Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Faid]

As for the discussion at TWeb, YOU are the one who needs to pay attention. KBertsche's objections to Baumgardner completely failed. It is obvious that these AMS labs are dealing with paradigm conflict and thus ignoring the clear fact that there is C14 in these samples which should not be there under their sacred paradigm. Background noise, indeed! You've gotta be kidding me, Mike.

Hahahahahahahaha. LOOK OUT IT'S THE EAC!!!!111oneeleventyone!!1!

Another time Dave, another time. We are discussing varves here AND THE CLEAR AND PRECISE 14C MEASUREMENTS related to them. None of this tail end measurement stuff that is noise in the system.
You only used Baumgardner's value because Baumgardner is smarter than you and proposed a pMC value that he could claim is 14C but really falls within the background noise level of the entire process of an AMS lab.
{ETA: Dave, if you paid any attention to my RATE thread at IIDB you would have realized that I found hundreds... nay thousands... of additional samples of "dead" carbon that AMS tested at 0.2pMC to 0.3pMC. I mentioned this in the TWeb thread to.}

Of course you did. And this is a problem for the OE model. It's not background. It's real. And no one has a plausible explanation for it except YECs.

And the YEC explanation is...

Wait for it...

...CONTAMINATION.

Dave, enough with the derails. If you have the drawers, go bact to TW and reply to Bertsche.

In the meantime, you have questions to answer here as well.

[Faid]

I haven't got the paper yet, but a few comments ...

Some folks are saying that it was not running water that deposited this sediment, but I think it was. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the sediment comes from INFLOW from rivers and/or streams, not from UPFLOW and DOWNFLOW as required by the Lake Suigetsu Fine Laminae Theory.

So I think my comments are appropriate.

As for Carbon 14 vs. depth, I'm not ready to say anything definite about that yet, but hopefully I will soon.

I really get the impression Dave is just throwing words together to make it look like there's some point to his "argument" - in line with my theory that the whole purpose of this thread is to drag it out for thousands of posts now so he can say "See? Suigetsu is not such an open and shut case after all!". Hence the irrelevant "objections". Hence the bafflegab about "UPFLOWS" and "DOWNFLOWS"

Actually, though, this little detour is extremely simple. To review:

• Dave contended that no one could demonstrate that annual varve formation is occurring today.
• I just did.

Really, it's as simple as that.

Now, are the varves the same thickness in every lake?
Are the varves comprised of the same particles in every lake?
Does it matter where the particles came from?
Does it matter whether the inflow/outflow is the same rate in every lake?

No, no, no and no.

And what's with this "fine laminae within laminae" canard?
Is Dave trying to claim that the laminae labeled 99, 00, 01, etc. by these authors are actually not annual cycles? Was my pretty hard to miss lost on Dave? Is Dave trying to claim anything at all here? Or are these just more words thrown at the issue - i.e. Dave practising his ventriloquism skills with that dead horse?

No. You misunderstood what I was contending. I contend that no one can demonstrate a 1:1 correlation between individual fine lamina (such as the 0.62-1mm ones in Suigetsu) and an annual process. The pix you posted from the Lillouet paper support MY theory -- Suigetsu deposition of more like 8mm/yr average -- not yours (0.5 - 1mm/yr avg).

Thanks for the paper BTW.

Keep up the obfuscations, davey. It doesn't help you.

It is not the THICKNESS of layers that determines their annual nature, dave.

There is no Global Lake Sediment Layer Constant, dave. Lakes are DIFFERENT.

Do you have ANYTHING meaningful to say?

<EDIT: I am sorry if it looks like I am repeating what everyone else said. I most certainly am not. I am simply commenting on dave's nonsense as I read it; I can't help it if the errors in his logic are so obvious. >

[Steviepinhead]

For fuck's sake, Dave, have you ever even been in a lake?

The answer to that one--not that you will ever get it--will be "No."

Nor has he ever attempted to cross a fast-moving stream, scrutinized a road cut, examined a paleosol, been to the Grand Canyon, been to Mt. St. Helens, been to the Washington scablands, or been to Lake Lillooet.

