10k years to 3 million years, if I remember. When we have more accurate estimates about the age of this crater, it will be interesting to see if the Younger Dryas theory finally gets its bog proof.
AHMAD KHALID I wonder if Dryas Sr. is proud of his young...
Benny Löfgren 12,800 years ago it’s a.....
Can't argue against the Carolina bays.
Long story short on Greenland, an Icelander named Erik the Red (a warrior who didn't back down from a fight but had a Hatfeild and McCoy style fued with a family of antagonistic neighbors in Iceland he was just sick of dealing with) named it Greenland to lure others into settling the land with him.
Pure PR and entirely intentional. Interesting stuff!
So weird people talking about my home 😆 thought people never really noticed us 😝
Listen to a lot if icelandic. Viking music from your country and im suid afrikaaner
@@rudivandereep310 Iceland? 🤔 We don't have vikings in Greenland and we speak greenlandic 🤣
Trump wants to buy Greenland. 72 million Americans loved the idea. So millions of idiots want to make you an American now.
How could we not notice you? You’re as big as south america on the map 😝
@@stargazer7644 haha 😂 touché
It's not attributed to just one impact it's more about multiple impacts over a geologically short period of time
I remember seeing a program on the same thing they think one might have hit Canada to but it was two mile thick I see that's why they couldn't find any evidence of it besides space dust and micro diamonds or nanodiamonds pardon me. You know your stuff my friend.
When you were converting joules to gigatons, I was secretly hoping you'd convert to twinkies too :(
That is vehemently outlawed by the "Federation of Intergalactic Synthetic Pastries & Confectioneries Alliance." Nice try though...
Hey scott i have a question regarding the speculation that the asteroid may have come in on an angle... I thought it wouldnt matter what angle the asteroid came at because it is going so fast it would just explode equally in all directions. hence why you only see circular craters on the moon. so wouldn't that mean there is an even spread of ejecta as well? I'm no expert this is just something i heard.
I decided to take a break from studying and you just uploaded the video
I’ve been fortunate enough to visit several impact craters including Meteor Creator. Quite impressive.
Are the Delta model rockets new?
Todd Kelmar yeah they've been there for about 2 videos, I was gonna ask where I could get such a glorious model
@@ewanmurray153 I had the exact same thought
I thought the same
Awesome video, Scott! There should be lots of scientific output pumped out of this crater in the coming years. The event was really huge, planetary-wide scale.
This is clearly a case of stone age humans eating at Taco Bell with no knowledge of it's dangers.
Your graph at 5:37 is incorrect. Since the 0 age is on the left, time is running from right to left (instead of the typical left to right). So your “Abrupt Change” arrow is pointing to the END of the Young Dryas, not the beginning.
Saw the NASA upload, and then an upload from one of the more corporate media outlets on YT, but I don't have the full story until it's gotten a solid Manley revision and analysis.
I had to look up how big the Chicxulub meteor is estimated to have been. At first wiki glance it looks like 10-15km compared to 1km (est.) for this one.
Now I'm really curious how these play out in real life. Are they big enough to encounter significant gravitational effects? How big does an object need to be for the Roche limit to affect it before more than just an atmosphere alone?
In relative terms Mt. Everest is listed at just over 8.8km tall. So does a 'metal' lump, 1.5 times the size of Everest (Chicxulub meteor), make it to the ground before turning into buckshot? ...or... How much bigger does the rock need to be before Roche is guaranteed to get rowdy with it?
-Jake
It would also depend on how cohesive the rock is. Roche Limit takes time to tear up orbiting objects through (I think from memory) tidal forces. An object headed for impact would not be subject to that long enough to be broken up, unless it was an aggregate. (A ball made up of gravel just hanging together by it's own gravity.)
the roche limit applies to objects that are held together by gravity
Tidal breakup takes longer than the passage through the atmosphere. It's possible that the breakup can occur on a prior go around, see Shoemaker-Levy 9. But for a straight on impact at 20 km/sec? Well, the roche limit for a comet is about 18,000 km, and for the Moon about 9500 km, that gives 425-900 secs to separate. The tidal forces aren't going to string it out very far before it impacts.
