If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Watts Up With That)   North American megafauna which were wiped out by natives, then by an impact event, then by natives, then by a comet, then by Clovis culture, then not wiped out by Clovis culture, has now been wiped out by an impact event   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 47
    More: Followup, Younger Dryas, extinction of the dinosaurs, environmental stresses, Clovis culture, impacts, giant ground sloth, Earth Science, saber-toothed cat  
•       •       •

2154 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Aug 2014 at 3:42 PM (3 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-29 02:29:56 PM
why not both ?
plus werent most of the megafauna already used to living during an ice age ??
 
2014-08-29 03:51:35 PM
FTFA: disappeared close to 13,000 years ago

Ha. Can't fool me. Earf is only 6,000 years old.

Therefore, science is stupid.

/not really
//off to read the next paragraph
 
2014-08-29 03:53:54 PM
Oh. This is a fake web site.

NVM.
 
2014-08-29 04:00:06 PM
CBS time.

I went to a museum in Sydney last year and they had an exhibit on Australian Megafauna.

HOLY shiat THAT shiat WAS SCARY.

I for one, am glad this this is all extinct.  No one needs a 600 pound carnivorous duck in their backyard.
 
2014-08-29 04:06:05 PM
Those responsible for the sacking have been sacked.
 
2014-08-29 04:06:41 PM

TwistedFark: CBS time. I went to a museum in Sydney last year and they had an exhibit on Australian Megafauna.  HOLY shiat THAT shiat WAS SCARY.  I for one, am glad this this is all extinct.  No one needs a 600 pound carnivorous duck in their backyard.


Joke's on you.  Those are all living Australian species.
 
2014-08-29 04:09:03 PM
Sciencetit just jealous that his grand-..-grand-dad was girly and couldn't kill big animal
 
2014-08-29 04:12:09 PM

namatad: why not both ?


It was wiped out by the impact of the same spaceship that Clovis culture came here from their home planet on.
 
2014-08-29 04:24:45 PM
They say the nano diamonds can only come from cosmic impact. What if they came out a volcano? Huh?
 
2014-08-29 04:25:06 PM
Whatever.. good riddance.

I have enough trouble with the deer. The last thing I need is a half dozen farking 14 foot ground sloths in my yard.
 
2014-08-29 04:32:23 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Whatever.. good riddance.

I have enough trouble with the deer. The last thing I need is a half dozen farking 14 foot ground sloths in my yard.


Nah just get some dire wolves to eat the deer, cave bears to kill the dire wolves, and mastadons to stop the cave bears. Then you just wait for an extinction level meteor impact to take care of the mastadons.
 
2014-08-29 04:36:07 PM
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
Nice graphic.  Subtle.

This is kinda awesome, too:
This graphic is used to illustrate the Younger Dryas event - it is not part of the paper discussed below - Anthony

especially, the way it's grey on a grey background.

This is insidious: Write a story about something tangetially connected to climate change, then include an insane graph within the article.

This is more insidious: use the graph to illustrate the point made in the scientific paper, thus establishing (with no sourcing or anything) that the graph is MORE authoritative than the paper.
 
2014-08-29 04:37:29 PM

Witty_Retort: Oh. This is a fake web site.

NVM.


Not sure if serious (ie stupid) or trolling?
 
2014-08-29 04:39:46 PM

Witty_Retort: Oh. This is a fake web site.

NVM.


Oops, you're totally right! Sorry! I didn't look at his stupid graph closely enough. Anyway, the paper he cites (and his summary) is legit. Here's the link to the journal article.
 
2014-08-29 04:43:13 PM

Cynicism101: Witty_Retort: Oh. This is a fake web site.

NVM.

Oops, you're totally right! Sorry! I didn't look at his stupid graph closely enough. Anyway, the paper he cites (and his summary) is legit. Here's the link to the journal article.


Yah. I read the first paragraph and made my goofy YEC joke, went back and saw the graph and description and was 'WTF?!!'

Then I checked some of the other articles and closed the browser window.

/The actual article was pretty good.
 
2014-08-29 04:43:27 PM
Subby (and others thinking along the same vein),

Scientific papers in general tend to add an incremental amount of understanding to a topic, and are usually not meant to provide the final word on any given subject (with some exceptions). Alternative and multiple explanations do exist in fields in which ongoing research is being done, and different explanations do have evidence and caveats behind them. The way that a particular explanation is formed, refined and widely accepted in this kind of science is from an accumulated body of work that stands to scrutiny over time in competition with other explanations. A single paper that explores one explanation does not somehow mean that the current state of knowledge has somehow completely switched to that explanation.
 