Most of us have probably done most of those things. Well, I'm probably lucky to live where I do to get to those last three (all of which I have...).

But davey doesn't want to get his hands dirty with actual observations. He wants to remain above it all, unsullied...able to theorize without contradiction.

Sad, really.

[Steviepinhead]

You're remarkably quiet today, dave.

Breakfast not agree with you?

[RAFH]

You're remarkably quiet today, dave.

Breakfast not agree with you?

I think he may be having excess flocculence. Perhaps he should reexamine his inflows, might be too much sediment, or maybe too many diatoms. Or perhaps his laminae are too thick. Hopefully its just an unfortunate episode and, with the appropriate fiber, he should be able to reestablish the appropriate outflow.

[Tears On My Dong]

You're remarkably quiet today, dave.

Breakfast not agree with you?

He doesn't know. He put breakfast on ignore the last time it didn't agree with him.

[Gary Hurd]

For fuck's sake, Dave, have you ever even been in a lake?

The answer to that one--not that you will ever get it--will be "No."

Nor has he ever attempted to cross a fast-moving stream, scrutinized a road cut, examined a paleosol, been to the Grand Canyon, been to Mt. St. Helens, been to the Washington scablands, or been to Lake Lillooet.

Most of us have probably done most of those things. Well, I'm probably lucky to live where I do to get to those last three (all of which I have...).

But davey doesn't want to get his hands dirty with actual observations. He wants to remain above it all, unsullied...able to theorize without contradiction.

Sad, really.

I have done the first three, hundreds of times. I have spent weeks on road cuts, in fact, working with geomorphologists and archaeologists. I have flown several times over the Grand Canyon, but sadly never have got to climb around. But I have supervised the excavation of thousands of feet of sediment cores, and analyzed them as well, also column samples, and published the results.

[RAFH]

For fuck's sake, Dave, have you ever even been in a lake?

The answer to that one--not that you will ever get it--will be "No."

Nor has he ever attempted to cross a fast-moving stream, scrutinized a road cut, examined a paleosol, been to the Grand Canyon, been to Mt. St. Helens, been to the Washington scablands, or been to Lake Lillooet.

Most of us have probably done most of those things. Well, I'm probably lucky to live where I do to get to those last three (all of which I have...).

But davey doesn't want to get his hands dirty with actual observations. He wants to remain above it all, unsullied...able to theorize without contradiction.

Sad, really.

I have done the first three, hundreds of times. I have spent weeks on road cuts, in fact, working with geomorphologists and archaeologists. I have flown several times over the Grand Canyon, but sadly never have got to climb around. But I have supervised the excavation of thousands of feet of sediment cores, and analyzed them as well, also column samples, and published the results.

I've done all except Lillooet. Did make it up to the far end of Harrison Lake, which is downstream of Lillooet. Similar country, absolutely beautiful, just gorgeous.

But unfortunately, too cold for me in all but the summer.

[Gary Hurd]

I've done all except Lillooet. Did make it up to the far end of Harrison Lake, which is downstream of Lillooet. Similar country, absolutely beautiful, just gorgeous.

But unfortunately, too cold for me in all but the summer.

Is there fishing?

Actually, I live 3 blocks from the fishing docks at Dana Warf. It became very hard for me to drive hours to fish for little bitty trout (say under 5 lb) when I can drive about 5 minutes to get on a boat (I don't need to maintain) and fish for 30+ lb tuna, yellowtail, dorado, great white seabass, 10 lb baracuda, bass, and ground fish (genus Sebastes for example).

Two days ago I broke off a fish that was stripping 20lb test line on heavy drag. I cooked three 2lb fish tonight, and gave four more to neighbors.

Life is good.

[RAFH]

I've done all except Lillooet. Did make it up to the far end of Harrison Lake, which is downstream of Lillooet. Similar country, absolutely beautiful, just gorgeous.

But unfortunately, too cold for me in all but the summer.

Is there fishing?

