Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[pSimon]

Originally Posted by Faid

Uh-huh. We pointed that out to him before. He didn't answer.

Imagine our surprise.

Just thought I'd repeat it in case he hadn't noticed...

Missing these things seems very common in his busy life, what with the time spent at tWeb...

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

You are confused. The only thing I've changed about is Lake Fukami and that not much. Initially, I didn't understand what they were calling a 'varve.'

That's a difficult to believe story and even harder to believe excuse. Supposedly you had read the papers on Suigetsu, supposedly. Which means you should have understood what a varve is. They describe varves in that paper. And if you were not sure of the term, you should have consulted a dictionary. It's not like it's difficult to do. Just type "varve" into your browser and hit 'search'.

And as an excuse, it's worse, anybody deeming themselves competent to criticize a professional scientific paper should bloody well know the terms they are discussing. Obviously, you don't. Which makes you a buffoon for thinking you might.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

As for Suigetsu, this whole exercise is pretty simple. I have consistently maintained that the layers can be better explained as episodic (including annual) deposition over a 5000 year period than by still water deposition over 100,000 years. Your model would be supported if you could show that laminae such as those in Morton's picture are forming today.

Why would that be, davey? Explain why it current formation would better support past formation. It's your claim, support it. Explain why current formation is in any way relevant.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Also, your model would be helped if you could explain the conflict the Kato and Kitagawa cores. This has never been done satisfactorily. I could refresh your memory on the problems there if you'd like.

What conflict davey? That one includes more of the top muck than the other? Yes, davey, that has been addressed and explained to everyone's satisfaction, well except that of one twit who, by his own admission, doesn't even know what the item he is pissing about is.

The samples were taken by different methods for different purposes. The method used by Kitagawa did not preserve the more mucky muck because he didn't need it for his study, because it was too mucky. The Kato sample did preserve more of the muck, but even it did not get it all. This was because of the method used and because Kato was interested in the mucky muck.

This was all explained to you long ago. The only person who didn't get it was you. That's because you are either too dense to get it or you don't want to.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

As for my model, further study should include elevation studies of the various features -- LD says I've got water flowing uphill, etc.

You do. And it's pretty obvious that which way the water flows davey, normally it flows form the mountains to the sea. And it's stated in the various papers that water flows from the River Hasu to Lake Mikata to Lake Suigetsu to the other two lakes and then to the ocean. If you don't know what the elevations are, you should have damn well found out before you propose something that would be highly dependent on such. It's not hard to do. There are numerous resources online that would help. Aren't you the online wizard?

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Also, I'd like to see more pictures of the Suigetsu cores and micrographs of diatoms.

Well, then, go get them.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

More sedimentation studies with clay particles and diatoms would also be nice.

Then commision someone to do the studies you want davey. You say you are rich and retired. Hire some reputable lab to do the studies you want. But before you mouth off and state there is reason to doubt the current analysis, you should have such studies in hand. Doubt based simply on not having enough information is not very credible. Oh, wait, you do have another reason to doubt, don't you davey, a silly myth you believe in. Why didn't you say so? Why even bother with trying to do science if the whole objection is based on faith?

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Bear in mind that my model includes the Flood which would have deposited a large portion of these 100,000 laminae.

Well then, you have to explain how a singular event such as you propose would result in the observable reality that exists. You haven't done that. You haven't even tried to do that.

A varve sequence is not a clock per se, it is a recording system. The records exist. They are of annual blooms of various diatom species. One blooms in the spring, another blooms several times throughout the year, but the most significant bloom is in the fall. The laminae show exactly this sequence, time after time after time. They are remarkable consistent in thickness though there are differences. Turns out the differences are in sync with climactic events well supported by other independent evidence. The laminae are also interspersed with macrofossils that date via 14C in a manner very consilient with the varve counts which is also very consilient with simple depth analysis.

