Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Pappy Jack]

Sheesh.

Dave, in the post by JonF, what part of "but the diatoms are from different species that are separated in the column but have about the same hydrodynamic properties (size, shape, weight) and cannot be separated by differential settling" didn't you get?

All of it?

[VoxRat]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

So what's changed?

What new information has come to your attention in the past week or so that has suddenly rendered radiocarbon unreliable for the past 3500 years? Anything having to do with the method itself? Or is it purely because this discussion has shown it absolutely does NOT accommodate your Sunday School fantasies?

As to "unanswered questions" - I've opened a new thread for you to expand on that. You do want to expand on that, don't you? I mean, just dismissing this critical discipline with an airy reference to "unanswered questions" - with no intention of even identifying them, let alone trying to answer them - would not befit an honest truth-seeker, would it?

(Oh - and just in case you're hoping worried that this issue will get lost in the shuffle, Luis Garcia [bless his wikifying heart] is making the issue (relatively) permanent.)

[Pappy Jack]

wow, you just described lakes to me, which is rather pointless. What I am getting at, is why do you think a comparison of those lakes is relevant. Giving me trivial descriptions of things that almost every lake bar those like the dead sea has (no outflow for one thing), is pretty pointless. Do you think every lake in the world with diatoms, inflow and outflow and sediment accumulation are comparable in sedimentation rates?

It's like the fruit analogy I used in an earlier post. It's as if Dave has grasped the fact that apples, lemons, bananas, raspberries, redcurrants, pineapples and grapes are all fruit and then goes on to conclude therefore that a description of a pineapple serves perfectly well to identify a banana. However in the case of the various lakes that have featured in this thread, Dave appears to be more cunning than that after all. He searches out only examples that he thinks can be used to support his argument about rapid deposition and 'thick' laminae and applies the AFDave 'invisibility' law to those that can't.

[Faid]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

So what's changed?

I know! Remember dave's promise that he would soon deliver a model that would make that data-matching yellow curve possible, by calculating poor exchange with the ocean or whatever?

The one he threatened Febble with, and tried to intimidate her by saying she should lose her sleep waiting for it? The one we should all tremble at the very thought of, twisting and turning in our beds anticipating it, cowering in fear of our annihilation?

...Yeah, turns out he couldn't do it.

[Febble]

My logic is as follows ...
1) Sedimentation rate at Suigetsu is INFERRED, not measured.
2) Therefore, until we measure it, inference is all we have
3) Let's not just infer things from layers at Suigetsu, let's look at other lakes
4) Lake A, B and C all have sedimentation rates at least 10 - 20X the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu.

So maybe the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu is wrong.

How can we tell for sure? Measure it in a multi-year study? Calculate how much sediment flows into Suigetsu? I don't know, but I'm not content to say "0.5 - 1mm layers in the lake bottom ... 100,000 year history is settled."

Dave, science is about inference. That's the whole model-fitting, falsification thang. It's the Scientific Method. Of course the sedimentation/deposition rate is inferred. All we ever have are measurements and inferences from those measurements. There is no "argument from authority" in science. There is only inference from measurements. That's why falsification in science is never absolute, and proof isn't even sought. What is sought instead are models that best fit the existing data, and make predictions that are supported by new data.

That's why consilience is so important. It's no good making an inference from a limited set of data, if it is contradicted by another set. So it's no good, for example, inferring that the laminae in Lake Suigetsu were deposited in a single year, if there is a linear correlation between depth and radiocarbon dating all the way down. Nor is there any point inferring that the laminations were due to a landslide with critical angles of repose, if the things are parallel with the horizontal bottom of the lake.

As you yourself have said (but fail to follow) - you have to consider ALL the data, and that includes radiocarbon dating, the seasonal pattern of diatoms, the fact that the process is observed in other lakes today, the fact that radiocarbon dates are consilient with measurements made from other dateable events and annual layers, formed by independent processes.

If you want to argue that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that there was a global Flood 5,000 years ago, you have to produce a model. I even started to help you produce one. But, probably signficantly, you weren't interested.

Dave, I don't believe that you actually believe that there is evidence for a global Flood. If you did, you'd expect to find it. As it is, you seem scared even to look, and to prefer to muddy the waters (almost literally) by casting doubt on specific scientific inferences some of which may well be, in themselves short of 99.9% certainty, but which taken together give us overwhelming confidence that the earth is billions of years old.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Febble]

The one he threatened Febble with, and tried to intimidate her by saying she should lose her sleep waiting for it? The one we should all tremble at the very thought of, twisting and turning in our beds anticipating it, cowering in fear of our annihilation?

Oh, did he?

[Dave Hawkins]

Voxrat ...

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

[VoxRat]

Voxrat ...

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

What!??

You're back to your assertion that nobody's ever demonstrated annual lake sedimentation cycles?

This is just surreal.

[Faid]

Voxrat ...

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

It DEMONSTRATES non-annual by SHOWING it to be DIFFERENT than annual, genius. Why is the description of an annual layer an "ASSERTION", but the description of a non-annual one a "DEMONSTRATION"?

dave, can you read?