Actually, I live 3 blocks from the fishing docks at Dana Warf. It became very hard for me to drive hours to fish for little bitty trout (say under 5 lb) when I can drive about 5 minutes to get on a boat (I don't need to maintain) and fish for 30+ lb tuna, yellowtail, dorado, great white seabass, 10 lb baracuda, bass, and ground fish (genus Sebastes for example).

Two days ago I broke off a fish that was stripping 20lb test line on heavy drag. I cooked three 2lb fish tonight, and gave four more to neighbors.

Life is good.

Fishing? At which? I'd assume great fishing at Lillooet, but couldn't say. I'd say the same about Harrison, its a whacking big lake. I was a mere lad at the time I took the boat ride to the far end of the lake. A sweet old couple thought I was such a sweet little kid they wanted to take me on a boat ride with them. My parents thought nothing of it and off I went. They were really wonderful people. Of course, this was Canada more than 40 years ago when people never considered that some sweet little old folks might kidnap your kid and sell him to pedophiles.

In any case, they didn't sell me to pedophiles and we had a very nice boat ride.

There aren't a lot of major parks west of the Rockies I haven't been to. Dad was a teacher and we didn't have much money but we did have a great station wagon and a cute little camper trailer we took everywhere. I learned to drive on a 2 month tour of the West, taking in California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The trip to Harrison was 6 weeks and covered Nevada, Utah, Idaho, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and, of course, California.

[Febble]

Let me see if I've got this straight. The evidence that varves represent annual layers includes:

• We observe varves forming today
• The diatoms in the layers reflect annual seasons
• Linear correlations are observed between varve count and radiocarbon
• Linear correlations are observed between radiocarbon date and depth
• The predicted date from these regressions corresponds closely with varve count
• The radiocarbon dates are independently calibrated with evidence from other fields such as archaeology

For these reasons, we can infer that radiocarbon dating is broadly accurate, by which we mean that

• Radiocarbon dates have a linear relationship with actual date
• Radiocarbon time intervals are of the same order of magnitude as real time intervals.

We also observe that varves go on for tens of thousands of years:

• The correlation between varves and radiocarbon continues to the limits of radiocarbon dating, which is around 50,000 YBP
• The varves go on in lockstep for at least twice as long as that.

Therefore varves have been forming for at least 100,000 years.
Therefore YEC is wrong.


So, in order to retrieve the claim that YEC is correct, YEC proponents need to argue that:

• Radiocarbon dates are not linear with real time.
  
• Demonstrate that apparent linearity with real time is an artefact of an some factor by which nonlinearities in layer formation in apparently completely independent processes (e.g. corals; tree rings; ice cores; varves) mimic the nonlinearities the C14 inventory over time, and also, coincidentally, happen to give spuriously matching dates for historically recorded events, such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.

However, this still leaves them with a major headache over the varves, because even if the varves were NOT annual, and even if radiocarbon dates were NOT collinear with real time, and even if the correspondence between archaeological and radiocarbon dating were completely coincidental and spurious:

• If a substantial proportion of the varves were deposited during the Flood, there should be NO correlation between depth and radiocarbon date for that segment, and no such segment has been found....
  
• Unless the Flood was more than 50,000 radiocarbon years ago, in which case radiocarbon dates for other materials are out by an average factor of at least 10.

And it still woulldn't explain why there should be ICE below that level.

Dave - it seems to me that's the size of the problem you have to tackle.

I'd like to suggest that the construction of an Old Earth theology might be an easier task, especially as there are several already to hand, many of them Christian.

Cheers,

Lizzie

[Dave Hawkins]

...
What I question is the idea that each of the fine laminae in Lake Suigetsu directly correlate to ONE YEAR of deposition. I believe that these fine laminae are better explained as the result of episodic sedimentation from inflows and/or settling. i.e. multiple laminae (8? 10?) being deposited each year.

My rough model is that the sediment from 75m - 40m may have been deposited during the Flood. Then the sediment from 40m - 0m might represent episodic sedimentation over the following 5000 years. Note that 40m over 5000 years is an average of 8 mm per year. Note also that pix posted from the Lillooet paper show approximately 10 mm per year in normal years. Note also that these 10mm layers are themselves finely laminated. So my theory seems to be consistent with observation.

