Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[ericmurphy]

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy. I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

Dave, this is horseshit. You cannot simply dismiss all radiometric dating techinques without showing how they're wrong. You've never done that; you've never even come close to doing that.

And besides, you still have the same question outstanding that's been dogging your feet for two years now:

Why do the curves agree?

It doesn't matter whether you're "interested" in radiometric dating. You can either show it's wrong—all of it's wrong—or you have to accept the fact that it blows your young-earth creationism into orbit.

ETA: you may have forgotten this, Dave, but one of the principal reasons for coring Lake Suigetsu in the first place was to provide corroborating evidence for radiocarbon dating. So no, you don't get to just blow off radiometric dating because you're "not interested" in it.

[Pappy Jack]

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

Um... I think you missed the point. Nevermind.

Final musings before retiring for what's left of the night here in the Pyrenees.

Dave misses many points, but most intentionally so - and not the least being your repeated request that he address the consilience between the Suigetsu varve sequence and the point to which he has previously indicated he regards RM dating as reliable, i.e. about 3500 YBP.

That he has assiduously ducked this question - because he hopes no one will notice? - is for a reason that we are all aware, even if Dave thinks we might not be. If he acknowledges the consilience (which he knows he must if he is to retain any shred of credibility), he has also to acknowledge that the 3500 Suigetsu laminations represent the recurrence of seasonal phenomena on an annual basis. Doing this completely undermines his increasingly desperate attempts to argue that the Suigetsu laminations do not represent this yearly phenomenon, for if the 'first' 3500 laminations are in fact annual varves, what possible explanation can he have for all the others that are so discouragingly (for Dave) similar?

Just re-stating the obvious, I know, but I wouldn't want Dave to think we might have forgotten this little gem waiting to bite him somewhere proximate to where the monkey keeps its nuts.

[VoxRat]

...
It doesn't matter whether you're "interested" in radiometric dating. You can either show it's wrong—all of it's wrong—or you have to accept the fact that it blows your young-earth creationism into orbit.

OR...

mumble some incoherent, nebulous bafflegab about "unwarranted assumptions" (being careful, of course, not to commit yourself to what said "unwarranted assumptions" actually are) and flee the whole topic, Brave Sir Robin style.

[ericmurphy]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

And there goes Dave, with his defective sense of humor, once again.

[mung bean]

OR...

mumble some incoherent, nebulous bafflegab about "unwarranted assumptions" (being careful, of course, not to commit yourself to what said "unwarranted assumptions" actually are) and flee the whole topic, Brave Sir Robin style.

[ericmurphy]

...
It doesn't matter whether you're "interested" in radiometric dating. You can either show it's wrong—all of it's wrong—or you have to accept the fact that it blows your young-earth creationism into orbit.

OR...

mumble some incoherent, nebulous bafflegab about "unwarranted assumptions" (being careful, of course, not to commit yourself to what said "unwarranted assumptions" actually are) and flee the whole topic, Brave Sir Robin style.

Unwarranted assumptions don't do it. He's been mumbling about "unwarranted assumptions" since May of 2006 and still hasn't managed to come up with one. He tried the "unwarranted assumption that ¹⁴C concentrations in the atmosphere have been roughly constant over the past 60,000 years" for months after he was shown that not only was that not an assumption, but that the calibration curves allow us to determine empirically what those concentrations actually were. He's shut up about that, but he hasn't replaced it with any other "unwarranted assumptions."

[hecaterin]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.
(Mung, you needed this - :boomtish: - h)

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:
:Popcorn:

:headbang:

Great post for my smilie collection

[JonF]

JonF made a post a while back and he made a lot of assertions about diatoms. Suffice to say for now that one of the studies I found that Voxrat so graciously forwarded to me refutes pretty much everything he said. I'll post that as soon as I have a chance.

Oh goody goody! I'm really looking forward to dissecting another set of idiotic misrepresentations and misunderstandings from a guy who hasn't even figured out the makeup of the Suigetsu varves yet! Should be worth plenty of laughs. Go for it, Davie-diddles!