[pSimon]

Because it fits his "theory", obviously

[Occam's Aftershave]

Voxrat ...

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Dave, where is your DEMONSTRATION that thousands of varves in Suigetsu were deposited in a single year by a massive Flood?

And how did the Flood manage to sort those particles when they're all the same size and shape?

Hypocrisy makes Baby Jesus cry too, you dirty child abuser. :sad:

[Coleslaw]

I just found an interesting new discussion tool called TruthMapping. It's worth seeing the intro video here. I wonder if afdave would be interesting in participating in a discussion managed by this?

Of course not -- dave is more deathly allergic to the truth than any peanut-allergy sufferer is allergic to peanuts.
dave would drive stakes thru his eyes rather than participate in an honest discussion, let alone one that monitored truth.

dave has fled more promises than Casanova, failed more predictions than Cassandra, and caused more laughter to be directed towards him than all clowns for all time have generated in all viewers.

And dave continues to ignore the elephant in his living room -- everything he demands from science is lacking from religion, yet somehow his religious fantasy is 'more accurate', 'more reliable', and 'more true' than anything science can bring to the table.
Yeah, right.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[pedantic mode] Cassandra did not make any failed predictions. Cassandra's curse was that while she would be able to predict the future accurately, no one would believe her.[/pedantic mode]

[Pappy Jack]

.... You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Is this an example of

AFDave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

Is it a variation of that law? Or is it even an entirely new law?

[improvius]

.... You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Is this an example of

AFDave's First Law: All evidences for evolution are speculative. All speculations for creationism are evidential.

Is it a variation of that law? Or is it even an entirely new law?

Well, you could certainly substitute "assert" in place of "speculate".

[pSimon]

Dave,

You have posted an example of particle sorting at the angle of repose:

We find only spontaneous segregation, without stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains

This mechanism is therefore totally irrelevant for the layers in suigetsu - which are just about level in most of the images yet seen on this thread. It is probably also very significant, IMO, that the layering happens with discrete sets of particle sizes.

It also does not address the seasonal nature of the Diatom layers in any way, does it?

[Febble]

Voxrat ...

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Dave, scientific papers do not make assertions. They either provide evidence in support of an inference, or they reference a paper that provides evidence in support of an inference. Please link to the paper that you claim "ASSERTS annual".

I call your bluff.

[damitall]

What on this good earth do experiments with dry particles and grains avalanching down a slope between glass plates have to do with lakes?

And the whole point of the Suigetsu data is that the annual nature of the varves is confirmed by radiometric dating. Until someone comes up with a credible alternative theory to explain this, consilient with the rest of science and observation, they nust be considered to be annual layers.

You see, the curves all agree.

[VoxRat]

...
Dave, scientific papers do not make assertions. They either provide evidence in support of an inference, or they reference a paper that provides evidence in support of an inference. Please link to the paper that you claim "ASSERTS annual".

I call your bluff.

I second that call.

[Gary Hurd]

Small bet, anyone?

I'm willing to bet a copy of any book by Darwin or Dawkins that if one was able to get hold of part of a core from deep under dear old Lake Suigetsu, and resuspend the particles in filtered lake-water (as was, not as it is now!), they would not settle out under any flow conditions other than Very Very Slow.

In fact it would be very interesting to measure the sedimentation rate in still lake-water

I'll add the prediction that if 10 cm of unconsolodated Lake Suigetsu varve material (say from -140 to -150 cm) are disaggregated and then settled in still water, they will not form varves.

[RAFH]

I just found an interesting new discussion tool called TruthMapping. It's worth seeing the intro video here. I wonder if afdave would be interesting in participating in a discussion managed by this?

Nice find.

I'd say the matter isn't up to davey, but us. If he wants to spout his twaddle, he has to play the game. Simple as that. If he refuses, well, he's showing his yellow stripes, innihe?

[ninewands]

Dave,
How thick do you think a year's worth of sediment on the bottom of a lake like Suigetsu is? What do you estimate the porosity (fraction of the bulk volume that is NOT made up of solid material) of the as-deposited sediment is? What do you estimate the water saturation of the pore space is?

These are honest questions, Dave. I'm curious to see what you really think.

[RAFH]

with ref: my questions

(1) can you describe an episodic layered system and why the Fukami layer looks like a non-annual episodic layer system.

and to repeat the second question, which you didn't really answer;

(2) you obviously have some idea of what you think annual processes must look like and why, so please tell us what you think annual processes would look like, and why - I should add here specifically pertaining to annual diatom bloom-varve systems.

I am afraid that your answers are very thin on the ground and again don't really back up your claims. Let us hark back to the claim you were making for a moment;

Because they [The Fukami Layers] look like layers which have been described by others as being episodic. AND ... they DON'T look like anything you are describing in your theoretical 'annual varve' scenario.

this is what my questions were with reference to. All you have told me is that you think that these layers are episodic, and these layers are roughly annual. That does not help me, because I already know you think they are episodic, because you already told me. What I want to you tell me is why you think that these layers are of the episodic nature that you are describing - i.e. multiple laminations per year and due to fast water flow, rather than due to varve formation via diatom blooming and settling and seasonal cycles, especially given that you are suggesting that the Fukami sediments are annual, but not varve like due to diatom blooming and settling. In short, the differences between your model expectations and the more standard model expectations.

