Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Sorry for all the cross-board news, but this is just amazing

Shithead Hawkins did a quick drive-by at TWeb where he's now basically accusing Dr. Bertsche of covering up the evil C14 conspiracy

Yeah shithead, for enough money those crooked C14 researchers will fill in any dates you want, and swear at your next Christmas party that your dick's 15" long.

I just love the way he tossed in the "I have contacts at leading labs'" as some sort of threat. Dave, if you have contacts at leading labs, they why the hell haven't you asked them to explain the rigorous protocols of C14 dating to you??

You never cease to amaze me Hawkins. Every time I think you couldn't get any lower or be a bigger asshole, you find a way to top yourself.

TGd's contacts consist of people he's emailed or written letters to asking them this or that. People who may or may not have responded. Given your question and the utter lack of data TGd has submitted from such 'contacts', one has to wonder how many of these 'contacts' are any more than just a name and an address.

So, yeah, TGd, bring on your 'contacts', present their signed letters or have them post here (like you were asked to do with many other of your 'contacts', but who never showed up). Go for it TGd, go for it.

Need I say it? Need I really say it?

Ah heck, why not?

What an utterly fucking amazing buffoon! Yeah, that's you TGd, you.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

O.K. Time for some "shotgun math" as Dave likes to call it. From numerous papers we can derive some sedimentation loading in the lake during a year.

From the paper list I linked we can extract the following information.

Lake Area 5.1km^2 = 5,100,000 m^2
Sediment Rate 14-20 mg/cm^2/yr
Rainfall of the area 1500mm/yr (it used to be higher than 2000mm/yr)
Drainage Basin 50km^2

Now, looking at the data we see a term called Ignition Loss of sediment. This is when the sediment is burned at 800C for an hour. The organics burn off leaving the minerals behind. As an estimate it is these minerals in the sediment that are brought into the lake by erosion. The organics burnt off are from carbon, nitrogen, etc. which are derived from CO2 or photosynthesis or other methods. All I'm looking for is the mineral contents since these minerals come from the drainage basin of the lake OR from dust deposition. I'm going to assume the dust deposition fraction is small in this case (this is shotgun math after all).

Ignition Loss ~20% (so mineral sediments are 10-16 mg/cm^2/yr).

Let's use the highest numbers for these sedimentation to really load up the system. High sediment rate, high rainfall.

Rainfall and runoff are kind of tricky, so I'll get out my shotgun and say off the top of my head that 75% of the water fall ends up as runoff into the lake. I probably used both barrels with this guess.

Mass of sediments in one annual layer is:
16 mg/cm2/yr * 10,000 cm2/m2 * 1 kg/1,000,000 mg * 5,100,000 m2 = 816,000 kg/yr of sediment.

Water flow through lake in one year is:
2000mm/yr * 1m/1000mm * 50,000,000 m2 * 0.75 = 75,000,000 m3/yr water = 75,000,000,000 L/yr of water.

Now, that means the streams feeding Suigetsu are loaded with 8.16e5/7.5e10 = 0.0000108 kg/L water = 10.8 mg/L water (a measure of TSS + TDS) which is about a 12 turbidity (roughly).

So, Lake Suigetsu gets an average amount of run-off, and the turbidity contribution from this runoff is mild.

We can also use these numbers to see if any conjectures about increased sedimentation events hold any water (pun intended).

Mike, not any criticism, but one comment. I'd say your runoff portion is a bit high, I'd say more like 50%. But that's a wild ass guess. One would have to consult with the agricultural bureaus for the air to be accurate.

However that only increases your sediment load in the runoff water to about 16.2 mg/L. I don't know how that comes out as turbidity.

[Fathermithras]

I hope Dave doesn't fuck like he posts and thinks. It's the equivalent of trying to bring a woman to orgasm by rubbing her stomach, and when that doesn't work, he bites her hair, and when that doesn't work, he tries frottage on her elbows. There is a correct way to do it, but Dave will never, ever manage to end up with anything other then intellectually disappointing posts for everyone else. Yet of course, Dave will brag about how great he did.


=C

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I have no idea. I can't find any papers that address this specifically. But maybe I will yet. All I know is that there is no consistent pattern even in the Suigetsu core. Remember? THIN - THICK - LESS THICK is what we see as we ascend the core. That sort of blows LD's Thickness/Compression/Interstitial Water Theory.

you're swapping between different sections of the analysis dave, try not to get confused. There will inevitably be different annual sedimentation rates over a long period, nobody is saying that they would be absolutely constant year in year out - it would be suprising if they did, since there is environmental variation in the amount of rain, sunshine, winds and so on. My issue was with an analysis of recent sedimentation rates: One has to look carefully at the upper sediments, because they are loaded with water (as we have seen, up to 70% water for some cores) and hence those sediments will be thicker now, than if you pile a load more sediment on top of them. so if you look at a varve couplet from 2008, you might see that it is 7mm thick, but you have to be careful not to assume that means that there is 7x more sediment than in say 1660, even though a layer in 1660 is only 1mm thick, because the 2008 layer is 70% water, and hence there is only 1mm worth of "dry" sediment in there.

[Lasting Damage]

still waiting for dave to continue the defence of his position regarding the deposition of the suigetsu cores by floods and tsunami, following my recent post on pyrites and siderites.

[Pappy Jack]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

still waiting for dave to continue the defence of his position regarding the deposition of the suigetsu cores by floods and tsunami, following my recent post on pyrites and siderites.

Dave has no defensible position as it is founded in its entirety on the arguments that:

1. The Earth (and Universe) are around 6,500 years old, as demonstrated by the inerrant truth of the Bible.

2. Some scientists have argued that varve cores from Lake Suigestu provide an evidential 'clock' for at least 40,000 years of geological and climatological history.