[JonF]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

And Davie-dork proves once more that no matter how stupid he's been in the past he can be even stupider!

[JonF]

Unwarranted assumptions don't do it. He's been mumbling about "unwarranted assumptions" since May of 2006 and still hasn't managed to come up with one. He tried the "unwarranted assumption that ¹⁴C concentrations in the atmosphere have been roughly constant over the past 60,000 years" for months after he was shown that not only was that not an assumption, but that the calibration curves allow us to determine empirically what those concentrations actually were. He's shut up about that, but he hasn't replaced it with any other "unwarranted assumptions."

IIRC he's also floated the standard ignorant-creationist big three:

• Amount of initial daughter
• Closed system
• Constnat radioactive decay rates

Of course he ignored the discussions of why the first two aren't assumptions/premises of radiometric dating. He tried to push RATE's ratty zircons as proof that radiactive decay rates weren't constant, but got bitch-slapped pretty well over that one over at AtBC.

[JonF]

Mike, they are using C14 to date dead pieces of wood which are lying around in what they call "Methusealh Walk." I don't believe they EVER date living trees with C14. I'll call the lab this week and confirm this for you.

So, Davie, how'd that call go?

And how's that review, by the head of a major radiometric dating lab, of Snelling's fraudulent Ngauruhoe paper going? It's been months ... sure seems like he trashed it and you won't post the results.

[ninewands]

Hmmm ... how can I say this so that it will be clear? Sediment traps are great. Annual deposition happens. I'm aware of many studies which check all this.

But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

No, Dave ... YOU are the one that claims they are NOT annually deposited laminae. YOU are the one that claims they were all "dumped" in the lake by some major catastrophic hydrologic event that goes by the trade name of "Ye Olde Globalle Fludde" around here. YOU are the one that claims our "proof" of annual deposition is not sufficient to be credible. And finally, YOU are the ONLY one who is making these claims.

What is needed, nay, what the scientific method REQUIRES, is for you to come up with SOME evidence that supports the assertions and claims you are making. "I don't believe it" does not cut the mustard ... hell, it doesn't even cut softened butter.

On our side we have what appear to be varves ... which are defined as annually deposited sediments. This appearance is supported by fluctuations in the amount and species of diatom valves present in the sediments in what appears to be a seasonal manner. This appearance is further supported by the appearance of non-seasonal sediments deposited in a manner that correlates with written historical records of tectonic events. These non-seasonal sediments are of the type and thickness that geologists experienced in evaluating cores in this specific area of Japan say are, in fact, expected as a result of the recorded tectonic events. The appearance is further supported by correlation of the laminae to dendrochronologic data and ice core data across the world, as well as coral growth ring data in the South Pacific. Finally, we have the 14C dating of the macrofossils taken from the SG-4 (I think it was SG-4) core and date-blind analysed by the AMS lab at the University of Gröningen. The 14C analyses showed a linear gradient of age vs. depth for the SG-4 core. They also showed a linear gradient of age vs. varve count.

Now, with ALL of that consilient data saying that these are annual deposits, what do we get from Mr. BSEE Creationist, Davey-doodles Hawkins? Nothing but personal incredulity, arguments and assertions that have been refuted over and over and over and over, and "Send me more papers!" ... "Get me more data!"

Davey, I'm afraid the time has come for me to lose my civility and tell you to "Fuck off!" I'm resisting with all my will because I do not want to give you ANY pretext to claim even that small a victory over science.

You are not entitled to even have an opinion in conflict with mainstream science unless you want to get off your dead ass, go to Japan, and gather the data you think is needed for yourself. Maybe AiG will give you a research grant, maybe the DI will, but don't hold your breath hoping ... I understand they're both in the business of taking money IN, not paying it out for real research. I wonder why that might be, Dave? Could it be that they are AFRAID of real research? Could it be that they KNOW research by Creationists aimed at filling "holes" like the ones you claim exist might actually REFUTE creationism even further?

So, Dave ... the meat of the inquiry is here for you to provide. We have all the data that exists on Suigetsu and all the other varved sediments in the world and ALL the data agree, Dave ... as far as YOU are concerned, it all comes down to this ...

WHY DO THE DATA ALL AGREE?

THAT is the ONLY question you need to think about Davey-doodles.

[Dave Hawkins]

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff.

My dear Voxrat. Look what you just wrote. You wrote the equivalent of "The annual nature of annual layers is universally accepted ..." Profoundly profound. Not to mention redundantly redundant.

A varve is by definition a layer that is known to be annual. If it's not a varve (annual), it's called a rhythmite.

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

[Occam's Aftershave]

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff.

My dear Voxrat. Look what you just wrote. You wrote the equivalent of "The annual nature of annual layers is universally accepted ..." Profoundly profound. Not to mention redundantly redundant.

A varve is by definition a layer that is known to be annual. If it's not a varve (annual), it's called a rhythmite.

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

Dave, could you please post a link to those studies that show one big flood could lay down a few thousand discrete layers within a lake in a single year, with each layer having the same composition (particle size and shape) as the others?

Thanks!

BTW, you haven't commented on what I though your scenario for the formation of the Japanese islands and Lake Suigetsu itself was. Does that mean I got it right?

[mung bean]

Dear Dave, after reflecting upon your most recent utter debacle I have decided that, for the moment at least, I truly pity you.
You are already in Hell and you don't even know it. Accordingly I have decided to leave you alone for a couple of days.
It really isn't a fair match.
Don't worry, though,
I'll be back.

[RAFH]

Hmmm ... how can I say this so that it will be clear? Sediment traps are great. Annual deposition happens. I'm aware of many studies which check all this.

But what is needed for the Suigetsu Story(TM) to be believable is ...

1) Some studies that trap sediments, AND ...
2) Track them over several years, AND ...

No, Dave ... YOU are the one that claims they are NOT annually deposited laminae. YOU are the one that claims they were all "dumped" in the lake by some major catastrophic hydrologic event that goes by the trade name of "Ye Olde Globalle Fludde" around here. YOU are the one that claims our "proof" of annual deposition is not sufficient to be credible. And finally, YOU are the ONLY one who is making these claims.

Yep, that's about it. davey is a lone figure out there baying at the moon, convinced he knows all. And that's all he has, claims. Unsupported claims by a complete tyro.

What is needed, nay, what the scientific method REQUIRES, is for you to come up with SOME evidence that supports the assertions and claims you are making. "I don't believe it" does not cut the mustard ... hell, it doesn't even cut softened butter.

Well, if davey had a PhD in geology, with a thesis on varves, and a 20 year career studying and analyzing varves, his "I don't believe it" would have a lot more bite than his actual nothing, his uninformed incredulity. As it is, davey has nothing to base his incredulity on, just his persistent obsession with a bizarre interpretation of a translation of anonymous copies of equally anonymous and unprovenanced copies of even more anonymous oral traditions borrowed by bronze age goatherders from neighboring tribes and those that conquered their hairy unwashed asses.

On our side we have what appear to be varves ... which are defined as annually deposited sediments.

Formations which were identified by scientists educated and trained in the appropriate fields to make such determinations and whose determinations have been accepted by the world's scientific community. I sort of wonder if davey has possession of a scientific paper positively asserting that these yellow growths on various tropical plants are, indeed, bananas and said papers support those assertions with positive evidence showing they are bananas? I wonder if davey's kids have papers supporting their humanity with positive evidence of such. For that matter, can davey evidence he is human? Indeed, until he produces the scientific papers with the evidence showing he is human I will not accept such. As far as I know, davey is some sort of fruit or perhaps a nut of some kind.

This appearance is supported by fluctuations in the amount and species of diatom valves present in the sediments in what appears to be a seasonal manner. This appearance is further supported by the appearance of non-seasonal sediments deposited in a manner that correlates with written historical records of tectonic events. These non-seasonal sediments are of the type and thickness that geologists experienced in evaluating cores in this specific area of Japan say are, in fact, expected as a result of the recorded tectonic events. The appearance is further supported by correlation of the laminae to dendrochronologic data and ice core data across the world, as well as coral growth ring data in the South Pacific. Finally, we have the 14C dating of the macrofossils taken from the SG-4 (I think it was SG-4) core and date-blind analysed by the AMS lab at the University of Gröningen. The 14C analyses showed a linear gradient of age vs. depth for the SG-4 core. They also showed a linear gradient of age vs. varve count.

Now, with ALL of that consilient data saying that these are annual deposits, what do we get from Mr. BSEE Creationist, Davey-doodles Hawkins? Nothing but personal incredulity, arguments and assertions that have been refuted over and over and over and over, and "Send me more papers!" ... "Get me more data!"

Yup, and he hasn't even tried to demonstrate he is a human.

Davey, I'm afraid the time has come for me to lose my civility and tell you to "Fuck off!" I'm resisting with all my will because I do not want to give you ANY pretext to claim even that small a victory over science.

Good for you. I just tell him he is a buffoon, and I do have evidence for that. This thread for one. That post of his regarding 'thickness' for another, Portuguese, 2=14, etc.

You are not entitled to even have an opinion in conflict with mainstream science unless you want to get off your dead ass, go to Japan, and gather the data you think is needed for yourself.

Precisely, davey is a nothing. In fact, does davey have papers to validate his nothingness? I wonder?

Maybe AiG will give you a research grant, maybe the DI will, but don't hold your breath hoping ... I understand they're both in the business of taking money IN, not paying it out for real research.

Real research, by davey? Do be absurd.

I wonder why that might be, Dave? Could it be that they are AFRAID of real research? Could it be that they KNOW research by Creationists aimed at filling "holes" like the ones you claim exist might actually REFUTE creationism even further?

So, Dave ... the meat of the inquiry is here for you to provide. We have all the data that exists on Suigetsu and all the other varved sediments in the world and ALL the data agree, Dave ... as far as YOU are concerned, it all comes down to this ...

WHY DO THE DATA ALL AGREE?

THAT is the ONLY question you need to think about Davey-doodles.

Yep, all davey has is his uniquely and extraordinarily empty incredulity. And even that is suspect.

davey started this three ring circus, claiming he can show why the varves of Suigetsu are invalid, so far he has failed to do much other than act like a buffoon. He's present no evidence. Now he's down to questioning whether the varves are varves on the basis of their relative thickness and the lack of recent studies specifically demonstrating they are occurring presently. Which, as was noted many pages ago, was irrelevant. This is just a hand waving red herring distraction from the real issue that there are about 100,000 annual layers that have been identified by recognized experts in the field as varves and which identification has not even been challenged, much less invalidated by the world's scientific community, which has had ample opportunity to do so. The only one questioning such identification is ... ... ... you guessed it ... ... ... davey, with his massive intellect, his amazing educational background, his extraordinary field experience and his peerless standing in the scientific community, not to mention the rarely paralleled record of publications in peer-reviewed journals, the likes of which are rarely seen among professional researchers.

Despite all this, davey has yet to connect the dots. davey cites lots of papers but, relying of the force of his unique intellect and background, deems it unnecessary to explain how those citations support his claims. He assumes his audience should be his equal in integrity, intellect and knowledge and therefore needs no explanations.






Yep, a world class buffoon.

[Susannah]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, (having barely recovered from a severe choking spell occasioned by extreme hilarity, I dare not risk a repeat dose for a bit), I may be saying what everybody else has said already.

So be it.

Now, having confirmed the importance of "thickness", maybe we should also investigate the issue of density.

And, "Sir Mungus Beanus", :NOTWORTHY::NOTWORTHY::NOTWORTHY:

[VoxRat]

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff.

My dear Voxrat. Look what you just wrote. You wrote the equivalent of "The annual nature of annual layers is universally accepted ..." Profoundly profound. Not to mention redundantly redundant.

A varve is by definition a layer that is known to be annual. If it's not a varve (annual), it's called a rhythmite.

Right you are. I'll rephrase:
"the fact that the laminae under Lake Suigetsu (and Lillooet, and Silhaelongwan, and Korttijärvi, and Baikal, etc.) are varves is universally accepted..."

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

You do?
I missed those.

I have the fact, that you refuse to touch with a ten foot pole, that the same alternating, seasonally varying, pattern of sediments is deposited over and over and over - just like you'd expect for an annual process - and the fact that the radiometric age determinations agree, and the fact that the earthquake and volcano signatures agree...

And you have...

what???

I think we all missed what "studies" you have that you think support your view, so I suggest you either post them, or admit that you're all bluff and bluster.

[Elká]

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

Bzzzt. Wrong davey. No need to go any further.

Till you sit down with some real evidence, you're just lying to yourself. You know what I mean buddy.

The geology around you, within a days drive of your home, tells you the truth. The different types of limestone with different qualities, textures, and assemblages of fossills, the exposures in road cuts where you can see stream beds cutting through delta deposits, the burrows in situ, the aeolian/paleosol deposits have to be seen in person davey.

You have a Lagerstätten near you davey. Do you know how remarkable that is?

When you're ready to look at the evidence first hand davey, get some boots and a hammer and let me know.

Elká

[RAFH]

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff.

My dear Voxrat. Look what you just wrote. You wrote the equivalent of "The annual nature of annual layers is universally accepted ..." Profoundly profound. Not to mention redundantly redundant.

A varve is by definition a layer that is known to be annual. If it's not a varve (annual), it's called a rhythmite.

Right you are. I'll rephrase:
"the fact that the laminae under Lake Suigetsu (and Lillooet, and Silhaelongwan, and Korttijärvi, and Baikal, etc.) are varves is universally accepted..."

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

You do?
I missed those.

I have the fact, that you refuse to touch with a ten foot pole, that the same alternating, seasonally varying, pattern of sediments is deposited over and over and over - just like you'd expect for an annual process - and the fact that the radiometric age determinations agree, and the fact that the earthquake and volcano signatures agree...

And you have...

what???

I think we all missed what "studies" you have that you think support your view, so I suggest you either post them, or admit that you're all bluff and bluster.

You also have the fact the laminae consist of diatoms that bloom annually. Indeed, there are multiple species that bloom in different seasons and they show up in the order of those seasons. Now, unless davey can show said diatoms will regularly bloom out of season, or that over some substantial period of time, the seasons occurred more often than annually, his contention is invalid.

That bit of data is why those laminae have been determined to be varves by the varve experts, by the people who have studied and analyzed varves for years, people who have forgotten more about varves than davey will ever learn. That unquestionably annual deposition is why they, these experts who have studied varves as a career, and whose work has been published, included the very papers davey cites and in which they state they are varves, and which publications have been peer-reviewed and available to the scientific community often years with no challenges much less any invalidation of said determination, have determined the laminae are, indeed, varves.

I strongly suggest davey write to the authors and present his suggestion these are not varves and why he feels they are not. I'd really like to see the replies. Particularly the rationalization davey uses that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. Maybe if he insults enough of them, they'll go for a commitment hearing. I'm told modern electro-shock therapy is not that bad, davey. Then again, I have my doubts, having taken a 12,000 volt electrification once.

In any case, since davey doubts the determinations of those authors who wrote the papers he is citing, then I question his use of their data. After all, if they don't know what a varve is, how reliable is their data. Therefore, all of davey's references to any papers on varves is thrown out. Sorry davey, you have to take the good with the bad, or toss the baby with the bath water. You don't get to say this part of a paper is trustworthy and that is not. So either you accept the authors' designation of these varves as varves or you toss the paper.

And there goes your argument.

Buffoon.

[Elká]

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.

Get out of your La-Z-Boy and forget the papers for a few months. You don't have the basic training (or hardware) to play the game you want play.

Elká

[RAFH]

WRONG!
The annual nature of the varves is universally accepted by the scientific community and, more particularly, the researchers who actually study this stuff.

My dear Voxrat. Look what you just wrote. You wrote the equivalent of "The annual nature of annual layers is universally accepted ..." Profoundly profound. Not to mention redundantly redundant.

A varve is by definition a layer that is known to be annual. If it's not a varve (annual), it's called a rhythmite.

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

How do those studies support your view davey? Explain in detail.

If you can.

As for whether or not there are papers that support the view the laminae at Suigetsu are varves, well, every single paper on the subject states they are varves. What more do you want? All the scientists that have studied the lamimae from Suigetsu, all of them, have described them as varves. And, beyond that, the peer-reviewers of those papers, since the designation of the laminae as varves remains in the papers, apparently didn't disagree. On top of which, in the 12 - 13 years since Kitagawa published and the paper has been regularly available to the scientific community and has been cited numerous times by other studies which were also peer-reviewed and have been available to the scientific community, there's been no notable contest as to that designation.

Do you dispute that davey? Do you contend there is any controversy regarding the designation of the Suigetsu laminae as varves? If you do, present the paper(s) or articles wherein such controversy is raised. If you can not, then such controversy exists only in your mind, such as that exists.

So, davey, whatcha gonna do? Have you peer-reviewed papers disputing the varves at Suigetsu or don't you? Either you do or you don't. If you don't, then this is exactly what everyone except you has stated it is, an extraordinarily stupid example of your extraordinarily stupid STOOPID. That it is simply a distraction, a red herring, a desperate attempt to avoid reality.

Hey davey, nobody has the patent on the wheel, why doncha go down and apply for it? Nor one on the alphabet. Wow, think of the money you could make with those patents. Wonder why nobody has ever patented them, seems like a natural.

What a buffoon.

[Mike PSS]

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

Dave, you STILL have not included the 3,500 years of 14C dates for the top level varves. You agree that 14C concentration has been constant for 3,500 years and that for artifacts of this age radiocarbon dating is accurate (within a small error bar). And yet you ignore the fact that the top layer of the SG cores have been 14C tested and found to be less than 3,500 years. How thick was that core? Let's check.
clip_image004.JPG

Kitagawa puts the top dozen 14C samples between 111.7cm (525ybp 14C date) and 515.4 (3420ybp 14C date).
That means since the 14C dates are accurate in this timeframe then the, (ummm.... 515.4 minus 111.7 ... carry the two ...) 403.7cm of this core represent, (ummmm... 3420 minus 525 ... carry the three ...) 2,895 years of deposition.
That means each layer of the top of the core has, (ummmmm... 403.7cm divided by 2895 years ... carry the five) 1.394mm per varve.

So even using YOUR assumptions of the world around us we get 1.394mm per varve from Lake Suigetsu.

And Dave, it really doesn't matter where you put your supposed rock solid 14C measurement baseline. You can assert that the 14C is only valid for 2,500 years in the past and the math will come out the same. I leave it to the reader to do this exercise independently. Just use the table provided.

Remember Dave, all the scientists did was take a core, measure the depth that they took the sample from, test that sample for 14C content and print the results. You know how to back calculate 14C measurements (in pMC) from the published dates so you know that the published date in the paper attached is nothing more than a 14C measurement put through a calibration curve. So the attached table is nothing more than hard data. Data that you so far have ignored, willfully.

Care to comment Dave? Or is this too much math for you right now?

[insect dreams]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Thank you, Sir Mungus Beanus. The His Ratness is foiled again!

This is the sort of thing that almost makes me pity the witless wee bundle of smoked cartilage that is Chewy Davy.

Try to imagine going through life without the ability to recognize wordplay, i.e., the general category of communication known as humor. What a waste it is to lose one's sense of humor! Or not to have a sense of humor is very wasteful.

The fact that Chewy Davy apparently didn't recognize mung bean as a long-time combatant ("Davey, me ol' koala-felcher!") just lends weight to the suspicion that Chewy Davy doesn't actually read anything that anyone posts in response to him—regardless of the post's content. Instead, he sets his brain to "scan" and lets his gaze pass over the text, blurring out everything but whatever he's looking for: "questionable" or "needs more study." (As if anyone will ever say that what they're studying is pretty much all wrapped up, thanks.) QUOTE-MINE PROPHYLACTIC: Eventually, dead-ends are recognized as such. How many grants are issued for the study of phlogiston?

The sad thing is, I know exactly what Chewy Davy is doing. I'm a professional book researcher and that's how I "read" texts for work. I'm hired to research, say, Eleanor Roosevelt's attitude toward and interactions with hosiery. (God help me if I actually face that.) So I do a text search as an initial sweep at the New York Public Library, for both books and periodicals—NOT google, valuable as it is. I request and then scan everything that comes up from "'Roosevelt, Eleanor' AND hosiery," in the same way Chewy Davy "reads" his google results. The difference is, once I focus on what the author's actually written, I very often discover that it's pretty much useless for my purposes. Unless I'm willing to distort the author's meaning, which I'm not, because my parents taught me to be honest and it's served me well.

So very sad that Chewy Davy's missionary parents never managed to instill the same basic ethics.

[Mike PSS]

So what you and I disagree about is merely whether a single couplet at Suigetsu represents one year of deposition.

I say no.

You say yes.

I have studies to support my view.

You don't yet.

You also have the fact the laminae consist of diatoms that bloom annually. Indeed, there are multiple species that bloom in different seasons and they show up in the order of those seasons. Now, unless davey can show said diatoms will regularly bloom out of season, or that over some substantial period of time, the seasons occurred more often than annually, his contention is invalid.

That bit of data is why those laminae have been determined to be varves by the varve experts, by the people who have studied and analyzed varves for years, people who have forgotten more about varves than davey will ever learn. That unquestionably annual deposition is why they, these experts who have studied varves as a career, and whose work has been published, included the very papers davey cites and in which they state they are varves, and which publications have been peer-reviewed and available to the scientific community often years with no challenges much less any invalidation of said determination, have determined the laminae are, indeed, varves.

Dave, let's do a fairly simple test of the data. Let's both do a validation step together by using ONLY some published numbers on the physical characteristics of Lake Suigetsu AND some specific data on the species of diatom found in the light colered layer of the Lake.

Now IIRC, it has been asserted by others (I like this type of courtroom introduction) that this light colored layer represents the valves (bodies) of diatoms that only bloom only in the spring. It has also been asserted that the dark colored band represents sediment and pollen and diatoms collected on the Lake bottom for the rest of the year. The question I raise is HOW does that light colored band appear in so short a time. AND does the thickness of this band support the assertion that this event can only happen annualy.

Now, an interesting thing about diatoms is that their shells are comprised of Silicon material. "What does Silicon material have to do with the price of varves in Osaka?" you ask? Well, Silicon along with other nutrients are drained into the Lake all the time. But the neat thing about using Silicon as a measurement is that it's input into the Lake is fairly constant since it comes in from the feeder streams. It can spike only if you have a raging flood upstream or an earthquake.

So, we do have some published water quality measurements of the Lake so we can derive the Silicon load of the Lake. Here's the information we need to collect.
1) Volume of Lake Suigetsu.
2) Lake bottom surface area.
3) Silicon concentration of the Lake in late winter (before the spring bloom).
4) Silicon concentration of the Lake in late spring (after the diatom bloom).
5) How much silicon is contained in a diatom valve.
6) Bulk density of those light colored bands in the core.

From this little set of information we can then determine how thick a potential layer of diatoms should be in Lake Suigetsu during one bloom cycle. If that calculated thickness is close to the measured thickness of the varves in the core then our assumption of annual varves is a fairly sound one.

That's right Dave. For those light colored varves to be non-anual in nature then the Lake must support the Silicon (and other nutrient) demand of these creatures every time they bloom. From a simple calculation of the Lake Dimensions and some simple water quality checks from the past we can make an educated, mathematical guess on how much diatoms can bloom every year.

It's called modeling Dave. You like to do this stuff. Care to try?

ETA: Dave, just to set your mind at ease that this isn't some sort of EAC trap I have not looked into any of the numbers or figures before. So the math and model we look at will be as fresh for me as for you. This data set is pretty tame and the figures involved shouldn't vary much. Also, since the light colored diatoms bloom for only a short time they are perfect for modeling as a single point event instead of trying to interpret and entire years worth of data.