So how does your silly fludde accomplish that davey? Before you invoke such you need to have an explanation of how it works. You don't have any such explanation. All you've done is grasp at anything that talks about laminations and layers, including an experiment studying the behavior of various large and disparate particles poured down steep slope between two glass plates that was intended to study avalanche behavior. Nothing similar. Nor the various lakes. Though you reject the studies that show similar varve thickness which you said couldn't occur.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

So as I have stated before, all I need is about an 8mm per year average annual deposition rate (compared to your required 0.5 - 1mm/yr rate)

Lake Baikal and the others presented.

Do those even ring a bell or do you blind yourself so severely you can't see what's right in front of your face?

It really is a matter of dependence on agreement with your fantasy, isn't is davey? That's what blinds you, that's your Morton's demon.

A buffoon controlled by a demon. I think that will exclude you from the Pearly Gates davey. They don't let demons in.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

iow dave can't answer the problems and still thinks his model is supported, despite complete lack of sizeable drainage basin, lack of diatom source, lack of water flowing uphill and so on and so forth, and he hasn't really said much about fukami or how he thinks those layers formed, because he said they "so weren't representative" of varve formation or something like that.

I really don't get why you think sources for diatoms are a problem ... They grow in rivers and streams and lakes and even the ocean. And how much above sea level can Lake Suigetsu be? I haven't seen an elevation map, but it cannot be very high. Why you don't think a tsunami or a earthquake induced flood, or even a typhoon could not do some some serious deposition work is a mystery to me.

Also I'm still not hearing what your final story is about current deposition in the lake. Is it or isn't it still depositing 1 mm layers? How do you know? Why is there only a record up through 1729? Or 1662 depending on who you ask? You said initially that deposition has stopped. Now you say it is continuing. Which is it? Why do the Kato an Kitagawa cores not match? Did 70cm of Kitagawa's core really get squished? That's a lot you know ... Something like 30 inches. And why does Kawakami not mention this "squishing"? He shows laminae in this 70 cm. Do you realize now that this is the same core? How do you explain 0.28 pMC in the 75m sample? It should be C14 dead according to your model. But it's not. It's well above the AMS threshhold ... Dr. Bertsche didn't fare very well on this issue. Also, don't you think it's a bit of a problem to not perform blind C14 testing? And even if these are good C14 pMC values, why do you assume C14 has been constant over the last 3500 years? What about my proposed deposition experiment? Did you not like it? I thought scientists love experiments.

There's a whole lot of issues here, LD

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

(snip a whole pile of Dave's blithering)

There's a whole lot of issues here, LD

The only issues here Dave are your stupidity, dishonesty, and cowardice. But those are always issues with you, aren't they Dave?

Dave, how did da Flud manage to lay these thousands of layers in this particular lake and not in the surrounding lakes or hillsides that are at a lower elevation?

If these layers were all laid at the same time by da Flud, then why does the measured C14/C12 ratio in each layer have a linear correlation with depth?

Feel free to answer anytime Dave.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Then explain where they came from. Don't just sit there in your easy chair waving your hands idly while stating they must have come from somewhere. If you are going to suggest they come from somewhere besides the lake they are at the bottom of, you best have an explanation of where that is and how they got there.

There are 100,000 layers of the buggers, davey, nice, neat, even layers, of two major kinds. Always in the same sequence. How did your floods, or earthquakes or whatever do that, how davey? More to the point, they are freshwater diatoms, they didn't come out of the ocean, so that eliminates your tsunami suggestion right off. That means they had to come from a fresh water source. There aren't any around. There's ocean on two sides and high mountains on the other two sides. Look at the maps buffoon. There is no other possible source. And as for the earthquakes, there were earthquakes and they left a marker in the sediments, markers that are well supported by 14C dating, and varve count as well as other indicators.

So, name your source davey, name it and explain how it got all those diatoms into that lake bed and no where else.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Also I'm still not hearing what your final story is about current deposition in the lake. Is it or isn't it still depositing 1 mm layers? How do you know?

What does it matter davey. Just because you stop writing in your diary, does that invalidate the whole of the diary? Don't be an idiot and a buffoon davey. I mean, davey, they stopped writing your silly mythology, nothing current for 2000 years now, does that invalidate the rest of it? Yeah, davey, think about it. Your objection is stupid.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Why is there only a record up through 1729? Or 1662 depending on who you ask? You said initially that deposition has stopped. Now you say it is continuing. Which is it? Why do the Kato an Kitagawa cores not match? Did 70cm of Kitagawa's core really get squished? That's a lot you know ... Something like 30 inches. And why does Kawakami not mention this "squishing"? He shows laminae in this 70 cm. Do you realize now that this is the same core? How do you explain 0.28 pMC in the 75m sample? It should be C14 dead according to your model. But it's not. It's well above the AMS threshhold ...

And so did the supposedly dead blanks davey. Most of them show a background. As for the sensitivity of the machines, that has nothing to do with the noise around the signal. You can have the Hubble look at something here on earth which it could clearly see, no problem, but if there are clouds, or fog or smog or bright lights around it, no good. That argument is one of the most disingenuous ever. It conflates sensitivity with signal noise.

Is your hearing good davey, maybe, but if you are in the middle of a rave, you aren't going to hear and understand anybody. A disingenuous buffoon.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Dr. Bertsche didn't fare very well on this issue. Also, don't you think it's a bit of a problem to not perform blind C14 testing?

Who says it wasn't blind davey. You have nothing to confirm that either way. And if you did, all you are doing is questioning the competency or integrity of those researchers. Which gives us the right to question yours. Your competency isn't an issue, you have none. That leaves your integrity and that's been shown lacking more often than not.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

And even if these are good C14 pMC values, why do you assume C14 has been constant over the last 3500 years?

Regular testing against items of known age. Doh! Just like they do, with tree rings, ice cores, speliotherms, corals, volcanic events, historic items, climactic trends and cycles, and, of course, varves. Hard to argue with reality davey. Unless you are as delusional and obsessed with a bizarre translation of an unprovenanced anonymous copy of an unprovenanced anonymous copy of an unprovenanced anonymous transcription of the oral traditions of a band of backwater goatherders who picked those up from those they traded with and those that conquered their silly backwater asses on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

What about my proposed deposition experiment? Did you not like it? I thought scientists love experiments.

Then go ahead and do your experiment davey. If you don't want to do it yourself, then hire some reputable lab to do it. What's stopping you? Put up or shut up.

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

As for Suigetsu, this whole exercise is pretty simple. I have consistently maintained that the layers can be better explained as episodic (including annual) deposition over a 5000 year period than by still water deposition over 100,000 years.

No it can't. Your 5,000-year model leaves completely unexplained the linear correlation between both varve count and sample depth with radiocarbon age.

Your model would be supported if you could show that laminae such as those in Morton's picture are forming today. Also, your model would be helped if you could explain the conflict the Kato and Kitagawa cores. This has never been done satisfactorily. I could refresh your memory on the problems there if you'd like.

Whether varves are forming today or not is utterly irrelevant. The "conflict" between the Kato and Kitagawa cores has been explained to exhaustion. You don't like those explanations, so you ignore them. You ignore everything you don't like.

As for my model, further study should include elevation studies of the various features -- LD says I've got water flowing uphill, etc. Also, I'd like to see more pictures of the Suigetsu cores and micrographs of diatoms. More sedimentation studies with clay particles and diatoms would also be nice. Bear in mind that my model includes the Flood which would have deposited a large portion of these 100,000 laminae. So as I have stated before, all I need is about an 8mm per year average annual deposition rate (compared to your required 0.5 - 1mm/yr rate)

Your model is dead in the water until it explains the linear correlation between varve count and sample depth with radiocarbon age. It will never be able to do that, so it will always be dead.

You need a lot more than 8 mm of deposition rate, Dave. At least, if you're planning on persuading anyone other than yourself, and if you're only trying to persuade yourself, I'm not sure why you're bothering.

[VoxRat]

Heh.

I see that Dave has returned to his pattern of pretending there's no one else worth talking to here, other than Mr. Damage.

Pretty hilarious.

Perhaps I'll return the favor, and address all of my observations to Mr. Damage, too.

So, LD... I see that Dave is persisting in willfully ignoring the clearly annual nature of the Suigetsu laminae (i.e. the varves we've been discussing since the beginning). He seems to be waffling rather wildly between none/few/some/most of the laminae were laid down in a regular annual process, and most/some/who knows? how many were laid down in various catastrophic episodes, and most/some/who knows? how many were laid down in the Mother of All Catastrophes.

The rest of us seem to be having very little luck in pinning him down on how you tell the difference between these layers. Or anything at all, for that matter. He's even taken to referring to the regular, annual deposition process as "episodic", thus rendering another term meaningless.

So, LD, if you can manage to have any kind of a sensible discussion with this much nebulosity, well... more power to you. But if you find it's all too fuzzy to follow, let me assure you, it's not just you, and I think you'd be justified in asking for some clarification on these points (among others).

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

The only issues here Dave are your stupidity, dishonesty, and cowardice. But those are always issues with you, aren't they Dave?

Dave, how did da Flud manage to lay these thousands of layers in this particular lake and not in the surrounding lakes or hillsides that are at a lower elevation?

If these layers were all laid at the same time by da Flud, then why does the measured C14/C12 ratio in each layer have a linear correlation with depth?

Feel free to answer anytime Dave.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mung bean

Absolutely none, PJ, absolutely none. If necessary he would sell his kids to slave traders and take up prostitution.















Mind you, the latter is arguably already the case.

He sold himself a long time ago.

[Faid]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I really don't get why you think sources for diatoms are a problem ... They grow in rivers and streams and lakes and even the ocean. And how much above sea level can Lake Suigetsu be? I haven't seen an elevation map, but it cannot be very high. Why you don't think a tsunami or a earthquake induced flood, or even a typhoon could not do some some serious deposition work is a mystery to me.

Also I'm still not hearing what your final story is about current deposition in the lake. Is it or isn't it still depositing 1 mm layers? How do you know? Why is there only a record up through 1729? Or 1662 depending on who you ask? You said initially that deposition has stopped. Now you say it is continuing. Which is it? Why do the Kato an Kitagawa cores not match? Did 70cm of Kitagawa's core really get squished? That's a lot you know ... Something like 30 inches. And why does Kawakami not mention this "squishing"? He shows laminae in this 70 cm. Do you realize now that this is the same core? How do you explain 0.28 pMC in the 75m sample? It should be C14 dead according to your model. But it's not. It's well above the AMS threshhold ... Dr. Bertsche didn't fare very well on this issue. Also, don't you think it's a bit of a problem to not perform blind C14 testing? And even if these are good C14 pMC values, why do you assume C14 has been constant over the last 3500 years? What about my proposed deposition experiment? Did you not like it? I thought scientists love experiments.

There's a whole lot of issues here, LD

A lot of issues indeed. So, I took the liberty of bolding out the parts that are already addressed, and also using a dark red font fo the ones that are downright lies.

You're welcome.

[damitall]

Time for a summary, I think

Hawkins cannot, for obvious reasons, accept that the many tens of thousands of clearly delineated varves beneath Suigetsu Lake are annually laid, and are very strong evidence against an earth as young as Hawkins believes it to be.

He has put forward many objections to the interpretation of the available evidence from this lake. All of the objections have been soundly rebuttted.The evidence for tens of thousands of years of deposition remains intact. Stacks of layers of silt and identifiable organic remains, interlocked by the traces of recorded volcanic events ( and we know Hawkins sets great store by written records), with correlation of varve count, depth, and radiocarbon dating.

In the course of his attempted rebuttals, he keeps on referring to the sediments in other lakes, which are sometimes similar, sometimes dissimilar, to those in Suigetsu

This is a failure of logic, reflecting no credit on Hawkins' abilities in this area. Science can, if the evidence warrants it, instantly concede that other lakes can contain layers utterly different to those in Suigetsu - different in composition, thickness, regularity, and in the time taken to lay them down - concede without in any way damaging the case made for the Suigetsu varves being a reliable record of time passing. The other lakes are different - that means they are not the same as Suigetsu, which is obvious from the briefest look at the relevant cartography and geography. Therefore it really does not matter one flick of fly's foreskin how and when those other layers were laid.