@@Markle2k
Thanks. That's what I was looking for. This was just a rather elementary thought experiment, but one I hadn't encountered before (that I can recall). It was one of those kinds of ideas where it just wasn't 100% intuitive to me. My interest in Astronomy/Astrophysics is more casual infotainment than anything. Thanks to everyone for helping me play simple (lazy) 'connect the dots.' :)
-Jake
@@Markle2k You could have a slower impact, if the object was on what is essentially a converging solar orbit, but it would have to be one very close to Earth's to have a slow enough approach for something as small as the Earth to spaghettify something. While I can see it as _possible_, I can't see it as ever happening.
Can you do a video on the RD-0162? There isn't a ton of information on it.
Didn't Erik the Red name it Greenland to attract more people?
No; he found it when it was green, in the summer.
Greenland was one of the first major examples of marketing/branding. In the late 1st millenia-early 2nd millenia CE. Norway, which at that time held claim to the territory, was concerned that not enough people moved there, and too many people were moving to modern day Iceland. So, they gave them the Old Norse equivalents of the names they possess to this day, and it helped for a while. During the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland had FAR less ice coverage, and even vast forests according to the records of the Norse.
It's called Greenland because they knew one day it will be green.
Way to go Scott! Your explenations of everything celestial are easy to understand and explaining everything in layman's terms helps even the most novice of people understand. Keep up the great work mate.
If you, Scott Manley, actually were interested in the younger dryas hypothesis you might actually research it as it seems you know very little about the overwhelming evidence of this event. I suggest you check out the plentiful research done by Randall Carlson and many others. Good stuff, I enjoy your content very much, cheers!
These lectures from Randall is really good, he knows alot of stuff. And frankly not thinking earth is hit by objects from space is just not rational.
The reason Greenland is called Greenland is because it was greener when the Vikings first settled there. You can see in the archaeological records (core samples) that they produce plenty of wheat and raised livestock there. But the arrived in a very warm period, so when that brief "good times" ended the settlements were abandoned as they could no longer supported the Viking way of life.
Uh oh. Global warming is good after all ? That is heresy. You take that back now. /s
@@sirmoke9646 natural warming is good... we just happen to be squeezing the glaciers a bit much.
RANDALL CARLSON WAS RIGHT!
got em
@ A nut job.. and the other nuts say stupid things like this because it panders to their fantasies.
Not a scientist, are you, Supergecko8? This crater MAY aid Carlson's hypothesis, but it requires a vast amount of further research before the word 'may' even becomes 'could' (way, way before it makes sense to use the word 'does'). Carlson's hypothesis is not peer reviewed and fails to take into account, let alone explain, many conflicting facts and other evidence against it. Time will tell (perhaps) if he was on to something... or completely wrong.
@@Jabbatic What are some of these facts and evidence that contradict his claims? The man has had a pretty much open invitation to anyone who wants to debate him on his hypothesis for a while now. Yet no one has taken the challenge yet. He's very clear on his position possibly being incorrect, and he would love for someone to show him where he may be in error. He's not some BS pseudoscientist, the man knows his stuff. So again, can you give me some examples of evidence that contradict his claims?
@@fuzedcorn Hello Bob. I suspect you might not fully understand the import of my original comment. Did you not recognise the great significance of my observation that Carlson's ideas have not yet been peer reviewed? As far as I can discover, he has not even submitted his work on the Younger Dryas Event (YDE) for that process. His first duty and responsibility for getting any of his scientific ideas accepted is to submit them, with his claimed supporting evidence, for peer review. Until they pass though that extremely honest, focused, disciplined (even brutal) process, all 'debate', 'challenge' or need to 'show him his errors' are utterly irrelevant. He has nothing about YDE to offer the scientific world UNTIL and unless peer review confirms that he is correct. No-one needs to debate or correct him until that moment - scientists do not have time to waste. Why would they bother until Carlson has something real for them to consider? Furthermore, I do not need to provide contradictory evidence to your, or his, satisfaction. If you think I should then you prove only that you DO NOT understand how science works. Carlson must first provide the evidence to prove his ideas are correct. He has not yet done so. I suggest, therefore, that YOU go and do some decent research so you can understand WHY he has not yet proven his ideas.
