Suigetsu MkII

[JonF]

THE CENTRAL POINT OF DISAGREEMENT
I wrote ...

You ask what I would expect on the lake bottom if diatoms are blooming and settling. Frankly I don't know what to expect because in the 10 or so papers I have read on this topic so far (including Guoqiang et al. 2005 - Lake Sihailongwan which I read yesterday), do not demonstrate this critical relationship. They just assume it. To tell the truth, what I would expect in a closed off lake such as Suigetsu would be exactly what we seem to have in the top layers - a mess. Kitagawa says it's flocculated and Kato can't see any distinct layers. I get the idea from you that what you think happens is that this soft, no-detectable-layer mess on the lake bottom gradually gets sorted into distinct layers over several years, gradually gets the water squished out and becomes compacted into these nice, neat half-mm layers. Now that's a fine story, but I don't see nature working that way. What I see from actual experiments is fine laminae forming from moving water, not still water. And I don't see this 1 lamina = 1 year thing either. I see a group of multiple laminae being deposited by episodic events.

What episodic events? Well ... Why not earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, etc? You pooh pooh these saying that I've got water running uphill and such, but you yourself admit the 1662 layer. Did water run uphill then? How about those 46 turbidites? Did those form from water running uphill? You see, the truth is, our points of disagreement are not that significant. They are only a matter of degree.

My key point of disagreement with you is this: I think fine laminae are formed episodically, possibly during the same events which formed each turbidite. Because historical records only record major events in the past 1000 years or so and do not record many smaller events which could have placed these turbidite/fine laminae assemblages, we cannot rely on laminae counting to give us an accurate chronology.

More to say on diatoms, drainage area and other issues later.

To reiterate ... the evidence indicates that diatoms bloom and diatoms settle and clay sediment settles. But the idea of these things settling directly as distinct fine laminae is highly questionable. More likely in my opinion is the following ...

Nobody gives a wrat's ass about your uneducated and illiterate opinion, you moron. What counts is what you have evidence for. Remember how LD specifically said don't bother unless you have evidence?

1) Diatoms bloom each year ... maybe twice or three times per year

What evidence do you have that this happens? None. You are just making it up. And we all know what happens when Davie-dip makes stuff up ... Portuguese!

We have plenty of evidence that this does not happen. Diatoms bloom once per year. Deal with it.

2) Diatoms settle. But they also rise again, not sure what percentage come back

No, Davie you incredible dork, it doesn't happen. What evidence do you have that this happens? None. You are just making it up. And we all know what happens when Davie-dip makes stuff up ... Portuguese!

3) Sediment flows into the lake from the drainage basin and other lakes and forms floccules of clay particles
4) The flocculated clay settles.
5) The flocculated clay and diatoms accumulate in a non-layered fluffy, messy, watery mixture on the bottom of the lake.
6) Unusually heavy rainfall, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, etc. periodically cause large inflows which disturb this fluffy mixture on the bottom and cause it to RE-settle, but this time in layers.

Why in layers the second time but not the first? Where's your evidence? Oh, I forgot for a moment; this is an opium dream of yours.

Why does it form layers in conjunction with unusual flows and not in still water conditions? Well ... I cannot explain the physics yet, but apparently the physics are there. After all, that's what started the predecessor of this thread. The Schieber paper, remember?

That has nothing to do with why layers wouldn't form in still water conditions.

Of course we do see varves forming in still water conditions in lots of lakes; plenty of evidence has ben posted and you have ignored it.

Yes, I know. The conditions were different, blah, blah, blah, but they were similar too in some very important ways and you are ignoring these.

You supposedly know the conditions were different ... but you have not addressed the differences. Handwaving won't get rid of the impossibility of your scenario. The differences are enough to make the Shieber paper irrelevant. Especially the composition and chemistry of the varves cannot be produced by the mechanism described by Scheiber. If you want to claim that it's relevant, you need first to address the objections that have been raised and prove that it's relevant.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

You start addressing the existing evidence and quit posting unadulterated bullshit made up by you, with no relationship to reality.

It's not like it's real difficult to grow diatoms. It's actually more difficult NOT to grow them.

It's impossible to gow them in the locations and quantities required by your fantasy.

[Lasting Damage]

Because you cannot experimentally demonstrate a direct relationship between this annual diatom blooming and the fine laminae. Remember ... we only get fine laminae below 29cm (Kitagawa) and below 44cm (Kato). BTW ... I agree that the 44cm tephra layer could be associated with air fall tephra from the volcano you have mentioned. Could be. Could not be possibly. But could be.