He has raised canards about the flocculence at the present lake bottom, despite being told with enormous patience time and time again that the nature of the lake changed after a new canal cut, and the layers can no longer form in the same way, because the lake dynamics and water composition and content are different since then.

He has suggested mechanisms for getting silt quickly into the lake - a great flood, which laid (per Hawkins)KILOMETRES of sediment in great thick layers everywhere else, but only a few tens of metres here; a tsunami, or marine tidal wave, which somehow managed to carry neatly layered freshwater diatoms arranged according to their blooming cycles - and so on. Looked at in cool retrospect, it seems incredible that a sentient human being could even entertain these notions. Part of his "evidence" for this mechanism is some experiments done by perfectly reputable scientists, having little or no obvious interest in lake varves, with dry granules made to avalanche down slopes. He never did explain the relevance of these.

We indulge him - a bit like a friendly pedigree pup with hip dysplasia that we don't want to have to put down - because we enjoy sharpening our skills on him. But he has not carried a single point, not pressed home a single piece of evidence against this record of ancient time. Oh, we are periodically assured that we are about to be the grateful recipients of some new theory or model that he's "getting close to" formulating, but the gestation period is long, and we have no real expectation of anything but intestinal gas.

Lest we forget - effectively this malignant hick Hawkins is calling all the scientists involved either incompetents or liars or both. He could not do that to their faces, but he needs to do it here, because he dare not face the truth, or even the possibility of his being so devastatingly wrong.

I've stopped wondering why he treats us to these years of utter pillockry. Speculation is fruitless, even though it's the major stock in trade of the creationist

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Faid

I just noticed this gem, buried amongst the other tard.

"didn't fare very well"?
Is that what Dave thinks?
Stunning... just... stunning.
Dave actually thinks that he, Sunday School Tyro, jerk of all trades, master of none, has stumped the professional scientist.
Stunning.
This is right up there with claiming to know more about viruses than lifetime career PhD virologists, on the basis of reading one error-riddled, mind-numbingly retarded, creationist hack job on the subject.
Absolutely... stunning.

Also, don't you think it's a bit of a problem to not perform blind C14 testing?

What is a major problem, after it's been explained over and over and over, is that Dave still doesn't understand that the tests ARE performed "blind".

And even if these are good C14 pMC values, why do you assume C14 has been constant over the last 3500 years?

Ummm...
LD? If you manage to get Dave's attention, you might mention this little matter... I'm not sure anyone's mentioned it to Dave yet, but the scientific community actually has devoted a little thought to this matter, and come up with an ingenious solution to the problem:

CALIBRATION CURVES

What about my proposed deposition experiment? Did you not like it? I thought scientists love experiments.

Again, LD, if you manage to get Dave's attention, you might explain to him that what we like even more is thinking through the experiment before doing it. Like, for instance, the sedimentation rate of the particles in question, the flocculation properties of the particles in question, the effect of the manner in which the particles are delivered... little details like that.

[Virginia-American]

Originally Posted by damitall

... Lest we forget - effectively this malignant hick Hawkins is calling all the scientists involved either incompetents or liars or both. He could not do that to their faces, but he needs to do it here, because he dare not face the truth, or even the possibility of his being so devastatingly wrong. ...

And I imagine he teaches his Sunday school kids the same cynical distrust of science and scientists. Disgusting.

[Mike PSS]

Here's a post for all comers. For Dave, because he for some reason doesn't believe that varves form annualy in Lake Suigetsu. And for everyone else, to show the incredible depths of analysis that scientists work with for some very mundane topics, little bugs growing in lakes after all.

So we begin. First, by looking at the references in these papers it is revealed that Lake Suigetsu studies occurred back in the 1930's. Then, for some reason there was very little done until 1970's.

So, here for your reading enjoyment are some very detailed studies on Lake Suigetsu from the 1970's and 1980's. All .pdf scans so I can't grab the text. However, the interested reader CAN use the camera function, highlight the pertinent text, paste it into Word (or something) then save that paste image seperately as a .jpg. Then use "manage attachments" and upload the pertinent image to their post.