You wrote "he's not some BS pseudoscientist'. My reaction? What do Carlson's background, reputation, qualifications, experience, etc, have to do with his claims? With facts? With evidence? You could quote his grand-mother's cousin's best friend's choice of hair style for use on sunny Tuesday evenings and not be any more irrelevant. If Carlson's ideas are correct, then peer review will establish that fact. If his ideas about the YDE are not correct, peer review will expose why not. In the latter case, any honest, decent scientist would do more research and modify their hypothesis appropriately - or even scrap the original completely. Any modified or new hypothesis worthy of the name must survive peer review to be accepted. Until then, the rest of us must go about our own work and pursue our own scientific discipline or area of expertise in whatever field we call 'work'. If you are like me , you don't have time for much else.
As a much more able and wonderful person than me once wrote: "Science! It works, bitches!" Best you get used to that particular fact, if you haven't done so already. It's all about the scientific method, mate!
Cheerio! (with the best in British humour, plus a gentle overtone of sarcasm) from the UK ;-)
Hey Scott, this was a really intresting video thanks! Quick question - where did you get those amazing delta models from?
Younger Dryas is a theory propped up by layers and layers of hand-waved scaffolding. If the story around this new crater discovery holds up it might help eliminate some of the murkier parts and help it fit observed reality a lot more closely. No longer would we have to ignore evidence of human habitation dated to be going on "beneath miles of glacier ice" or push the Beringian Mongoloid incursions so hilariously far back in time.
Please don't mistake me for a "denier." I just think the story is very complicated and we are missing many pieces of a four dimensional puzzle. Theories are great. We need stories in order to process facts, that's how our minds work. The trick is to avoid falling into dogma traps until we can travel back in time and do proper surveys... something probably not possible for us even as mere observers.
I don't think that it is really going to work. The event has a few things that aren't right to have a global impact. First is the extreme latitude. Volcanoes in Kamchatka and the Aleutians don't affect global weather because their effects are reigned in by the polar vortex and jet stream. This is stronger when the climate is cooler. You need an eruption in the sub-tropics to maximize global effects. Compare Novarupta and Pinatubo. Pinatubo at 15 degrees North depressed global temperatures up to 2 degrees for two years. Novarupta in 1912, at 58 degrees North, despite ejecting over 2-1/2 times more stuff, had no effect on global temperature. In fact, the temperature record shows an increase between 1910 and 1915. Tambora, erupting in April 1815 at 8 degrees South, was followed by "the year without a summer" when temperatures fell 1.2 C globally. The 535 AD and 1883 explosive eruptions of Krakatoa (5 degrees South) were followed by major climate disruptions for a few years, half a decade in the 1883 event.
Second, volcanic and impact events, as I noted above, don't have climate effects that last a millenia. Disrupting the overturning circulation of the oceans with multiple freshwater inputs from glacial lakes into the region where saltwater sinks could cause century to millenium length disruptions of climate as the returning current reaches all the way to Antarctica. What we call the Gulf Stream is only part of the larger Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Meltwater pulses from South America and Antarctica coincide with similar events in the southern hemisphere.
If you had an impact that threw ejecta out of the atmosphere and caused a mini-Chicxulub, you'd expect to see that in the geological record.
There is only one impact event here, but there are multiple deep and sudden climate disruptions during the three Dryas period stadials and the interstadials that came between. This lines up with the multiple fill and drain cycles that are seen with continental size glacial lakes. Lake Agassiz alone held more water than all of the freshwater currently on Earth.
This as a cause for one of three similar northern hemisphere events gets shakier and shakier the more I think about it.
@@Markle2k i'm just spit balling here but the impact evidence from before showed the ejecta showering in a south west direction. If this new impact was associated with those, the ejecta was sent in a direction to bring the cloud to southern areas.
Another thought is volcanoes eject up, meteor ejecta often has a lateral path. The two are hard to compare
@@ZacLowing Something else to consider is that it seems very plausible that impacts (even powerful airbursts) could affect volcanic activity leading to eruptions. I think the two phenomenon are more related than we know. Not to mention solar activity and other celestial mechanics as possible triggers for increased volcanic activity. In reality, we know very little about the inner workings of the earth, or how the planet reacts to powerful external stimuli.
If the ejecta was pushed into the south west, that would be interesting to see if their spray patterns line up with any of the “Carolina bays” that are thought to be caused by a strike on the ice sheet sending giant chunks of ice into the southern and mid-western U.S. Would also be plausible that this strike wasn’t just one large meteor. Most space rock isn’t just one large chunk, but multiple pieces loosely clinging together by their minimal gravity. This one could have just been the “main show” and various smaller chunks peppering the ice sheet. If it was 2+ miles thick, theoretically speaking, you could just completely not have evidence of them hitting other than dust layers....which even then, depending on their size, could be minimal or even undetectable given their impacting an ice sheet that no longer exists.
Where did you get that Delta 4 heavy @scott Manley
Hmm, an impact crater beneath an ice sheet.
MacReady! Grab a flamethrower....
If something survived that. A flamethrower isn't going to help.
@@jamestheotherone742 no but global warming will.
@@mrbork7218 "Global Warming" is a lie.
@@jamestheotherone742 so are record breaking hurricanes and typhoons... and melting ice of course.
@@mrbork7218 We have been keeping records for less than 200 yrs. Which is not even a blink of the eye in Earth's history. We know that the Earth's climate is highly variable with warm and cold phases. Its only human arrogance and stupidity that thinks the planet should stay the same for us or that we can do anything about it.
Thank you for the well balanced discussion. This is my intro to your channel and I feel lucky to have found you. Keep it up! Creagh Dhu!
Anyone is lucky to have been found by U.
at 8:23 the trails from two planes collide head on anyone else see it
No collision. Aircraft in IFR flight corridors fly at different altitudes in different directions to avoid that very thing.
@@jamestheotherone742
Still, you must admit it looks cool.
They're just chemtrails. Everything is chemtrails!! I like skipping my meds.
@@bloemundude
E V E R Y T H I N G
Saw it too. Maybe it is an interceptor missile test. But one would expect an explosion at the end.
Any numbers available regarding the Iridium content?
This wasnt on CNN. How was this not on the news?
Right? This topic is pretty much ignored in the popular press. We wouldn't want the masses to have some sort of collective existential crisis now would we?
CNN is a privately owned mass communication company, it's not news. it's basically a giant billboard they can put up whatever they want, real or not, important or not. Important is determined by how much money it brings in for its owners.
cnn doesn't do news anymore
@@shatteredsquare But it has "news" right in the name?
Look forward to more on this discovery. I have heard about it from a few sources and was happy to see you picked it up and covered it.
Joe rogan will have a 3 hr podcast on this at some point...lol
8:22 Check "mid-air collision" over crater edge on the right!
I'm ready for the hidden Alien space ship conspiracy theory lol
Burn it.
Excellent summary of the new-found crater. I've been interested in the cataclysmic impact theory of the Younger Dryas since hearing Randall Carlson on Joe Rogan, and this guy does a great job of touching on all the potential points regarding this new discovery (unbiased).
It's was named Iceland to confuse the Vikings from going and conquering greenland... or something like that...
edit.. to keep them from conquering Iceland...
nah,the ellegedly first Norseman that went to iceland from sweden/norway went during a particular heavy winter and he misunderstood that place to "Iceland"
,and Greenland was named like that caus another exiled norseman wanted to attract settlers there.
That's seems a little like conjecture...
2:50 That diagram is about how you get the central peak from a big impact. It is not showing what you're describing. just FYI.
maybe this was the reason for the mythical "big flood".
Well, no. Not if you mean the Noadic flood legend. Of course, there are various floods myths at various supposed times with various different outcomes describing who survived what and why. Floods are common factors in the stories of different civilizations because they are devastating and because humans often set up civilizations near major bodies of water. Thus nearly every old civilization has a flood legend.
Now, there is an impact crater in the Indian Ocean that could have been associated with a tsunami that would have flooded the Tigris/Euphrates valley quite sufficiently to cause a flood horrible enough to get mentioned in ancient folklore of that region. This could be the origin of the story mentioned in Tablet III of the Atra-hasis Epic. Most would say that contains the original flood story later adapted in tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Elements of both myths then eventually wound up in the Genesis account written by Ezra. For any civilization that thinks they are the only people on the planet, a massive flood would be interpreted as wiping out the entirety of civilization. So all of them end up exaggerated beyond possibility. For example, it is impossible that at any point in history the entire world was covered by water (as it says in Genesis). And it is equally impossible that a genetic reset ever occurred as described (if human civilization was ever reduced to a single family), let alone consistent with the observed distribution of animals on different continents.
If a tsunami accompanied the associated impact in Greenland, it is unlikely that the waves thereof wold be noticed in the middle east. Given the area had even MORE ice at the time of impact, it is likely this caused no flooding at all. Just a nice nuclear winter resetting the ending ice age for a bit as described in this video.