OMG you're so right dave! The diatoms don't settle directly into fine laminae, they are subsequently squeezed into fine laminae!

And water doesn't compress! (much)

after shaking......

(an ordered periodic settling system creates a homogeneeous isotropic mess, but a homogeneous, isotropic disturbance creates neatly ordered layers)

[JonF]

If you are so sure of yourself, LD, why don't we do some experiments?

First address the problems with your opium dreams. This is a discussion board, remember? You want to do experiments, go away and do experiments. Go far away and do experiments. Here, eeither discuss or STFU.

[Serafina Pekkala]

The annular nature of the varves has already been confirmed experimentally, David. In one of the papers you cited.

Sari

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, is your new strategy to repeat these same stupid claims over and over and over until everyone gets too bored to deal with your dumbass anymore and leaves, then declare victory to the empty room?

Sure seems like it.

Since you've got those magic Creto glasses (the ones that don't let you see all the contradictory evidence provided) stapled to your head, let's try a different approach. Why don't you provide something you think is positive evidence for your Flood laid layers. Maybe start with your explanation as to why the pmc in all those layers decreases exponentially with depth instead of all having the same reading from being laid at the same time?

[Febble]

The annular nature of the varves has already been confirmed experimentally, David. In one of the papers you cited.

Sari

[nitpick] I think you mean annual. "Annular" means ring-like. [/nitpick]

[RAFH]

David, your scenario is impossible because the varves are not hydrologically sorted and they would have to be.

Sari

What scenario Sari, TGBd hasn't outlined a scenario, he has only offered objections based upon his ignorance and, of course, his OLIBAM, and then suggested it could be this or that but he doens't know how or why and can't explain it.

He refers to a paper which suggests a possible way to obtain laminations if you do a bunch of things just right, things which do not and can not apply in this situation, but instead of citing the paper itself, shamelessly points to his own stupid blog article on it in an attempt to get his hits up. That's not how you cite papers, you link to the paper itself, not your blog on it. It's a disgusting self-serving practice, but then, what does one expect with a self-serving attention addict like TGBd.

You are, of course, correct, in that TGBd still has not addressed the sorting nor the annual nature of the diatomic blooming. He acts like this is the first time anyone has considered the issue and completely ignores that highly educated, well trained, extensively experienced scientists have already determined this is a varve formation and the science community at large has accepted that determination. TGBd is still at the station talking about whether or not steam engines actually work while the jet plane the world is on took off hours ago.

[RAFH]

aah yes, the scheiber paper. Dave thinks that 5cm deep water flowing at 20cm/s represents the conditions in suigetsu, and forms flocculent ripples somehow sorts pyrites from siderites, sorts different species of diatoms, and makes brackish water look like freshwater, except when it's inconvenient, and then varves are created by earthquakes or tsunami or floods, and when that is inconvenient yet another process is invoked in which one takes a thin spout of large mixed beads of two sizes and drops them into a curcularly symmetric container and looks at the stripes - again, these earthquakes, tsunami and floods and masses of sediment dropping into the lake somehow sort out different species of diatom and different chemicals....

oh not to forget the volcano fallout which lies undisturbed on the japanese landscape for fifteen decades and then all gets washed into a single layer in an earthquake, which replicates the same fast flow situations that dave is not describing at the bottom of suigetsu, and the volcanic fallout that pays close attention to the "do not swim in the lake" signs.

and no, this isn't the central point, just like our models do not only differ by degree. Yours doesn't work at all.

and of course, dave yet again points to useless papers on dirty fish tanks as support for his flimsy argument that diatoms grow all over the place, but never actually gives a source for the sheer volumes required for the suigetsu lake varves.

I believe I clearly established that 20 cm/s flows are not possible. Not even within the realm of fantasy. There isn't an environment on earth that can support that sort of flow rate with such a small catchment basin and such a large flow cross-section. Not by a factor of at least 5 to 1.

For TGBd to continue to suggest such is just Bluffoonery.

[Febble]

He refers to a paper which suggests a possible way to obtain laminations if you do a bunch of things just right, things which do not and can not apply in this situation, but instead of citing the paper itself, shamelessly points to his own stupid blog article on it in an attempt to get his hits up. That's not how you cite papers, you link to the paper itself, not your blog on it. It's a disgusting self-serving practice, but then, what does one expect with a self-serving attention addict like TGBd.