Your "theory"?

What is that?
That 10 mm/yr sedimentation is typical in general, of all lakes everywhere?
That the neat colored stripes (and otherwise cyclically varying layers), either in the Suigetsu or Lillooet case, do not represent annual cycles?
That real-world scientists are all wrong and creationists who have never studied this stuff - or read the most basic geology text, for that matter - can tell them a thing or two about limnology?

What is your "theory" that this observation is consistent with???

It's what you quoted. The second paragraph above, starting with "My rough model ..."

[Pappy Jack]

What is your "theory" that this observation is consistent with???

It's what you quoted. The second paragraph above, starting with "My rough model ..."

But Dave's theory is shown to be incorrect by any disinterested examination of the available data. All Dave's theories seem to be driven by needing to conform with a 'young Earth' model and he appears psychologically unable to consider on its own merits any evidence that seems persuasive of the failure of this model to explain observed phenomena, hence his stubborn reluctance to acknowledge the seasonal nature of the diatom blooms in the Suigetsu varves and his desperate search for any nugget of information he can present that seems (in his mind) to contraindicate this.

I am still waiting to see his informed response to Febble's long-outstanding question.

[Dave Hawkins]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

1) Lake Lillouet sedimentation rate is on the order of 10mm per year -- 10 - 20 times the rate asserted for Suigetsu
2) Sedimentation rate at Third Sister Lake is approximately 27mm per year based on the depth measured by Potzger & Wilson (1941) -- 18.5m -- vs. the depth measured in the early 1990s -- 17.0m.
3) Sedimentation rate at Lake Fukami determined from a 2m sediment core is about 13mm/yr. (2 meters / 147 distinct layers)

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate.

4) Carbon 14 testing of samples in the bottom of the Suigetsu core (~75m) shows a pMC content of ~0.28, far above the AMS detection threshhold. Although paradigm conflict prevents AMS researchers from admitting that this is anything other than "background," the fact is that this is excellent evidence that these samples are NOT "Carbon 14 dead" but were buried during the Flood or before the Flood (See the RATE Report Vol. 2 from ICR.) Discussion at TWeb here ... RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner

I'm really enjoying this thread!

[Pappy Jack]

I may have missed an earlier refernce to this, in which case apologies for mentioning it again, but there is available online at http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...ng_en&ie=UTF-8 an academic dissertation by Mia Tiljander, University of Helsinki, on the Holocene history of annual laminations of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland, which provides to my mind indisputable evidence that varve formation is a seasonally-driven annual process. The entire paper is well worth reading in its own right, but an extract from the abstract may serve:

The varve year begins when a light mineral lamina deposits in the spring. The mineral lamina becomes gradually mixed with organic matter in summer and autumn. At the end of the varve year (winter) black organic matter deposits under the ice cover. Variations in the basic varve structure exist. The varved sediment sequence covers almost the whole Holocene. The first varves were deposited 9590 years ago when the lake basin isolated from the Ancylus Lake of the Baltic basin. This first independent lake period lasted 430 years. After that, the lake became a part of the larger lake complex of Ancient Lake Päijänne for over 2700 years. The varve formation continued during the large lake period, although the varve structure was more complicated. Lake Korttajärvi became an independent lake basin for the second time 6400 years ago due to the formation of a new outlet and the lowering of the water level of the Ancient Lake Päijänne. The formation of annual lamina has continued to the present day.

My bolding.

The study convincingly ties the varve record of Lake Korttajärvi to a series of both recent and more time-distant climactic events and is convincing evidence supporting the work undertaken at Suigetsu.

[Lucretius II]

No. You misunderstood what I was contending. I contend that no one can demonstrate a 1:1 correlation between individual fine lamina (such as the 0.62-1mm ones in Suigetsu) and an annual process. The pix you posted from the Lillouet paper support MY theory -- Suigetsu deposition of more like 8mm/yr average -- not yours (0.5 - 1mm/yr avg).

Thanks for the paper BTW.

Is Dave really saying what I think he is saying here ?

That because he has found another lake Lillouet,(well has had a paper on this lake pointed out to him Dave being far too lazy to do the work himself) which has completley different characterisitcs to Suigetsu in which the "laminae" are of greater depth i.e 8mm/yr average ,then that means that the Suigetsu "laminae" of 0.5 - 1mm/yr avg must be suddenly "subsets" of a "lamina " of greater size i.e 8mm/yr average the same size as in Lillouet even though they are different lakes with different conditions ?

So in Daveworld, as Lillouet has 8mm/yr average (I am just repeating HIS figures here ) then we should divide the number of varves in Suigetsu by 8 (or 16) to get the "true rate of annual deposition" and therefore the "true date" ?

Funnily enough by doing this, as far as I can see unwarranted calculation, we got figures of all the 100,000 varves being able to be "laid down " in either 12,500 (in the case of divide by 8 ) or 6250 years (in the case of divide by 16 ).

One would be almost tempted to say that Dave has deliberately gone looking for figures that support his "model" (that he says he doesn't have) and is ignoring all reality and inconvenient figures and facts , but then that would of course be dishonest and not the sort of thing a good Christian like Dave would do .(SARCASM MODE OFF )

I see once AGAIN Dave has confused "some " with "all"

"Some " lakes have a larger/deeper "lamina", therefore "all " lakes must be the same .


(Sorry for possibly misusing the correct scientific terms)

[VoxRat]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

[a lot of completely unsurprising data indicating that different lakes have different sedimentation patterns]

[data indicating that the lowest 14C levels you're going to see are background levels]


I'm really enjoying this thread!

You must be a masochist, because you're getting pulverized.

Try engaging Febble's last post.

That should be enough to put you in YEC masochist heaven.

[Pappy Jack]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

1) Lake Lillouet sedimentation rate is on the order of 10mm per year -- 10 - 20 times the rate asserted for Suigetsu
2) Sedimentation rate at Third Sister Lake is approximately 27mm per year based on the depth measured by Potzger & Wilson (1941) -- 18.5m -- vs. the depth measured in the early 1990s -- 17.0m.
3) Sedimentation rate at Lake Fukami determined from a 2m sediment core is about 13mm/yr. (2 meters / 147 distinct layers)

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate.

4) Carbon 14 testing of samples in the bottom of the Suigetsu core (~75m) shows a pMC content of ~0.28, far above the AMS detection threshhold. Although paradigm conflict prevents AMS researchers from admitting that this is anything other than "background," the fact is that this is excellent evidence that these samples are NOT "Carbon 14 dead" but were buried during the Flood or before the Flood (See the RATE Report Vol. 2 from ICR.) Discussion at TWeb here ... RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner

I'm really enjoying this thread!

The weaknesses and failings in your arguments have been pointed out already by others and scarcely need reiterating again. You should really address their points rather than repeating your own as if repetition in some way adds to their veracity. To my mind, regardless of the specific points made elsewhere in response to your arguments (1)-(3) above, you are falling into the error of assuming that some=many=all. The points you make are only relevant to the circumstances and situation they relate to. You might as well argue that because apples, oranges, bananas, tomatoes and pineapples are all fruits, a description of a pineapple is enough to allow someone to accurately identify a tomato.

The actual evidence from Suigetsu (and elsewhere; see the Lake Korttajärvi paper referenced in my last post, for example) is enough to support the argument that varves form annually, that they can be tied to specific events in the past, that they are consilient with other dating methodologies, and that they provide a window into the past that offers no comfort whatsover for YEC dogma.

Your C14 argument is yet another PRATT.

[Pappy Jack]

...One would be almost tempted to say that Dave has deliberately gone looking for figures that support his "model" (that he says he doesn't have) and is ignoring all reality and inconvenient figures and facts....

As others have pointed out, it is apparent that Dave's Demon won't let him evaluate on its own merits any evidence that contradicts his Young Earth fantasies. On the other hand, the Demon most certainly does encourage Dave to search out any facts, figures and other nuggets that, with a certain amount of contrivance and self-deception, can be advanced as supporting said Young Earth fantasies.

[Lucretius II]

...One would be almost tempted to say that Dave has deliberately gone looking for figures that support his "model" (that he says he doesn't have) and is ignoring all reality and inconvenient figures and facts....

As others have pointed out, it is apparent that Dave's Demon won't let him evaluate on its own merits any evidence that contradicts his Young Earth fantasies. On the other hand, the Demon most certainly does encourage Dave to search out any facts, figures and other nuggets that, with a certain amount of contrivance and self-deception, can be advanced as supporting said Young Earth fantasies.

I deliberately put that bit in for the benefit of any newbies/lurkers who may be viewing this thread just so they would know the depths (pun almost intended ) to which Dave will sink .

[Dave Hawkins]

I may have missed an earlier refernce to this, in which case apologies for mentioning it again, but there is available online at http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...ng_en&ie=UTF-8 an academic dissertation by Mia Tiljander, University of Helsinki, on the Holocene history of annual laminations of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland, which provides to my mind indisputable evidence that varve formation is a seasonally-driven annual process. The entire paper is well worth reading in its own right, but an extract from the abstract may serve:

The varve year begins when a light mineral lamina deposits in the spring. The mineral lamina becomes gradually mixed with organic matter in summer and autumn. At the end of the varve year (winter) black organic matter deposits under the ice cover. Variations in the basic varve structure exist. The varved sediment sequence covers almost the whole Holocene. The first varves were deposited 9590 years ago when the lake basin isolated from the Ancylus Lake of the Baltic basin. This first independent lake period lasted 430 years. After that, the lake became a part of the larger lake complex of Ancient Lake Päijänne for over 2700 years. The varve formation continued during the large lake period, although the varve structure was more complicated. Lake Korttajärvi became an independent lake basin for the second time 6400 years ago due to the formation of a new outlet and the lowering of the water level of the Ancient Lake Päijänne. The formation of annual lamina has continued to the present day.

My bolding.

The study convincingly ties the varve record of Lake Korttajärvi to a series of both recent and more time-distant climactic events and is convincing evidence supporting the work undertaken at Suigetsu.

You should pay attention to what I actually say, rather than what you imagine that I say. I have never disagreed that annual deposition occurs. It does occur. My disagreement is with the ultra-low sedimentation rate required to give Old Earthers their fancied 100,000 history of Lake Suigetsu.

[Dave Hawkins]

Pappy Jack ...

To my mind, regardless of the specific points made elsewhere in response to your arguments (1)-(3) above, you are falling into the error of assuming that some=many=all. The points you make are only relevant to the circumstances and situation they relate to.

Fine. Break your tradition of not reading science papers but posting your opinions anyway and find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

[Dave Hawkins]

Pappy Jack ...

The actual evidence from Suigetsu (and elsewhere; see the Lake Korttajärvi paper referenced in my last post, for example) is enough to support the argument that varves form annually,

No. The actual evidence at Suigetsu includes NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for your fantasy. Where are the sediment traps in Lake Suigetsu? Where are the studies from 50 years ago showing the depth of the lake at that time? I'd love to find one. I suspect this would show a much higher sedimentation rate than 0.5 - 1 mm /yr. Shall we see if we can find one?

Furthermore, there are numerous contradictions in your scenario which you refuse to address.

Serious Contradictions in the Suigetsu Story

[VoxRat]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

Consider the fact that

The annual sediment accumulation rate in Lake Korttajärvi varies between 0.5 and 2.0 mm.

[from Pappy Jack's excellent resource, see above]

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate.

Oh? What experimental evidence is that?

If you can force yourself to look at Febble's summary, you'll see that the experimental evidence from Suigetsu itself "favors" (well, no; actually it makes undeniable) the lower rate universally accepted by the researchers who actually do the research.

If you look at the experimental evidence from other lakes, you'll find varve thicknesses that vary, depending on the circumstances of the lake in question.

Wow.
Who'd'a thought?

I'm really enjoying this thread!

Oh, me too.
That's why I rate it 5 stars.

[VoxRat]

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

[tracked down from Pappy Jack's source, above.]

How come you don't do this tracking down, Dave?

How come you ask everyone else to do it for you?