This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.

A Superflare and Geomagnetic Excursion as the Triggers for the Younger Dryas Climatic Event and Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions
Downloads
Authors
Abstract
The onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) stadial at ~12,850 cal. yr BP remains one of the most abrupt climatic transitions in the geologic record, coinciding with megafaunal extinctions and human cultural shifts. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) proposes a cosmic event but struggles to explain the absence of a crater, terrestrial isotopic signatures of key proxies, and the hemispheric bias of cooling. We propose an alternative, comprehensive mechanism: a solar superflare, occurring during the Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion, which dramatically weakened Earth's magnetosphere. This event induced a hemispheric-scale lightning superstorm, igniting atmospheric methane and terrestrial biomass. This led to a cascade of effects: the production of nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) and ozone depletion; the formation of nanodiamonds (including lonsdaleite) via plasma deposition; the mobilization of terrestrial platinum and microspherules; and the injection of massive quantities of combustion aerosols into the atmosphere. The subsequent climatic feedbacks—including ice-sheet destabilization, ocean circulation changes, and UV stress—provide a parsimonious explanation for the YD onset, the extinction event, and the full suite of geochemical proxies recorded in ice cores and terrestrial sediments, without invoking an extraterrestrial impact.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31223/X5ZM9Q
Subjects
Physical Sciences and Mathematics
Keywords
Younger Dryas, Superflare, Geomagnetic Excursion, Nanodiamonds, Megafaunal Extinction, Plasma Discharges, biomass burning, Pleistocene
Dates
Published: 2025-09-11 19:53
Last Updated: 2025-09-11 19:53
Comment #236 Trevor Mason Ponto @ 2025-09-11 21:03
I think this is a strong paper with real merit. It lays out a good explanation for the Younger Dryas that doesn’t fall back on the standard “impact” default so often used in big geological debates. The way you tie together the geochemistry, ice cores, and atmospheric dynamics is convincing, and I like how it addresses the missing-crater problem head on. That said, I think it would benefit from more hard data and modeling to back up the scale of the processes you describe, especially the atmospheric and plasma effects.