Bugger. I just clicked on it.

[jerr]

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
I say we need more experiments.

Of course. Discard data that contradict your assumptions. Maybe if we keep performing experiments, we can generate data that "agree" with your model. Isn't this exactly what you claim is happening in those C14 labs?

[Lasting Damage]

why is it highly questionable?

in spring we have a diatom bloom, so the water near the top of the lake has lots of diatoms growing in it. in summer, a two layer system is set up because of the way water circulates, the bloom stops and the bottom section of the lake becomes anoxic and still. those diatoms settle to the base of the lake and then the rainy season carries sediment into the lake which drops down on top of the diatom dense layer. why is this "highly questionable"

Because you cannot experimentally demonstrate a direct relationship between this annual diatom blooming and the fine laminae. Remember ... we only get fine laminae below 29cm (Kitagawa) and below 44cm (Kato). BTW ... I agree that the 44cm tephra layer could be associated with air fall tephra from the volcano you have mentioned. Could be. Could not be possibly. But could be.

and in addition dave, for something to be highly questionable, one has to have good reason to question it. The evidence in those varves is clearly indicative of them being the result of annual bloom sequences. We see the arrangements of diatoms expected, we see the arrangements of sediment expected, we see the arrangements of chemicals expected and so on, we know that suigetsu used to be a freshwater lake, we know how water behaves in such lakes, we know how much water flows in and out of the lake and where the drainage basin is. You claim that this is highly questionable because you yourself have not seen diatoms forming, and know essentially nothing about the lake system or the hydrodynamics or science behind such systems. I find your claims to this being highly questionable to be highly suspect in themselves. Why should I trust your opinion on the matter over the hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have studied such systems in fine detail? you claim that an annual cycle of seasons causing diatom blooms and sediment settling in a deep freshwater lake in which a layer system is set up for part of the year should form nothing more than a mess and that an earthquake should sort that mess into nice neat layers, coincidentally arranged into layers that replicate the order in which those materials were generated in the lake in the first place!

This sounds like you saying that, over a period of months, I stack the morning and evening newspapers in a pile next to my desk, that you come along and you would expect those to be in a random incoherent order, you then toss the pile in the air and expect those newpapers to land in the order that I actually purchased them. hurricanes scrapyards and boeings anyone?

[Lucretius II]

why is it highly questionable?

in spring we have a diatom bloom, so the water near the top of the lake has lots of diatoms growing in it. in summer, a two layer system is set up because of the way water circulates, the bloom stops and the bottom section of the lake becomes anoxic and still. those diatoms settle to the base of the lake and then the rainy season carries sediment into the lake which drops down on top of the diatom dense layer. why is this "highly questionable"

Because you cannot experimentally demonstrate a direct relationship between this annual diatom blooming and the fine laminae. Remember ... we only get fine laminae below 29cm (Kitagawa) and below 44cm (Kato). BTW ... I agree that the 44cm tephra layer could be associated with air fall tephra from the volcano you have mentioned. Could be. Could not be possibly. But could be.

In amongst all the over Daveworld nonsense I just noticed the highlighted part above
Dave what does that mean ?
I accept that I am a little bit tired this afternoon but it makes no sense at all to me .
It has every appearance of being a really bad (computer generated )translation into English from some other language (Portugese perhaps ??)

[Febble]

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
I say we need more experiments.

Of course. Discard data that contradict your assumptions. Maybe if we keep performing experiments, we can generate data that "agree" with your model. Isn't this exactly what you claim is happening in those C14 labs?

Also, Dave - you do experiments to test hypotheses. You design the experiment so that it will do this as unambiguously as possible. You don't just vaguely generate data in the hope that something will turn up.

Provide a testable hypothesis, and I'm sure the geophysicists etc around here will help you design an appropriate experiment, or, alternatively point you to papers where it has already been done.

[ninewands]

To reiterate ... the evidence indicates that diatoms bloom and diatoms settle and clay sediment settles. But the idea of these things settling directly as distinct fine laminae is highly questionable.

Dave, it is NOT questionable, it is documented that this is how it happens. Did you read my last post? Especially the quote from the Kitagawa paper in Radiocarbon?

More likely in my opinion is the following ...