2014-08-29 05:11:24 PM
The  Younger Dryass event? The dinosaurs were killed by drought?
 
2014-08-29 05:46:04 PM
I can't get past the url

media.giphy.com
 
2014-08-29 05:56:34 PM
Regardless of the legitimacy of the story or the website, I would just like to go on record as saying that subby's headline is truly art. Most of us, when we try something that unwieldy, would have it collapse like one of Clara's souffles, but that one just rolled right along. +1 to you, subs.
 
2014-08-29 05:57:23 PM
Does Clovis culture affect only professional Buddy Holly impersonators?
 
2014-08-29 05:57:28 PM

pwners_manual: I can't get past the url

[media.giphy.com image 500x253]


That's one of those skits that always went WAY too long, but deserved points for style. It was just always like 6 minutes longer than it needed to be. Even when it was only 4 minutes long.
 
2014-08-29 06:18:35 PM

TwistedFark: CBS time.

I went to a museum in Sydney last year and they had an exhibit on Australian Megafauna.

HOLY shiat THAT shiat WAS SCARY.

I for one, am glad this this is all extinct.  No one needs a 600 pound carnivorous duck in their backyard.


Or this thing img.fark.net
 
2014-08-29 06:20:34 PM

Mikey1969: pwners_manual: I can't get past the url

[media.giphy.com image 500x253]

That's one of those skits that always went WAY too long, but deserved points for style. It was just always like 6 minutes longer than it needed to be. Even when it was only 4 minutes long.


You have a point but I think the fact that they drug it too long was part of the charm, but I like humor that makes you groan and roll your eyes.

/you lika da juice?
 
2014-08-29 06:50:41 PM
I thought that they were all killed by the Yellowstone Caldera?
 
Skr
2014-08-29 07:05:01 PM

Clash City Farker: They say the nano diamonds can only come from cosmic impact. What if they came out a volcano? Huh?


Everyone knows it is Thetans that come out of volcanoes and not nanonanodiamonds.
 
2014-08-29 07:07:36 PM

I am Groot: [wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 623x394]
Nice graphic.  Subtle.

This is kinda awesome, too:
This graphic is used to illustrate the Younger Dryas event - it is not part of the paper discussed below - Anthony
img.fark.net
especially, the way it's grey on a grey background.

This is insidious: Write a story about something tangetially connected to climate change, then include an insane graph within the article.

This is more insidious: use the graph to illustrate the point made in the scientific paper, thus establishing (with no sourcing or anything) that the graph is MORE authoritative than the paper.


This has to be false because I was told that the last 10 years have been the hottest ten years EVAR, and this graph clearly shows that most of the last 10,000 years have been hotter.

Seriously, isn't it time that scientists admit that climate is incredibly complex with thousands of factors effecting temperature and using the 3 or 4 factors that we can measure in the historical record to estimate past temperatures based on how we think those factors effect climate now to is no more accurate than drunk, blindfolded teenagers throwing lawn darts at meth addicts during an earthquake.
 
2014-08-29 07:26:35 PM
HK-MP5-SD

Do you know the difference between central Greenland and planet Earth?
 
2014-08-29 07:43:57 PM
The Younger Dryas impact-extinction hypothesis is comprised of several parts with varying degrees of evidential support.

A. An impact event occurred around the time of the Younger Dryas. - There is some evidence for this, but it is often of ambiguous or poor quality.
B. The purported impact event took place prior to, and in the location of, the events ascribed to it. - There is even less evidence for this. Some of the purported evidence takes place in the wrong time period, or occurs multiple times or over a long period, all of which are inconsistent with a causal, discrete event (even assuming the possibility of multiple bolides).
C. This impact event caused a climatic change that would not have happened in its absence. - There is little evidence for this, events similar to the YD occurred during times when there was no impact.
D. This impact and ensuing climatic events caused significant ecological changes, consistent in timing and nature with such an event. - There is basically no evidence for this position that is not contradicted or outright excluded by evidence showing the opposite.
E. This impact event and ensuing climatic and ecological changes also caused the extinction of North American megafauna and/or the demise of the Clovis people. - This hinges on the above, and is basically entirely without causal evidence.

On top of the dearth of credible evidence showing intermediate steps, those responsible for the most high profile stories associated with the impact-extinction hypothesis have acted shady as hell. They almost always "publish" (if you can call it that) via the direct submission route in PNAS, which means they can ignore all of the reviewers who will point out the mountain of contradictory evidence against them. They are essentially bypassing the filter of adversarial peer review.

On top of that, one of the major figures involved is a convicted felon and fraud, who goes by assumed names so that people won't tie him to his past bad acts.

