[meteorite-list] Re:Comet hit Britain in mid sixth, RE-POSTED

From: Marco Langbroek <marco.langbroek_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Jul 23 18:02:16 2006
Message-ID: <44C3F1DD.3050807_at_wanadoo.nl>

Sterling K. Webb wrote:

> Marco, I seem to have a talent for annoying you.

Quite right, and not just me. But that part I'll answer you in private and not
on this list. Below, on to the discussion:

> Could I point
> out that not every posting to The List is directed at
> you, personally.
[snip]
> However, disagreement is not condescension. If you
> read what I wrote, you might see that I was addressing
> The List generally

Sterling, you actually wrote, and I quote:

>> Yes, Marco, History is Change. But there are also
>> those "with a known fetish" AGAINST impacts or any
>> other physical event as a source" for any historical change.

So I guess "the whole list" is named Marco here.

Let us now move to the proper discusion:

> You should really become familiar with the hypotheses you
> are ridiculing. Neither Napier and Clube nor Baillie nor anyone
> else that I am aware of have ever suggested any impact like that
> (or any impact), with an accompanying cratering event, ejecta,
> spherules, glasses, shocked quartz -- none of that, for which
> there is no evidence. Dust, yes, and climatic change, and effects
> on flora and fauna (but not extinctions) for all of which there
> is evidence.

Where? Where are the dust layers in peat deposits, lake deposits, deep sea
cores, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica for example?
All there is, is a set of narrow tree rings. No more.


> The term "cometary impact" could, in this context, refer to
> a series of atmospheric entries and disintegration of many
> low-density objects which would load the Earth's atmosphere
> with dust to the extent of reducing solar input and causing
> sudden and irregularly distributed "coolings."
[snip]
> Just increase the frequency to where there are
> Hiroshima sized airbursts EVERY DAY and dozens of huge
> fireballs somewhere on Earth EVERY NIGHT. There would
> be 100's of meteorite falls a year, and still no "impacts" or
> craters, perhaps for years, and even then, likely only small ones.
> Increase the frequency again ten-fold or more, but hypothesize
> it's all from a swarm of small weak objects -- never a crater,
> never a tsunami, never an overt "disaster." Increase it ten-fold
> again if you want it. And again... What's happening? Countless
> millions of tons of dust are raining into the atmosphere, persisting
> for years, the sunlight is dim and watery, there's ice on the pond
> in July. As the dust accumulates, it just gets worse and worse, a
> progressive disaster.

Again: Where are the dust layers in peat deposits, lake deposits, deep sea
cores, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica? Where are they?

This whole grand scenario has virtually NIL evidence in terms of proxy data.
It's science fiction.

> One might doubt how much dust could be dumped in the
> atmosphere by "cometary" (or other) bodies, and ask where
> is the evidence, the layers of deposits, but it would all
> be washed into the oceans and their sediments are in fact
> fat with interplanetary and cometary dust, untagged as to
> origin and method of dispersal.

Bullshit! Fine grained deposits from this era that would preserve such dust
abound in the North Sea basin area (including my native Holland). Ice cores
cover this time period. Deep sea cores do - and an increased dust influx of this
size would be readily visible in them. You are talking utter nonsense here.

>> Complex societies are inherently instable. There's no need
>> for a clear-cut external prime-mover to make such a society
>> collapse.
>>
> Since the Roman empire (E. Division) under Justinian was
> virtually as complex as Western Civilization over most of the
> past half millennium, why, I expect we'll go under any day
> now, then? Western Civilization has managed to avoid this
> "inherent" potential for destruction for at least 500 years.
> We ought to be ready to just go "poof!" any minute now...
> Should have already done it. Wonder why not?

We can go "poof" any minute yes. Consult a basic history book man. Over the past
half millenium, even over the past century, our civilization has gone through
dire straits several times. And complete Empires have collapsed.

Take the British Empire. Once an Empire where the Sun never set, it is now
virtually gone, no longer existent. The same with us Dutch too, 400 years ago we
ruled the Oceans and colonized the World, and now we are a small country with a
few Caribean islands left that only stay with us because we provide them money
and protect them against Venezuela. Napoleontic Europe, it is gone. The
communist Empire and its accompanying pervasive ideology and symbolism, it came
and is gone again. And fast too. Even quicker than the Byzantine Empire. Not
speaking about the Third Reich.


>> DON'T NEED TO HAVE a clearly identifiable prime-mover.
>> Thinking in prime-movers only to explain (pre-)historic change
>> is utterly simplistic.
>>
> What you call "prime-movers" is what we call "cause," as in
> that familiar duo of "cause and effect." I realize that you regard the
> notion of "cause and effect" as "in my opinion... pseudo-science,"
> etc., etc. At the risk of labeling myself as an intellectual dinosaur,
> as insufficiently post-modern, hopelessly naive, as un-hip, as
> definitely not-with-it, I will confess that I ACTUALLY BELIEVE
> that events HAVE causes! Gasp! What an archaic idea.

Look up what "prime-mover" means because you don't seem to understand the word
at all. "Prime-mover" is not similar to "cause". "Prime-mover" means: having
origin in a basically mono-causal explanation. But many things, even most
things, DON'T have a mono-causal explanation, but are due to complex
multi-causal contingency, which is exactly why many historic changes are so
difficult to explain. Very little historical developments are mono-causal.
Yes, you ARE an intellectual dinosaur, Sterling...

Similarly, you seem to have heard the term "Post-modern" once but obviously have
no clue to what it means.


>> Clube, Napier, Steel and such have their own agenda to see
>> "impacts" in history and recent pre-history everywhere. It ties
>> in with their idea's on the evolution of the Taurid meteor
>> complex as being derived from the arrival and breakup of a
>> giant comet a few millenia ago...
>>
> You gotta read'em before you stomp on'em: that "few millenia"
> is 20,000 to 60,000 years ago, possibly 100,000 years ago,
> says N & C. That is a FEW millennia.

I DID read'em. They give different time-scales in different publications,
basically because successive computer similations provided widely varying
time-scales. In "The Cosmic Serpent" they have the break-up occur in
early-historic times and try to argue with texts from Mesopotamian clay-tablets
that these describe the break-up. They have changed their stance on the
time-scales involved repeatedly.

> Remember,
> in the 1970's there were still many Ph.D geologists who ridiculed
> the idea that the craters on the Moon were from impacts, a silly
> American notion, they said, when it's obvious they're volcanic.
> They had to be right; they had Ph.D's, didn't they?

What I meant with my PhD remark, is that you really don't have to lecture me on
the character of history and historical process. Because that is exactly where I
have been scientifically educated in. And from your remarks which I address
above, it is very clear that YOU don't have an idea about the science of history
at all. You lack even the most basic understanding. You drop impressive terms
but have no idea what they mean. You even seem to lack any real insight in
scientific methodology.

So I am not talking about paradigm shifts here, I am talking about your attitude
when I made my remark about the fact that I have my PhD in archaeology.

With regard to impact cratering versus volcanic origin of craters, there were
two competing paradigms, both with a certain empirical backing. The paradigm
shift from favouring volcanics to impact only came about when new strong
empirical data became available, notably from the Apollo program but also from
the development of new analytical methods in the field of cosmo-chemistry, which
finally shifted the favour to impact. Note that the shift came about due to a
plethora of new strong empirical evidence and technological progress. And yes,
there will allways be rearguard battles when paradigms make a major shift. But
you really cannot make an argument that this is the case with the topic
currently under discusssion. That is too cheap, and such an appeal on partisan
courage is actually the hallmark of many pseudo-science advocates (because it is
easy, too easy, to make).

>> As far as short-term climatic fluctuation is concerned,
>> there is much more cause to look at variations in solar flux
>> as a possible explanation .
>>
> I want to stop and savor this moment when we agree
> almost perfectly. That's obviously not a frequent event.
> What better way to explain SHORT-TERM solar flux
> variation than the short but intense dumping of opaque
> (or reflective) particulate matter into the Earth's atmosphere?

I was aiming at short term fluctuation in solar flux because of variation in
solar activity itself. It is increasingly becoming clear that these play a major
role in both short- and long term climatic fluctuations, and there is
increasingly empirical backing for this.

- Marco

-----
Dr Marco Langbroek
Dutch Meteor Society (DMS)

e-mail: meteorites_at_dmsweb.org
private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek
DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org
-----
Received on Sun 23 Jul 2006 06:02:05 PM PDT