The company is managed by professional graphic artists and authors who are also dedicated aviation enthusiasts and modelmakers. Whether it is our range of decals, books or conversion parts, we use first hand information, which we translate into accurate and authentic products of high quality. Our goal is to bring the complete modelling experience to the modeller. To ensure our reputation for high quality, we use state-of-the-art digital equipment and software to produce a wide variety of decal sets, conversion sets and armament kits.

Author:Faelar Telabar
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):16 November 2012
PDF File Size:20.66 Mb
ePub File Size:16.69 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Science journal. Maybe someone can get it and write a summary. OrangeMarlin , 3 January UTC Results section Though the results section reports multiple issues with irregular extinction patterns, none of the cited articles discuss the YD event directly. Perhaps these should be removed or "softened" until a peer-reviewed publication is available. Policy regarding "original research" is not as intuitive as you may think, check it out. In my opinion the real source of contention more than anything else here, is a misunderstanding based on what does or does not constitute "original research" here in the encyclopedia.

Surely someone has already pointed out these problems somewhere in the literature. He only mentions ONE example of late island megafaunal extinctions in this article the Antilles ground sloths. The point that these latter late island extinctions are evidence against a hypothesis predicting synchronous extinctions has already been made in another context that of the climate hypothesis.

You can only use sources that discuss the Younger Dryas event. RE: The crater - The Tunguska event left no crater. All other things being equal i. A reexamination of a number of sediment sections containing the basal Younger Dryas boundary found a complete absence of any debris from an extraterrestrial impact at that time. A popular article is: Dalton, R. No evidence of an extraterrestrial impact 13, years ago, studies. Published online October 12, , doi Holliday, J. Gingerich, C. Ketron, C.

Vance Haynes, Jr. Hilman, D. Wagner, E. Johnson, and P. Claeyse, , An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis. Published online before print October 12, , doi: Bartlein, M. Walsh, S.

Harrison, K. Brown, M. Edwards, P. Higuera, M. Power, R. Anderson, C. Briles, A. Brunelle, C. Carcaillet, M. Daniels, F. Hu, M. Lavoiem, C. Longn, T. Minckley, P. Richard, A. Scott, D. Shafer, W. Tinners, C. Umbanhowar, Jr. Whitlock, , Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although there are changes in biomass burning during the Younger Dryas, there is no systematic trend. There is a further increase in biomass burning after the Younger Dryas. Intervals of rapid climate change at This paper concluded: No continent-wide fire response is observed at the beginning of the Younger Dryas chronozone, the time of the hypothesized comet impact.

The results provide no evidence of synchronous continent-wide biomass burning at any time during the LGIT. Given that more papers, both pro and con, in the discussion about whether a Younger Dryas Event exists are still in review and in press, the discussion about it will continue for a time yet.

Paul H. In fact, we know that dinosaurs disappeared because of an impact, but also that the extinction was not necessarily immediate. An impact may bias several climate mechanisms that may require centuries and even thousand years to find a new equilibrium.

So, a difference in time among extinctions of species on different continents is not a demonstration that no impact occurred. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. On a glacier? How do you separate burning from fire due to impact? These are only produced by an earth impact, not an air burst. Thus, the intro needs to be edited. The question remains open as to where the impact was. Tmangray talk , 3 January UTC Right now that hypothesis is subject to considerable debate right now.

However, the reason why there is not a crater is that it could be multiple small impacts, that were either erased by subsequent glaciation or glacial lake bursts or hit the Laurentide ice sheet, which would have left behind little evidence.

If it did hit an ice sheet, it must have blasted right through it, and thus ought to have left a trace somewhere. It may be that the crater was quickly filled with glacial sediments and remains hidden for the time being.

Tmangray talk , 4 January UTC The Tunguska impact was an airburst event in which the shock of hitting the atmosphere at an oblique angle generated substantial diamond, lonsdaleite and garphite.

But it did not generate an impact crater. This appears to be very similar to the supposed YD impact. Satredfern see [1] Why is no one considering the carolina bays, thousands of large elliptical depressions in the earth located between Florida and New Jersey, as a clue to the possible cellestial impact location?

Hall of Maat web page and 1. Brooks, M. Southeastern Geology. Extraterrestrial impacts cannot create craters tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand years before they occur. If I found it confusing, does it need a tag? This entire thesis is falling apart with widely asserted claims a lot of the data was faked. When I read this a couple of years ago, I thought it was unsupportable. Now I guess I was right.

Whether it is any more convincing than his previous attempts, we shall see Later, Lecompte et al. We consider these discrepancies significant enough to negate the conclusions of Surovell et al. Daulton et al. However, Kennett et al. In addition, Daulton et al. However, in YD-aged ice in Greenland, Kurbatov et al. At Lake Cuitzeo, numerous nanodiamonds have been identified with the 1. SAD and all other analyses conclusively show that the Cuitzeo nanoparticles analyzed have d-spacings consistent with lonsdaleite and other nanodiamonds.

In independent support of nanodiamonds in the YDB, Tian et al. Also primary research rarely qualifies as a reliable source, because, as real scientists know, lots of primary research gets thrown out because of any number of issues from fraud to incompetence to outright mistakes.

Further, you have been warned by an admin for wikistalking. Please stop. I have never been so creeped out by a stalker before. You are doing a lot of original research here. A real scientist tries to develop a consensus.

Very sad. As a new Wikipedian, that quote was my very first edit. It is not clear what you define as "fringe science".

DSE 6010 PDF

Products from Isradecal Studio



Messerschmitt Bf 109 F


Related Articles