All these articles are from the Journal of the Oceanographical Society of Japan.

Studies on Biological Metabolism in a Meromictic lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. and Saijo, Y. 1971
This paper discusses the annual fluctuations of chemical signatures in the lake dependent on depth, salinity, time of year, sulfur cycle, etc...

Some Physicochemical Features of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1973
Pretty much what it says. Studying consumption rates of Oxygen and distributions of temperature, chlorinity, etc.

Organic Substances in Sediment and Settling Matter during Spring in a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1973
Wow, look at page 1 to see his sediment traps at two different levels in the lake.

Changes in the Limnological Features of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu during the Years, 1926-1967; Matsuyama, M. 1973
This guy must have gotten a BIG grant. Three papers in the same journal (or maybe it was a slow year in Oceanographical studies).
This paper points out the changes in the water after a new canal was dug in 1934. It also surveys all the older lake studies so is a good source for references.

Vertical Distributions of Some Chemical Substances in Surfface Sediments of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1974
Uh Oh. These guys took a core sample too.

The sediments of Lake Suigetsu having 100 to 120 cm core length were collected by Professor KOYAMA of Nagoya University with his devised sampler. The frozen-stored sediment core was sampled for each 5 cm and subjected to the analysis.

Wow, these guys invented a core sampler to freeze the core in place so that they could study the water content of the first 120cm of the sediment. Then they did chemical analysis too. Pretty interesting.

Sulfate REduction and Sulfur Fixation in Sediment of a Historically Meromictic Lake, Lake Suigetsu, Japan; Masuzawa, T. and Kitano, Y. 1982
These guys took a core too. And they analyzed the aerobic and anaerobic nature of the lake. AND they examined the diatoms in the sediment. Their core determined the layer of fresh to brackish water in the sediment which indicates the original canal dug in 1664. They also estimate the sedimentation rate based upon THREE independent measurements. One from their studies, one from a 14C method (see the references) and one from a 210Pb method (again, see the references).

Diagenetic Deposition of Manganese in Sediment of a Historically Meromictic Lake, Lake Suigetsu, Japan; Masuzawa, T. and Kitano, Y. 1982
Same core as the sulfur paper above. More analysis.

So Dave and company. Is this enough reference specifically to Lake Suigetsu to settle some of those "nagging" questions being thrown about?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave Hawkins, if you don't do another thing for the rest of the whole damn year, get off your lazy ass and go read Mike_PSS's terrific thread on 14C Testing Reliability and Quality Control

Here's a link since you're probably too lazy and unmotivated to look for it yourself

CLICK HERE HAWKINS YOU LAZY FUCK

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Here's a post for all comers. For Dave, because he for some reason doesn't believe that varves form annualy in Lake Suigetsu. And for everyone else, to show the incredible depths of analysis that scientists work with for some very mundane topics, little bugs growing in lakes after all.

So we begin. First, by looking at the references in these papers it is revealed that Lake Suigetsu studies occurred back in the 1930's. Then, for some reason there was very little done until 1970's.

So, here for your reading enjoyment are some very detailed studies on Lake Suigetsu from the 1970's and 1980's. All .pdf scans so I can't grab the text. However, the interested reader CAN use the camera function, highlight the pertinent text, paste it into Word (or something) then save that paste image seperately as a .jpg. Then use "manage attachments" and upload the pertinent image to their post.

All these articles are from the Journal of the Oceanographical Society of Japan.

Studies on Biological Metabolism in a Meromictic lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. and Saijo, Y. 1971
This paper discusses the annual fluctuations of chemical signatures in the lake dependent on depth, salinity, time of year, sulfur cycle, etc...

Some Physicochemical Features of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1973
Pretty much what it says. Studying consumption rates of Oxygen and distributions of temperature, chlorinity, etc.

Organic Substances in Sediment and Settling Matter during Spring in a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1973
Wow, look at page 1 to see his sediment traps at two different levels in the lake.