Not to be excessively blunt, but you need to take a whole bottle of humble pills before you start throwing out a century of work by expert geologists in favor of your own non-expert "opinion." Especially since you have absolutely zero evidence to support your "opinion."

1) Diatoms bloom each year ... maybe twice or three times per year

No, Dave, they do not. This is well-documented.

2) Diatoms settle. But they also rise again, not sure what percentage come back

No they do not. Diatoms stay up in the water column while they are alive. They do not settle to the bottom until they die. Some small percentage survives to form the "seed stock" for the following year's bloom, but none "rise again." Remember, only Lazarus and Jesus "resurrected." They would hardly be considered diatoms.

3) Sediment flows into the lake from the drainage basin and other lakes and forms floccules of clay particles

Yes, to a limited extent, but those particles are too coarse to remain suspended long enough to reach the center of the lake unless there is a MASSIVE flow of particulates into the lake. Such massive flows are very short-lived in a lake like Suigetsu and make thin, distinctive deposits that are easily identified as not being varves.

4) The flocculated clay settles.

Flocculated clays are large particles, (typically > 100 microns) Dave. They settle out relatively near the shoreline.

5) The flocculated clay and diatoms accumulate in a non-layered fluffy, messy, watery mixture on the bottom of the lake.

Under the current depositional environment this MAY be true, Dave ... but the varves did not form in the current depositional environment.

6) Unusually heavy rainfall, earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, etc. periodically cause large inflows which disturb this fluffy mixture on the bottom and cause it to RE-settle, but this time in layers.

Dave, this falls in the category of "making shit up" and you know it. It does not sound believable, it is not credible and you have absolutely NO support for this idea from ANY reputable scientists.

Why does it form layers in conjunction with unusual flows and not in still water conditions? Well ... I cannot explain the physics yet, but apparently the physics are there. After all, that's what started the predecessor of this thread. The Schieber paper, remember? Yes, I know. The conditions were different, blah, blah, blah, but they were similar too in some very important ways and you are ignoring these.

No, Dave, we have NOT ignored the Schieber paper. We have spent a total of approximately 3,000 posts explaining to you how the paper is wrong and why it is irrelevant to varve formation. It is not even a scientific paper. It is a work of fundamentalist apologetics that started with a conclusion and then resorted to some of the fanciest mental gymnastics I think I have ever seen to try and force some evidence, ANY evidence, to support the preconceived conclusion. This is the same technique that is used in every single creation science paper I have ever read, Dave.

Every ...

Single ...

One ...

Without ...

Exception.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

I say we need more experiments. Someone suggested one just recently. I would like for Lasting Damage to suggest one that we could all do that he would be happy with. Maybe we could buy some live algae and some clay powder somewhere and mix them up in a glass beaker and provide some nutrients for the algae and see what happens on the bottom of the beaker. Or maybe we could do the experiment in a fish aquarium. Just thinking out loud here ...

What is Brown, Diatom or Golden Algae, What Makes it Grow,
From Stan & Debbie Hauter,
Your Guide to Saltwater Aquariums.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
What is Brown, Diatom or Golden Algae?
Referred to as a microalgae, brown or golden algae is actually not an algae at all, but diatoms. What you are actually seeing in your tank are diatom skeletons, all linked together. It can appear as a simple dusting on the tank walls and substrate surfaces, or it can turn into a massive growth that covers just about everything in the tank.
http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/alg...a/aa091100.htm

It's not like it's real difficult to grow diatoms. It's actually more difficult NOT to grow them.

Ack!

Dave, if you are going to cite aquarium books as sources of information, at least spend some money a get hold of some that are SERIOUSLY respected, like:

The Reef Aquarium: A Comprehensive Guide to the Identification and Care of Tropical Marine Invertebrates (Volume 1), by Charles Delbeek,

The Reef Aquarium: A Comprehensive Guide to the Identification and Care of Tropical Marine Invertebrates (Vol 2), by Julian Sprung, and

The Reef Aquarium: Science, Art, and Technology, Vol. 3, by Sprung and Delbeek

Each volume will cost you about $90.00. The Hauter book is appropriate for people who want to keep "pretty fishies" in their living rooms, but serious aquarists and even marine biologists rely on Sprung and Delbeek. I know, I had the marine aquarium habit for about 5 years. My dealer (or was that "pusher") had a Master of Science in Marine Biology and he was the one who told me Sprung and Delbeek were THE authors on marine aquaria. He also liked to laugh and say "They think DRUGS are addicting!" as I wrote him yet another $150.00 check (which I did about twice a month ... ).

Of course, all that digression is immaterial because the varves formed in FRESH water, Dave ... the behavior of freshwater systems is radically different from saltwater and even brackish systems, so the Hauter book is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

I will close with this, Dave. ALL aquarium books are irrelevant to this discussion because there are no aquaria with anoxic bottom water. Most aquarium systems are too small to have anoxic zones and the extremely large ones are carefully designed to AVOID having them. Do you have any idea why that might be, Dave?

A better answer for "Where do we go from here?" would be for you to go back through BOTH threads. Read all the posts in detail and try to understand them. Consider the words of Oliver Cromwell:

I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken

consider the words of St. Augustine:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

(emphasis added)

You are shaming Christianity with this behavior, Dave. You are making it look like all Christians are mentally deficient. Please stop now.

[Lasting Damage]

"my goldfish bowl is green therefore the earth is 10,000 years old"

[RAFH]

To reiterate ... the evidence indicates that diatoms bloom and diatoms settle and clay sediment settles. But the idea of these things settling directly as distinct fine laminae is highly questionable. More likely in my opinion is the following ...

why is it highly questionable?

in spring we have a diatom bloom, so the water near the top of the lake has lots of diatoms growing in it. in summer, a two layer system is set up because of the way water circulates, the bloom stops and the bottom section of the lake becomes anoxic and still. those diatoms settle to the base of the lake and then the rainy season carries sediment into the lake which drops down on top of the diatom dense layer. why is this "highly questionable"

Exactly, TGBd makes a very strong statement, one that flies in the face of the determinations of numerous scientists and the world scientific community who agree with them. These are varves.

If TGBd wants to question that, he bloody well either needs to present his own research, based upon actual analysis of actual cores, including those cited in the papers by the scientists that have determined the Suigetsu formation is a varve formation with the approval of the world scientific community, ie - by actually going to Suigetsu and taking cores and analyzing them, or he must present papers by scientists that have done so.

Unfortunately for TGBd, he is not qualified nor does he have the requisite resources to even try to do his own original research (though if his stories about his wealth are true, perhaps he could hire it done) and there are no scientists that have refuted the determination of Suigetsu as a varve formation.

So TGBd has done neither. TGBd is unable to do either. TGBd has not even attempted to do either. What he has done is throw up one diversion after another in a desperate attempt to deny reality so he can keep his precious OLIBAM.

[Lasting Damage]

Under the current depositional environment this MAY be true, Dave ... but the varves did not form in the current depositional environment.

actually I don't see why it should be true - and neither do some of my contacts. The lake is meromictic and the bottom is anoxic. There shouldn't be random shuffling of settling materials in at least the bottom part of the lake. I can't remember how far down the chemocline is though.

[pSimon]

Something that is also being overlooked by Dave, at any rate, is that there are not one but TWO sorts of diatom with definite seasonal behaviour.

See This Post by LD...

He doesn't just need Diatoms in stripes - he needs two distributions of diatoms in stripes, given that Diatom species are very similar in size, and can therefore be expected to settle & sort in just the same way.

[Dutch_labrat]

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
I say we need more experiments.

Of course. Discard data that contradict your assumptions. Maybe if we keep performing experiments, we can generate data that "agree" with your model. Isn't this exactly what you claim is happening in those C14 labs?

Quite right! Dave has accused the lab techs of exactly what he is doing himself: selecting the data to fit his ideas.

Deal with the data Dave. (And I still await an apology for the entire profession, a real one )

[VoxRat]

To reiterate ... the evidence indicates that diatoms bloom and diatoms settle and clay sediment settles. But the idea of these things settling directly as distinct fine laminae is highly questionable.

Well, Dave, who said they did settle "directly as fine laminae"?

I believe that would be...

no one.

How is it possible, after literally thousands of posts on this subject, that anyone could still be unclear on the most basic, fundamental process that this whole discussion is based on - that sediments settle into a loose, jelly-like layer, which - if left undisturbed - gets compacted into fine lamina under the weight of subsequently settled sediment, over many years?

How is that possible?

More likely in my opinion is the following ...

Gosh...
whose opinion should we give more weight? The geologists who have studied this subject, taught this subject, done the research, submitted said research to peer-reviewed journals, had that research published...

OR

a Sunday School tyro, who's never cracked a single book on the subject?

