Around 13,000 years ago, giant animals such as mastodons, mammoths, saber-toothed cats and ground sloths disappeared from the Earth. Scientists have found evidence in sediment cores to support a controversial theory that an asteroid or a comet slammed into Earth and helped lead to this extinction of ice age animals and cooling of the globe.
It's called the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and was first suggested in 2007. The hypothesis included the idea that an extraterrestrial body impacted Earth 12,800 years ago. This led to an extreme cooling of the environment, which in turn helped cause more than 35 species of large animals to go extinct.
At the same time, human populations declined. The impact also has been suggested as the cause of large, raging wildfires that created enough smoke to block the sun and created an "impact winter," in which cold weather lasts longer than expected after Earth is impacted.
[...] Today, evidence of such an impact can be found in platinum spikes. Platinum can be found in asteroids, comets and meteorites. Researchers found them in sediment cores collected from White Pond in Elgin, South Carolina.
Sediment Cores from White Pond, South Carolina, contain a Platinum Anomaly, Pyrogenic Carbon Peak, and Coprophilous Spore Decline at 12.8 ka (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51552-8) (DX)
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:21AM (6 children)
You didn't claim it solved anything else except a platinum surplus.
I'll also note with respect to the "iron-rich microspherules" and someone's previous appeal to Occams razor. Those spherules have been observed coming from meteorite impacts. They haven't been observed coming from any sort of solar activity. No one has observed iron-rich spherules coming from the Sun.
Where's the evidence? Sorry, this is garbage not matter that it goes back to the 1960s, allegedly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:26AM (5 children)
I already cited the most relevant quotes and linked you to the full documents that follow scholarly reference practices. Sorry, it is impossible to help you any further. The next step you must make on your own.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:24PM (4 children)
Quotes are not evidence.
"Scholarly reference practices" are weasel words for junk science. Again, not evidence.
Back at you on that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:21PM (3 children)
Nice denial. "Quotes from scientific literature describing evidence are not evidence". Wtf? What else could you possibly be asking for on an internet forum?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @02:24PM (2 children)
So you having "quotes from scientific literature" doesn't mean a thing in itself.
Evidence as I already did!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:06PM (1 child)
Actually read the sources I provided to you so you can stop talking out of your ass.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 31 2019, @04:20PM