Again you are making claims that the evidence supports your model, but you are not describing the features seen in the papers and why your model is better supported than the annual varve model. Yet again you are not telling me what you think an annual diatom-bloom varve system would look like, even though you are talling me that Fukami looks more like your model than it looks like an annual diatom-bloom varve system. You have made that claim above, but have not given any objective reasoning why you have come to that conclusion. Again your discussion of diatom settling did not address the claims that you are making - claims which I think you need to back up.

My claims about diatom settling are based upon studies such as the one I just posted. What this does is show that diatoms and other particles can sort into different layers all at once if particles are of different size and shape. There is no need for long time delays. I think the most convincing evidence for either the OE or YE position would be some further analysis about the actual current patterns and rates of sedimentation in Lake Suigetsu. This is the direction I will follow from here.

The problem Teh Great davey (TGd) faces at Suigetsu, which I have noted previously, is the laminae there are comprised of distinct species of diatom, species that are well studied and well known. Species that are known to bloom at specific times of the year under very specific conditions. There is a striking pattern of the spring blooming species then the fall blooming species.

TGd will point to his recent posts and state, well these have such blooms and they are out of order and of multiple occurrence, which is true, but those papers also identify the cause of such, human interference. We can safely state the varves at Suigetsu are not all the result of human interference. For one thing, they extend well beyond any possible human interference, and, as has been noted dozens and dozens of times, the samples have been correlated to specific dates via 14C testing, depth comparisons, volcanic events, historic events and climactic cycles. In short, that word near and dear to TGd's heart, consilience.

There's no question that IF (remember the point about IF is it is a conditional), IF the only chronological tie for the samples was 14C, TGd might have a point. IF, IF, IF the only tie to hard dates was just the depth comparison, the TGd might have a point. IF, IF, IF the only correlation was the tie to volcanic events, TGd might have a point.

But this is the part about science TGd doesn't and probably will never get, it's not about the one grand knock-out blow. That one amazing fact. It's about the consilience of data. How it all fits into a coherent and consistent whole.

This is why TGd never considers the whole of the data, but focuses on details. Yeah, TGd could cause doubt on one method, or even two or three, if considered independently of each other. But that's not how science is done. It's done by consensus and consilience.

[RAFH]

My logic is as follows ...
1) Sedimentation rate at Suigetsu is INFERRED, not measured.
2) Therefore, until we measure it, inference is all we have
3) Let's not just infer things from layers at Suigetsu, let's look at other lakes
4) Lake A, B and C all have sedimentation rates at least 10 - 20X the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu.

So maybe the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu is wrong.

How can we tell for sure? Measure it in a multi-year study? Calculate how much sediment flows into Suigetsu? I don't know, but I'm not content to say "0.5 - 1mm layers in the lake bottom ... 100,000 year history is settled."

why would the sedimentation rates at other lakes have any bearing on the sedimentation rate at suigetsu?

Well ... they are both lakes. They both presumably have inflow and outflow. They both experience evaporation. They both have sediment accumulate in the bottom. They both have diatoms. Among other things.

And so do the other lakes noted that have the same or less deposition rates. Why do you ignore those? Because if you take the whole of the data, it shows that thickness of lamination is not a key criteria to the definition of a varve.

Indeed, have you any citation anywhere that states lamina thickness is a critical or even any form of criteria in determination that a particular lamina is a varve? Have you TGd, any at all? Perhaps you should consult with the Swedish Institute and see if they can back you up. Maybe they will support you and state lamina thickness is a crucial issue in the determination of varviness.

I'd write to them and ask but they may be relatives or know relatives and I don't want to embarrass myself or my family by asking such a STOOOPID question. However, I will if necessary.

[RAFH]

...
LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

Journal of Paleolimnology 17: 437–449, 1997. 437
c1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium.

Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Brian K. Hammer & Eugene F. Stoermer
Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI
48109–2099, USA (email:bhammer@umich.edu)
Received 6 February 1996; accepted 10 July 1996
...
Not all sediment laminations are annual in nature.
Sediment banding patterns of varying thickness indicate
that the time between depositional events is variable,
resulting in non-annual laminations.

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

I guess pointing out to TGd (davey, The Great thereof) the simple fact this paper states explicitly the key determination of whether or not such laminae are annual (and thus varves) or not is that they vary significantly in thickness, which the bulk of the Suigetsu samples do not, would fall upon deaf ears, being as it steals his thunder, yanks his chain, pulls his rug, deflates his balloon.

Ipso Factor, TGd is a buffoon.

An
Utterly
Fucking
Amazing
Buffoon.

[Lasting Damage]

The problem Teh Great davey (TGd) faces at Suigetsu, which I have noted previously, is the laminae there are comprised of distinct species of diatom, species that are well studied and well known. Species that are known to bloom at specific times of the year under very specific conditions. There is a striking pattern of the spring blooming species then the fall blooming species.

same problem for Fukami.