I just don't know. In fact, I just can't think of a single way to know.

[Dutch_labrat]

2) Diatoms settle. But they also rise again, not sure what percentage come back

Really, I think you have your diatoms and your Jesuses (Jesi??) mixed up.

FAIL!

[Mike PSS]

No, Dave, they do not. This is well-documented.

No they do not. Diatoms stay up in the water column while they are alive. They do not settle to the bottom until they die. Some small percentage survives to form the "seed stock" for the following year's bloom, but none "rise again." Remember, only Lazarus and Jesus "resurrected." They would hardly be considered diatoms.

ninewands,
Check out the write-up on Diatoms in the Ecology section. A large proportion of diatoms will rise in the ocean or lake depending on the conditions at the bottom. The question arises with Lake Suigetsu and how the anaerobic nature of the lake bottom affects the quantity of diatoms recirculating in the lake during the summer turn-over due to temperature. IIRC, there are papers that study this effect on the Lake biology.

Also, due to the summer turn-over of a lake diatoms can bloom in the autumn/winter. But it is the spring bloom that forms the most diatoms as indicated.

I know you will review this information. Dave will, of course, ignore it.

[Lasting Damage]

He doesn't just need Diatoms in stripes - he needs two distributions of diatoms in stripes, given that Diatom species are very similar in size, and can therefore be expected to settle & sort in just the same way.

and to get the pyrite and siderite ratios in the correct place. Shall we do an experiment on how well shaking a jam jar full of a pyrite/siderite suspension sorts them?

[Lasting Damage]

No, Dave, they do not. This is well-documented.

No they do not. Diatoms stay up in the water column while they are alive. They do not settle to the bottom until they die. Some small percentage survives to form the "seed stock" for the following year's bloom, but none "rise again." Remember, only Lazarus and Jesus "resurrected." They would hardly be considered diatoms.

ninewands,
Check out the write-up on Diatoms in the Ecology section. A large proportion of diatoms will rise in the ocean or lake depending on the conditions at the bottom. The question arises with Lake Suigetsu and how the anaerobic nature of the lake bottom affects the quantity of diatoms recirculating in the lake during the summer turn-over due to temperature. IIRC, there are papers that study this effect on the Lake biology.

Also, due to the summer turn-over of a lake diatoms can bloom in the autumn/winter. But it is the spring bloom that forms the most diatoms as indicated.

I know you will review this information. Dave will, of course, ignore it.

note also that there is no turnover with be lower waters anymore because the lake is now meromictic.

[RAFH]

why is it highly questionable?

in spring we have a diatom bloom, so the water near the top of the lake has lots of diatoms growing in it. in summer, a two layer system is set up because of the way water circulates, the bloom stops and the bottom section of the lake becomes anoxic and still. those diatoms settle to the base of the lake and then the rainy season carries sediment into the lake which drops down on top of the diatom dense layer. why is this "highly questionable"

Because you cannot experimentally demonstrate a direct relationship between this annual diatom blooming and the fine laminae. Remember ... we only get fine laminae below 29cm (Kitagawa) and below 44cm (Kato). BTW ... I agree that the 44cm tephra layer could be associated with air fall tephra from the volcano you have mentioned. Could be. Could not be possibly. But could be.

Cannot demonstrate or have not demonstrated bluffooney? Your statement is cannot, which means it cannot be done. I'll agree it hasn't been done, but then nobody has experimentally demonstrated the salt in my salt shaker is, indeed, salt.

This seems to be a real hard thing for you to understand bluffooney, these are varves. You get nowhere arguing they are not varves. The scientists that have studied them considered that issue so mundane they didn't bother to address it. There is no need to experimentally demonstrate water contains Hydrogen and Oxygen in a molecular arrangement of 2 to 1. It's not necessary. It is the default.

If you want to argue that point, it is you that needs to demonstrate these are not varves. Why? Because they look like varves, they act like varves and because all the scientists that have studied them have said they are varves, with no dissent (other than your silly ass). Can you present a single paper that refutes the varve determination of the Suigetsu formation? Well? Can you?

Seems to me if there were any question whatsoever these were not varves, there would be at least one paper asserting such. They've been studied for over 70 years, somebody must have stood up and questioned that determination if its so questionable. So, where's the paper questioning the varve determination?

So, yes, bluffooney, varves is the default and if you want to question them, it's up to you to refute the default.