Just published in PLOS 1 on Aug. 6, this study
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328347
reports finding airburst proxies in a core 6.3 meters down in Baffin Bay that are consistent with the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (now 18 years old).
First of all, It’s not a ‘theory’, it’s a Younger Dryas hypothesis. Get it? All hypotheses should be taken with a grain of salt. That’s called ‘science’.
Unlike many hypotheses, there’s a huge amount of physical evidence- of many, many types - from all around the world - … in favor of the YDIH. All of that hard physical evidence was collected and analyzed with the most modern equipment by a very large community of well-respected professional scientists from many disciplines.
Of course there’s a well-established team of snipers taking lazy potshots at the people doing the work. Some of them may be lurking here. Name some of these ‘unanimous’ rejecters and list their qualifications, if you can.
If people 'do not know how to ‘sift through journals’, they’re not qualified to judge this hypothesis. That’s where all of the evidence is. You’d have to learn a lot of things to understand. Oh no! Can you do that at Pubpeer? That’s a laugh.
Far from being ‘unanimously rejected’ (a stipulation you’ve provided no evidence for), it is increasingly the most likely explanation for all of the events that took place at around that time. It’s gotten close to becoming a ‘theory’.
I’m just a holocene researcher in a geoscience dept lmao, but don’t take my word for it though, the wikipedia has plenty of links to explain why this is a bunk theory in far more detail including links to more credible journals on the subject. In fact, most of the article is about why it is so controversial. This is literally the time period I look at.
If you want a reccomendation, this is a better resource: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915?via=ihub
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the PlosONE journal has a 2024 impact factor of 2.6. The journal I linked above sits at about a 20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/earth-science-reviews This is extremely good for a specialized journal, especially in earth science. You tend to only see higher in Medicine and in journals like Nature or Science. For reference, Nature, the most cited journal, sits at about 50-60 iirc. PlosONE is not specialized and its’ score of 2-3 barely scratches “The Conversation,” and in the case of this paper in particular will likely include refutes lol.
If you have specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them, or grab someone around me that knows better, but I’d start at the wiki first.
P.S. You’ll note that the Wikipedia article on ‘Murray Springs’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Springs_Clovis_Site
makes NO mention of the evidence there for the YDIH, found 14 years ago. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. And -oh gosh-, whatever happened to the Clovis ‘theory’? It’s as though it’s been universally rejected! Due to … evidence !
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44660049_Confirmation_of_the_Younger_Dryas_boundary_YDB_data_at_Murray_Springs_AZ
You’ll need to answer them with a better hypothesis. Feel free to illuminate me with it … IN DETAIL.
Oh, and, not to brag, but I spent several hours yesterday reading that 18,000 word August 6 paper… as I have done with many of the papers since 2007. Evidence is so interesting, especially when you’ve bothered to learn enough to actually understand it.
Much more interesting than reproducing some LLM’s ‘opinion’, or nursing orthodox preconceptions. Too bad there are no other hypotheses about the YD with -anything like- that volume of evidence in it’s favor. It’s SO much easier to sit in an armchair and nurse wounds than to get off your ass and produce.
I’ll wait patiently.
Hun you didn’t reply to my comment, reguardless, I expanded on my comment explaining how publishing works and why you may want to be more skeptical of this, even if you continue to be needlessly aggressive. I am trying to help you be smarter about this stuff. Single sites do not prove a theory, the earth is a system of systems. There is a lot of information about why this theory isn’t well supported out there reguardless about how you feel about it. In fact, according to the comments, it looks like a lot of their citations also do not actually support their claims (see PubPeer). I will not regurgiate a google search to talk to a brick wall. You cannot look at a single paper. Every paper must be looked at in the context of other research, this is why scientists rely on an impact factor as a smell test. Science is about consensus and disproving hypotheses and that is what I am trying to show you.
A paper supposedly proving a controversial theory, I’d expect to be published in a reputable specialist journal for the topic, maybe even Nature but this, well, isn’t. And trust me, it is not for lack of want. If you could prove something like that, you’d be running to the major journals for it as it would skyrocket your career and would be accepted with solid supporting information. This is what happened with the Clovis stuff, for example, once it became well supported it got published in major and specialist journals. EVERYONE wants to find something like that, this is part of the reason academia can be so toxic, especially with our pet theories. The repitable journals WOULD accept it if it was well sourced as it means there is a lot more funding and work for us all to do to review everything we know. You have to remember though, earth science methods and evidence are extremely different and require different considerations than archaeology. Rather than a lack of evidence for the Younger Dryas stuff, we have contradictory evidence and plenty of it. You can take this wisdom forward with you, or not, that is for you to choose. All that I can give you is information about how this stuff works. Again, ask me specifics if you want, (notably about megafauna extinction/culture/plants esp.), but I’ll save writing papers for my office hours.
And just to be clear - the burden of proof lies with those proposing extraordinary claims, not with the scientific community to disprove every fringe hypothesis. The consensus explanation (North Atlantic Conveyor shutdown) is well-established and supported by decades of research. If you want to overturn that, you need extraordinary evidence published in top-tier journals, not demands for others to write custom rebuttals to a PLoS ONE paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation