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