And of course it's pushed by plenty of antiscience types, such as the TFA, for reasons that have nothing to do with its evidential quality.

TL; DR: The evidence for an impact event is mixed; there is little evidence for it causing an extinction, and similar climatic events happened multiple times driven by non-impact dynamics. Some of the people pushing it are shady as well.
 
2014-08-29 08:03:59 PM

SquiggsIN: HK-MP5-SD

Do you know the difference between central Greenland and planet Earth?


It's worse than that. It's ignoring all of the modern warming that HK-MP5-SD is worried about comparing it to by using a reconstruction that ends before the current warming.

The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-29 08:08:34 PM
img.fark.net

Of course, this too, means something.
 
2014-08-29 08:10:17 PM
... and the runaway CO2 increase is causing more methane to enter the atmosphere which makes the CO2 problem look like child's play regarding the effect on atmospheric heat trapping capabilities.

But, deniers will deny because they want to believe the people telling them not to worry.
 
2014-08-29 09:00:07 PM
Show me the iridium !
 
2014-08-29 11:15:44 PM
img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-30 12:01:01 AM

WelldeadLink: [img.fark.net image 623x394]
[img.fark.net image 320x222]



You are one hell of a liar. Completely scientifically illiterate. Utterly impervious to any scientific data any scientist throws at you, unless it's accompanied by the sweet smell of crude oil. But by God... if it's written by someone who isn't a scientist, and completely distorts "present" in the favor of your petroleum deities, it becomes absolute truth that you get absolute impunity to abuse those who are scientifically literate with.

I salute you. You must be getting a tremendous salary, to be the kind of person you are.
 
2014-08-30 12:22:59 AM

captainktainer: WelldeadLink: [img.fark.net image 623x394]
[img.fark.net image 320x222]


You are one hell of a liar. Completely scientifically illiterate. Utterly impervious to any scientific data any scientist throws at you, unless it's accompanied by the sweet smell of crude oil. But by God... if it's written by someone who isn't a scientist, and completely distorts "present" in the favor of your petroleum deities, it becomes absolute truth that you get absolute impunity to abuse those who are scientifically literate with.

I salute you. You must be getting a tremendous salary, to be the kind of person you are.


[clapping.jpg]

But you may be overestimating him. He does this for free, ya know, to stick it to the libs.
See below about the bumper stickers and Priuii.
 
2014-08-30 02:20:20 AM
Not everything was wiped out. Because of population bottlenecks, the descendants of the very few remainding Clovis Indians became what we modern idiots call 'Bigfoot' (back in the late 1970s, the Press-Telegram Newspaper sent out a reporter and a photographer to track down a Bigfoot seen in the flood control channels of Burbank and FOUND him; apparently there is a marginal population of very tall nomads who live off the land and local soup kitchens; they're hairy, but they're not walking carpets).
Although most of the megafauna died, some other things survived. Every wonder where legends of fairies began? They were hominid survivors of that catastrophe who undertook an exodus to safer lands.
 
2014-08-30 08:03:03 AM

I am Groot: [wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 623x394]
Nice graphic.  Subtle.

This is kinda awesome, too:
This graphic is used to illustrate the Younger Dryas event - it is not part of the paper discussed below - Anthony

especially, the way it's grey on a grey background.

This is insidious: Write a story about something tangetially connected to climate change, then include an insane graph within the article.

This is more insidious: use the graph to illustrate the point made in the scientific paper, thus establishing (with no sourcing or anything) that the graph is MORE authoritative than the paper.


You've, um, expanded your vocabulary a little there, Groot.
 
2014-08-30 09:51:43 AM

HK-MP5-SD: I am Groot: [wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 623x394]
Nice graphic.  Subtle.

This is kinda awesome, too:
This graphic is used to illustrate the Younger Dryas event - it is not part of the paper discussed below - Anthony
[img.fark.net image 623x394]
especially, the way it's grey on a grey background.

This is insidious: Write a story about something tangetially connected to climate change, then include an insane graph within the article.

This is more insidious: use the graph to illustrate the point made in the scientific paper, thus establishing (with no sourcing or anything) that the graph is MORE authoritative than the paper.

This has to be false because I was told that the last 10 years have been the hottest ten years EVAR, and this graph clearly shows that most of the last 10,000 years have been hotter.

Seriously, isn't it time that scientists admit that climate is incredibly complex with thousands of factors effecting temperature and using the 3 or 4 factors that we can measure in the historical record to estimate past temperatures based on how we think those factors effect climate now to is no more accurate than drunk, blindfolded teenagers throwing lawn darts at meth addicts during an earthquake.


You didn't read the whole graph. It is pretty misleading. Try again.
 