@@gregorypdearth Well, the sea did rise several meters since the "last ice age" and many old ruins are found bellow the current sea level, so the question is how fast could it rise, and is an asteroid like this capable of melting enough ice to cause a sudden rise of sea levels "over night".
-I am not just talking about tsunamis from an impact.
@@HomeWatchViewer it would seem possible, as it looks like our civilization went through somesort disaster at this time
If you check out the ideas of Randall Carlson involving multiple impacts on the North American ice sheet, and realize the effects of the vast amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, rain for "40 days and 40 nights" is also quite reasonable, although the sea level rise would be due to meltwater rather than precipitation.
With the discovery of the myriad of smaller impacts in the Carolinas, and the record of several extremely rapid shifts in climate, in both directions, it seems not only reasonable, but almost certain, that we have had many impacts in relatively recent history, meaning during the period of modern homo sapiens.
The flood stories common in the Middle East and Europe are more likely based on the sudden innundation of the Black Sea around 5600 BC. At the time the Black Sea was a freshwater lake surrounded by farming communities in a basin several hundred feet below sea level. As global sea levels rose the Mediterranean eventually flowed over the barrier, quickly scoured a channel hundreds of feet deep and completely flooded the basin in a matter of weeks or months. The seawater would have created a massive waterfall at the west end of the basin, with huge amounts of spray carried by the prevailing winds coming down as week after week of steady rain. Anyone who survived lost their homes and everything they couldn't carry and would have spread terrifying stories of the entire world being drowned. People who escaped into Europe and eventually to Greece left the myth of the flood of Deucalion. Those who fled south into Mesopotamia left the Sumerian flood myth, the core of the Biblical story.
Scott, excellent as always but I'll add that I kind of want to see you do a Captain Picard impression
Graham Hancock has been talking about this for years. Finally some scientific proof.
He has, but this isn't the smoking gun he's looking for yet, the age of the crater is unknown, and also it's in the wrong place to fit his conjecture.
Yea that was my first thought, but as scott mentions that needed a north american impact.Maybe it'll still work. Also he's stopped with the impact theory and is now banging on about solar flares big enough to cause lightning falling like rain, causing the shocked quartz. Or is that the other dude?
@@Skunkwurx That would be Robert Shoch, a geologist and friend of Graham Hancock.
This might not be a smoking gun to that particular event, but there may have been others that nuked us back to the stone age, long before. Either way, this is a grim reminder we should invest heavily on protecting earth from such impacts.
Graham Hancock is a fringe cook that no one should take seriously.
Definitely, no need to jump to conclusions yet. But it sure is exiting to hope that the lost civilization hypothesis may be true. It could redefine our understanding of human history.
Thanks for your awesome videos Scott! This crater is fascinating and serves as a reminder that the Dinosaurs had no space program. We do. :D
BTW, when you get to Es'hail-2, that object at T+06:00 - 6:03 is pretty fascinating. I'm guessing it's a big ice chunk that probably fell off at stage-separation, but for a moment it looked like it could've been a fairing-half. In any case, the apparent trajectories really interesting.
Second Impact
Get in the robot shinji
Poor GNR
In the original anime, the Second Impact was in the Antartic. Here, it is in the Artic. Coincidence? I think not!
They could be on to something here
Shinji did 9/11 confirmed.
tumbling down
Thank you for making questions of the mind, scientific wonders and past to current future discovery. A blast. I find way my back to your Chanel for the need to learn something new every day. Thanks!!!
It has the allspark in it. That's why Trump wanted to buy Greenland!
Hey Scott, just wanted to let you know that TH-cam may be having problems with automatically unsubscribing again, as I noticed that I wasn’t subbed when I know I previously was. Anyhow, great video!
Is this a JoJo reference?
Ice ages are not the same as glaciation. We are currently in an interglacial period of an Ice Age. An Ice Age is a period when the Earth has ice at the poles.
My information, from American PBS no less, testifies Greenland was green with a large (approx. 25k) nordic population, large trees, forest, and a relatively warm climate before about 200AD. But after 200AD, Greenland climate changed. With climate change, Greenland residents could no longer survive and ended occupation by 400AD. But since a previous warm hospitable Greenland contradicts homeopathic global warming, such information remains elusive.
