I was sure there had been a pre-publication version of this paper in the Journal of Geology but I can't find it now. Another paper on the Younger Dryas event just emphasizes the insistence of the YDB team in keeping their theory afloat – in spite of a series of critical papers that have attempted to debunk the claims.
The YDB team are far from shy and have simply widened their horizons – and in this instance critics will have to come up with something dramatic in reaction as this is a pretty impressive effort. It involves 21 universities in 6 countries and they investigated nano-diamonds at 32 different sites in 11 countries. They say they have conclusively identified a thin layer of nano-diamonds across three continents – and they can only be explained by a cosmic impact of some kind (emphasizing an atmospheric explosion). They also found lar
than normal quantities of impact spherules, high temp melt glass, grape like soot clusters, charcoal, carbon spherules, osmium, platinum etc.
However, the commenters at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/younger-dryas-climate-event-solved… … are not what one might say favourable in their remarks following the news of the paper. Some appear to accept the mainstream explanation without checking the facts, which is somewhat strange as they otherwise maintain they are sceptics. Lots of them are just not prepared to think in terms of an impact and come out with the hoary chestnut involving a lack of an impact crater. Anthony's commenters do not seem to have evolved since the last post he did on the Younger Dryas Boundary event and like a stuck record, repeat the idea of a large object impacting with the ground when in fact what is being suggested is that fragments of a comet, or a group of meteors, collided with the atmosphere of the Earth – exploding in the air and not actually impacting with solid ground.
The news release pops up at various other places on the net but does not seem to have caused much excitement – it's nothing new. James Kennett is quoted at Phys.Org as saying the paper settled the dispute about the abundance of nano-diamonds. Our hypothesis challenges existing paradigms within several disciplines. These are impact dynamics, archaeology, palaeontology, palaeooceanography, and palaeoclimatology. See also www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014368/nanodiamonds-are-forever