2014-08-30 12:24:48 PM
it's ok, there's new strains coming out of Colorado and California. we've upped the THC significantly.
 
2014-08-30 02:17:02 PM

Jon Snow: SquiggsIN: HK-MP5-SD

Do you know the difference between central Greenland and planet Earth?

It's worse than that. It's ignoring all of the modern warming that HK-MP5-SD is worried about comparing it to by using a reconstruction that ends before the current warming.

The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record.

[i.imgur.com image 850x536]


That's odd. Google shows this as the apparent source for that image:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

But it includes this graph of temperatures at the GRIP site, and estimated temperatures at GISP2 (where these ice cores were taken):
img.fark.net

See that red cross at the bottom? That's the estimated temperature at GISP2 in 1855. Note also that it is not stated whether these are air temperatures, several feet above the surface, or ice surface temperatures. What was studied was ice temperatures, by correlating temperatures inside the borehole to isotope values.

Here's your graph with the estimated GISP2 temperature overlaid, rather than the GRIP temperature. The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:

img.fark.net

If you prefer the original ice temperature graph:
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-30 02:21:57 PM

WelldeadLink: The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:


FTFM. The first graph shows the red cross at about -31.7.
 
2014-08-30 02:42:00 PM

Jon Snow: The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record.


The horizontal gray line is the inferred year 2009 temperature at the GISP2 site. Care to modify your statement?
 
2014-08-30 03:02:47 PM

WelldeadLink: See that red cross at the bottom? That's the estimated temperature at GISP2 in 1855. Note also that it is not stated whether these are air temperatures, several feet above the surface, or ice surface temperatures. What was studied was ice temperatures, by correlating temperatures inside the borehole to isotope values.

Here's your graph with the estimated GISP2 temperature overlaid, rather than the GRIP temperature. The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:


Please don't try to explain my own graphs to me. I know what the data are, where they come from, etc. (Hint: not skepticalscience).

The GISP2 ice core temperature record is not attempting to measure "ice temperatures". It's estimating near surface air temperature. Same as the GRIP reconstruction (from Box et al., 2009, incidentally, thought the image itself was from a blog called Hot Topic).

The location of GRIP is different (but near) the GISP2 site. They covary but don't have the same annual mean temperature, hence the offset between the two for an apples to apples comparison. What's the problem with that? It's clearly marked on the graph I used.

You post a lot in these threads. It seems like you're interested in the subject matter. Would you like to have a discussion about paleoclimate? I'm happy to.
 
2014-08-30 04:55:50 PM

WelldeadLink: Jon Snow: The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record.

The horizontal gray line is the inferred year 2009 temperature at the GISP2 site. Care to modify your statement?


You might have made a mistake here. The only gray horizontal line in what you posted represents the GISP record at 1885, not GISP2 at 2009, as you claimed. What line are you referring to?
 
2014-08-30 05:09:06 PM

WelldeadLink: Jon Snow: SquiggsIN: HK-MP5-SD

Do you know the difference between central Greenland and planet Earth?

It's worse than that. It's ignoring all of the modern warming that HK-MP5-SD is worried about comparing it to by using a reconstruction that ends before the current warming.

The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record.

[i.imgur.com image 850x536]

That's odd. Google shows this as the apparent source for that image:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

But it includes this graph of temperatures at the GRIP site, and estimated temperatures at GISP2 (where these ice cores were taken):
[img.fark.net image 850x567]

See that red cross at the bottom? That's the estimated temperature at GISP2 in 1855. Note also that it is not stated whether these are air temperatures, several feet above the surface, or ice surface temperatures. What was studied was ice temperatures, by correlating temperatures inside the borehole to isotope values.

Here's your graph with the estimated GISP2 temperature overlaid, rather than the GRIP temperature. The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:

[img.fark.net image 850x536]

If you prefer the original ice temperature graph:
[img.fark.net image 634x489]



I know Jon Snow mentioned this, but for emphasis be aware that GISP, GISP2, and GRIP represent different sites (and methods) and therefore are not identical. More importantly, note that what you posted really doesn't contradict the points that Jon Snow brought up, first, that "present global warming" in the graph in TFA represents 1855, and is therefore very misleading, as it does not include the current warming trend, and that the current instrumental record exceeds what is seen in the ice core records. What you posted does not challenges this in any way.
 
2014-08-30 06:51:37 PM

Jon Snow: WelldeadLink: See that red cross at the bottom? That's the estimated temperature at GISP2 in 1855. Note also that it is not stated whether these are air temperatures, several feet above the surface, or ice surface temperatures. What was studied was ice temperatures, by correlating temperatures inside the borehole to isotope values.