There may have been some green spots near the south coast but most of Greenland has been under ice for over 100,000 years.
"Homeopathic"? LOL
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom Not according to the agricultural settlements and the remnants of large trees.
@@avid0g I'm not totally ignorant. Just my hands. :)
@@jshood3353 Not going to call you ignorant, but there is climate data going back 100,000+ years in the ice sheets.. That means ice has been a big part of Greenland for a very long time. There may have been some green on the southern edge but the only tree's further north grew there between 400,000 and 800,000 years ago. Most of the island has been locked under ice for the bulk of human history.
As for the ice sheet you showed, I do believe NE Ohio was covered in ice at some point many years ago. There's an area down by Beach City, Ohio that geologists determined to be moraines. When the glaciers melted the water created streams that eroded the soil down to bedrock making some very interesting places to wander through the woods. There are some falls were the streams run over rock formations.
Greenland was named as such partly due to viking propaganda, as naming Iceland hadn't proven a big winner. It should also be noted that during the medieval warm period it was green enough for viking farmers to grow crops. I can only imagine that civilisation back then used lots of 4x4 vehicles to produce that level of global warming. Of course if we agree they didn't have CO2 belching vehicles then why were temperatures were warmer back then than they are now?
Volcanism.
Doom2pro volcanism is associated with global cooling as the crap injected into the atmosphere tends to cut sunlight. The medieval warm period was punctuated by a few years in 6th Century recorded in Britain as "years without summer" attributable to volcanism.
David Gifford why are you asking? Your questions have been answered many times, so clearly your just choosing to ignore them. Or you didn't bother to actually look them up.
Hey Scott! Can you make a video about the 30 years of the Buran's first flight? Thanks!
First
To say "cool video"
hi it’s me from akshay’s video
Would ejecta be expected to survive through glaciation for long at all?
50 years ago, a 20 tons iron meteorite, called Agpalilik, was found 300 km south of the newly discovered impact crater.
Scientists was actually already looking for a crater, when new improved maps and data, made easier to "look" under the ice.
I'm realling digging this whole weekly news thing you got going on lately. I really really like it! I can see a headline in the news and be like "Ah, I bet Scott is going to talk about that, I'll just wait for the video" - and sure enough, there it is.
I don't know if I am interpreting these images (8:35 left) correctly but it looks like the land to the North and to the West of the crater is free of ice. Is it and if it is does is that just a coincidence or is there some significance to that ?
Love that Scott still is sceptcical about everything.
How is it on the crater scale? Is the Guatemala one still the biggest one? I guess the date and size are the important aspects.
I was told Greenland was named to attract visitors back in the days it was first discovered, early settlers arriving would have had a nasty shock!
erm what was the two aircraft at 8:25 a crash test?
Are there ice cores from that period? If so, there should be signatures of that impact in them. What do you think, Scott Manley?
Scott, actually, the Younger Dryas Impact Theory hypothesizes an impactor (likely a comet) that was very large, but broke up on approach. The impact is theorized to have been spread across Canada and the North Atlantic; possibly as far as northern Europe.
Sorry but Agpalilik and cape York meteor, are from northwestern Greenland, can be fragment of this impact ??
around 900-1200AD when the Norse were establishing colonies there the southern part of Greenland was mostly wheat fields and pastures. this came to an end as temperatures dropped during the little ice age. the temps are now recovering somewhat and the ice is again retreating
What map software are you using? Googlemaps?
What happened to the LES of your Saturn V?
03:45 "...One of the problems with the impact hypothesis..." Could it be that this impact occurred before there was an atmosphere on earth? (much farther than 12,000 years)
we all need to get guys like scott together and get this type of content into middle and high schools around the world, it seems about the age where most youths lose their appetite for wonder and amazement
Hey... is that Ninkasi I see on the shelf?
What the hell were those "contrails" heading towards each other in that footage from inside the crater?
Hey Scott, excellent video (as always)! I would really like to know where you got these little Kerbal statues in the background...
Have a nice day
Re: 8:23, did you hear an explosion after those two planes above the hill collided at 8:26?
Scott, I'd really enjoy hearing your take on the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis. With regard to this newly found crater, I've already seen some say that there might have been a single larger meteorite that broke in to pieces, one large chunk impacting Greenland and a second large piece impacting near modern day Michigan.