Changes in the Limnological Features of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu during the Years, 1926-1967; Matsuyama, M. 1973
This guy must have gotten a BIG grant. Three papers in the same journal (or maybe it was a slow year in Oceanographical studies).
This paper points out the changes in the water after a new canal was dug in 1934. It also surveys all the older lake studies so is a good source for references.

Vertical Distributions of Some Chemical Substances in Surfface Sediments of a Meromictic Lake Suigetsu; Matsuyama, M. 1974
Uh Oh. These guys took a core sample too.

Wow, these guys invented a core sampler to freeze the core in place so that they could study the water content of the first 120cm of the sediment. Then they did chemical analysis too. Pretty interesting.

Sulfate REduction and Sulfur Fixation in Sediment of a Historically Meromictic Lake, Lake Suigetsu, Japan; Masuzawa, T. and Kitano, Y. 1982
These guys took a core too. And they analyzed the aerobic and anaerobic nature of the lake. AND they examined the diatoms in the sediment. Their core determined the layer of fresh to brackish water in the sediment which indicates the original canal dug in 1664. They also estimate the sedimentation rate based upon THREE independent measurements. One from their studies, one from a 14C method (see the references) and one from a 210Pb method (again, see the references).

Diagenetic Deposition of Manganese in Sediment of a Historically Meromictic Lake, Lake Suigetsu, Japan; Masuzawa, T. and Kitano, Y. 1982
Same core as the sulfur paper above. More analysis.

So Dave and company. Is this enough reference specifically to Lake Suigetsu to settle some of those "nagging" questions being thrown about?

Anybody want to bet the answer from davey, TGd (The Great davey), if any, will be "no" or "I don't see the relevance" or, maybe, if we are really lucky, TGd will find another arcane and irrelevant issue among those papers to fuss about. Perhaps their cores are the same lengths as the others, or the thicknesses are slightly different, or some such drivel.

So we have:
a) NO
b) I don't see the relevance
c) new distraction issue
1-length of cores or parts of cores
2-thickness of layers
3-different diatoms/no mention of diatoms
4-different time of year
5-authors may have been VooDoo priests, papers don't specifically address this issue.

Take your pick and place your bets!

[Mike PSS]

HELLO DAVE. I CAN SEE YOU. DO YOU LIKE MY POST? I LIKE IT.

I HAVE A SONG FOR YOU DAVE. IT GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS...

"DIATOMS. DIATOMS.
GIVE ME YOUR VALVES ALL YEAR.
ON THE LAKE BOTTOM
IN LAYERS THAT DON'T LOOK QUEER
THERE'S MORE THAN JUST CLAY AND GARBAGE
IN FACT THERE IS ONGOING VARVAGE
BECAUSE AS YOU BORE, INTO THE CORE
YOU FIND 100,000 THINGS CREOS FEAR."

HOW DO YOU LIKE MY SONG DAVE?

DAVE?

[Dave Hawkins]

Mike ... not sure what new information is there that we don't already know about. But thanks for the links all in one place. That can't hurt.

Did you happen to run across a depth measurement from the 1930's or before? That would be interesting.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Mike ... not sure what new information is there that we don't already know about. But thanks for the links all in one place. That can't hurt.

Well Dave, if I look in your past rants you wanted sediment testing, sediment analysis, diatom analysis, chemical analysis, and other things done to the recent lake sediment. These papers, older than Kitagawa by 20+ years, provide the "modern" analysis of the physical processes in the lake, plus with their cores they look at this analysis in the sediments to back before teh 1664 canal. So all this data is in addition to the core analysis done by Kitagawa and Kato.

Did you happen to run across a depth measurement from the 1930's or before? That would be interesting.

1930's papers are not available online as I can find. There pretty old anyway. The summary report paper I included has some of the old information listed. Read that paper.

However the sedimentation rates listed in the Masuzawa papers are fairly robust and cross-correlated too. Between that paper and the paper where they froze the core itself you get a clear picture of the recent sedimentation timescales for the lake itself.

The Journal of Limnology - Japan has some papers referenced. That Journal doesn't have the older papers online, only after 2000.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Mike ... not sure what new information is there that we don't already know about.