Here's your graph with the estimated GISP2 temperature overlaid, rather than the GRIP temperature. The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:

Please don't try to explain my own graphs to me. I know what the data are, where they come from, etc. (Hint: not skepticalscience).

The GISP2 ice core temperature record is not attempting to measure "ice temperatures". It's estimating near surface air temperature. Same as the GRIP reconstruction (from Box et al., 2009, incidentally, thought the image itself was from a blog called Hot Topic).

The location of GRIP is different (but near) the GISP2 site. They covary but don't have the same annual mean temperature, hence the offset between the two for an apples to apples comparison. What's the problem with that? It's clearly marked on the graph I used.


Sp. when you said "The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record. ", you did not mean that the blue crosses are the 1855 and 2009 temperatures at GISP. You actually meant that the two horizontal lines are the 1855 and 2009 temperature estimates for GISP. So by "the current warming", you were referring to the 2009 temperature at GISP, which is the upper horizontal line (+1.44C). Yes, we can all see that the red lines at GISP never rise above the 2009 temperature, so we can see that indeed the 2009 temperature exceeds any GISP isotope temperature. Thanks for clarifying that.

The studies Cuffrey and Clow 1997 and Cuffrey et al 1995 correlated the δ18O record with temperatures measured inside the borehole. They did not involve air temperature measurements, so they are inferring temperatures at or near the surface (offset by firn capturing delays):
"We present a combined heat- and ice-flow model, constrained by measurements of temperature in the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) borehole and by the GISP2 δ18O record and depth-age scale, which determines a history of temperature, accumulation rate, and ice sheet elevation for the past 50,000 years in central Greenland "
 
2014-08-30 10:36:42 PM

WelldeadLink: Jon Snow: WelldeadLink: See that red cross at the bottom? That's the estimated temperature at GISP2 in 1855. Note also that it is not stated whether these are air temperatures, several feet above the surface, or ice surface temperatures. What was studied was ice temperatures, by correlating temperatures inside the borehole to isotope values.

Here's your graph with the estimated GISP2 temperature overlaid, rather than the GRIP temperature. The red cross is where the graph infers it should be, 0.9C below the higher GRIP temperature:

Please don't try to explain my own graphs to me. I know what the data are, where they come from, etc. (Hint: not skepticalscience).

The GISP2 ice core temperature record is not attempting to measure "ice temperatures". It's estimating near surface air temperature. Same as the GRIP reconstruction (from Box et al., 2009, incidentally, thought the image itself was from a blog called Hot Topic).

The location of GRIP is different (but near) the GISP2 site. They covary but don't have the same annual mean temperature, hence the offset between the two for an apples to apples comparison. What's the problem with that? It's clearly marked on the graph I used.


Sp. when you said "The blue crosses show the temperature as recorded by instruments, in 1855 and in 2009. As you can see, the current warming exceeds that in the ice core record. ", you did not mean that the blue crosses are the 1855 and 2009 temperatures at GISP. You actually meant that the two horizontal lines are the 1855 and 2009 temperature estimates for GISP. So by "the current warming", you were referring to the 2009 temperature at GISP, which is the upper horizontal line (+1.44C). Yes, we can all see that the red lines at GISP never rise above the 2009 temperature, so we can see that indeed the 2009 temperature exceeds any GISP isotope temperature. Thanks for clarifying that.


Whoh now. It looks like you misunderstood the graph. Let's repost it just for reference:

img.fark.net
...and link to you again where this came from.

What Jon Snow said is true. The blue crosses are derived from the GRIP instrumental record (Box et al. 2009) and represent the temperature at GISP for 1855 and 2009, just as labelled in the graph. The difference between the GRIP and GISP sites is accounted for by subtracting 0.9³C from the GRIP data (which explains the labels for the blue crosses that state "GRIP offset -0.9°C".) The blue crosses do represent the 1855 and 2009 temperatures at GISP through instrumental data.

The black horizontal line is simply the last point on the temperature record in red, the 1855 temperature from the GISP2 ice core. This is the most recent point in the "present warming" referred to in the graph in TFA. The grey horizontal line is just the black line with 1.44°C added. This is done to highlight what the temperature could have been in 2009 if the 1855 ice record could somehow be extended that far, and it continued to warm to the same extent as the GRIP instrumental record (again, Box et al. 2009).

In short, the blue crosses represent the instrumental data, while the temperature record in red represents the ice core data. The black line represents the last point from the ice core data (1855), while the grey line represents what the ice core data would have been like by 2009 if it had warmed to the same extent as the instrumental record.

Hopefully that clarifies it for you.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report