Dave,
Look in this paper.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/J...2/29020053.pdf

They have sediment traps and derive a sedimentation rate on for the Lake during 100 days of sampling at different depths.

THAT is a question you've been asking for a while.

Sediment Sampler.JPG Sediment Rate.JPG

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

HELLO DAVE. I CAN SEE YOU. DO YOU LIKE MY POST? I LIKE IT.

I HAVE A SONG FOR YOU DAVE. IT GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS...

"DIATOMS. DIATOMS.
GIVE ME YOUR VALVES ALL YEAR.
ON THE LAKE BOTTOM
IN LAYERS THAT DON'T LOOK QUEER
THERE'S MORE THAN JUST CLAY AND GARBAGE
IN FACT THERE IS ONGOING VARVAGE
BECAUSE AS YOU BORE, INTO THE CORE
YOU FIND 100,000 THINGS CREOS FEAR."

HOW DO YOU LIKE MY SONG DAVE?

DAVE?

I like it. I like it a lot.

Do you like it davey?
Do you like the song, davey?
Do you like it a lot?
Do you like it not?

How do you like it davey?

[SophistiCat]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Dave,
Look in this paper.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/J...2/29020053.pdf

They have sediment traps and derive a sedimentation rate on for the Lake during 100 days of sampling at different depths.

THAT is a question you've been asking for a while.

Attachment 492 Attachment 493

Not to belittle the importance of this, but about half a dozen works that establish sediment deposition rates in various lakes have already been cited in this thread. They were, of course, ignored.

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

...I still question the comparison between the two. You were using lillooet as an argument that the low sedimentation rates of Suigetsu must be wrong, and that Lillooet was evidence that Suigetsu has higher sedimentation rates. You've backed down from that now, but are still trying to palm Lillooet as an example of how the sedimentation works, in effect ignoring all those massive differences.

And he's ignoring the fact that the Lillooet paper he's quoting is looking at sedimentation in the river delta, essentially an extension of the river. Apples and orange crayons.

Its only function in this discussion is that it serves as up-to-date evidence that varve formation goes on in this day and age. (Duh!)

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I really don't get why you think sources for diatoms are a problem ... They grow in rivers and streams and lakes and even the ocean. And how much above sea level can Lake Suigetsu be? I haven't seen an elevation map, but it cannot be very high. Why you don't think a tsunami or a earthquake induced flood, or even a typhoon could not do some some serious deposition work is a mystery to me.

beacuse you are talking about seriously massive quantities of diatoms here. I will repeat again, that suigetsu is the largest lake in the Mikatagoko system in both surface area and volume, and far outstrips the local river system in volume, so there is just nowhere for enough of them to grow in that area, apart from suigetsu, and even that would take a heck of a long time. As for the Tsunami suggestion, again I should hasten to point out that chemical analysis of the cores has been done and shows that the lower sediments below the 1662 turbidite layer are freshwater and not brackish in nature, from analysis of sulphates, iron containing minerals and so on. Brackish diatoms do not appear at all in the lower regions of the core, which contains extensive different species of lacustrine diatoms, many of which can barely survive at all in brackish water. The extensive history of the area also confirms that there have been no massive tsunami in the region. As for an "earthquake induced flood" remember that the water has to come from somewhere, and the Suigetsu drainage basin is only 50km^2. See, you are claiming that recent large events deposited much of the sediment, such as the flooding after the 1662 earthquake (which was downhill of suigetsu) and those events would also have had to deposit massive amounts of diatoms... but there's nowhere for them to come from. Your ad hoc excuses as to where the diatoms come from really don't and can't explain the system seen. There are no adequate sources of freshwater, and nowhere to have adequate sources of freshwater in the drainage basin observed and claims that the diatoms could have come from saltwater deposition via tsunami completely ignore the nature of the cores, which demonstrate that the system for as long as it has existed (be it 5000 years or 1000,000 years) up to 1662, was a freshwater system.

[pSimon]

In short:

The Devil is in the Diatoms, Dave.