3. Statement (2) is clearly at odds with Statement (1) and Dave knows that Statement (1) is absolutely correct because the Bible is inerrant, QED thank you very much; therefore for that reason alone Statement (2) must be false and, if Dave just looks hard enough, Dave is sure that he can find the errors that underpin it.

That this is how Dave's mind works is shown perfectly by his abrupt recognition that a previous acknowledgement that RM dating is reliable to around 3,500 years BP completely destroys his arguments regarding the non-annual nature of the Suigetsu varve system. Once this realization had penetrated Dave's cranium, how long did it take him to decide that, after all, there are many 'problems' with such RM dating that make the consilience therein suspect? Answer: no time at all. The really mind-numbing affrontery in Dave's Pauline moment is that, apart from Dave himself, everyone else can see exactly what brought it about and recognizes it for what it is.

Inter alia, I see that Dave has still not responded to my post some days ago asking for the grounds on which he was impugning the honesty of Mia Tiljander's dissertation on Lake Korttajärvi, as well as that of Tiljander's academic supervisors, examiners and opponent.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

...That this is how Dave's mind works is shown perfectly by his abrupt recognition that a previous acknowledgement that RM dating is reliable to around 3,500 years BP completely destroys his arguments regarding the non-annual nature of the Suigetsu varve system. Once this realization had penetrated Dave's cranium, how long did it take him to decide that, after all, there are many 'problems' with such RM dating that make the consilience therein suspect? Answer: no time at all. The really mind-numbing affrontery in Dave's Pauline moment is that, apart from Dave himself, everyone else can see exactly what brought it about and recognizes it for what it is.
...

That's why I've been asking, ever since this "pauline moment", what new information came to light that caused him to reverse his acceptance of radiocarbon dating for the past 3500 years.

And, of course, that's why he's been ignoring the question.

Because the answer is obvious.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by SophistiCat

Whether or not there's any intelligence left in that boy's head, he clearly isn't using it here. As far as I can see, he still hasn't come to terms with the basics of sedimentation that even a child would easily comprehend.

Silt, clay and dead algae, which compose the bulk of this lake's sediment, enter the lake waters continuously throughout the year, supplied by rivers and the lake's own biota, although the rates vary on a regular, seasonal basis (and are also affected by climate). Question: if sedimentation occurs episodically (the buffoon can't commit to any definite rate), then what is all that material doing in between? Is it stored in some secret place, then released all of a sudden, and quickly precipitates (even though we know that such fine-grained suspension settles very slowly)? How is this supposed to work?

You are calling ME a buffoon and yet I have explained this several times to you. Sedimentation occurs episodically, as shown by the 46 (!!) turbidites in the top 11 meters alone. But it also occurs non-episodically throughout the year. But what YOU have failed to show is that there is a 1:1 correspondence between this inevitable annual deposition and these fine laminae (~0.5 - 1mm). So maybe you should stop calling people you disagree with buffoons and try defending your position. Propose a new experiment, perhaps?

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave has all but abandoned TWeb, a place that should have been his biggest success since it's full of fellow Christians like Dave, he hoped.

I hoped that? Gee. And all this time I thought I went there because Glenn Morton and John Baumgardner were over there, not because I thought there were any like minded Christians over there.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I hoped that? Gee. And all this time I thought I went there because Glenn Morton and John Baumgardner were over there, not because I thought there were any like minded Christians over there.

And yet... if I read correctly, Glenn is annoyed with you for abandoning the "burrows" discussion when the going got tough.

And speaking of abandoning discussions - what about LD's questions about pyrites and siderites?

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Sedimentation occurs episodically, as shown by the 46 (!!) turbidites in the top 11 meters alone.

oh those that coincidentally line up with historically recorded events?

[Pappy Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

....what YOU have failed to show is that there is a 1:1 correspondence between this inevitable annual deposition and these fine laminae (~0.5 - 1mm). So maybe you should stop calling people you disagree with buffoons and try defending your position. Propose a new experiment, perhaps?

Dave, the annual deposition of varves in Suigetsu is unequivocally demonstrated by the historically recorded events that they can be tied to (see numerous preceding posts) and the consilience with RM dating of the upper 3500 varves that you have now decided is suspect (for those obvious reasons referred to already; I believe Mr Rat has a number of questions outstanding about this which are deserving of a considered response).

[damitall]

Well, Hawkins, I think it's time for one or more creationist organisations to get it together, do some experiments, and produce some data, since they're all so convinced the mainstream is wrong.

Better make them open, well-observed and recorded - creationists wouldn't want to be open to any accusations of scientific fraud, now would they?

The mainstream does its best, Hawkins. It may have failed to convince you and your like, but at least it has the data to show, and the quality control schemes to demonstrate accuracy and transparency

Time for creationists to produce some of their own data, from openly designed and performed experiments. You can hire labs, equipment, technicians; so the expense need not be that great.

Divert some of the money wasted on "baraminology", or have a public subscription (surely all those increasing millions of creationists giving $2 or $5 each would fund a lot of work)

If it doesn't happen, (and I predict it never will) the public is entitled to draw the inference that creationism doesn't really believe its own schtick, and is therefore lying through its teeth for political and commercial purposes. What other reason could there be for failing to take up such a challenge?

Go creos! Make it real!

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

And yet... if I read correctly, Glenn is annoyed with you for abandoning the "burrows" discussion when the going got tough.

And speaking of abandoning discussions - what about LD's questions about pyrites and siderites?

Not abandoning. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Not abandoning. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.

you should ask. It's a free paper;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...87e0245a428b9a

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how pyrites and siderites are deposited by tsunami.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Not abandoning. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.

Dave, since you are addressing your failings from t-web, I figured I should remind you what your fellow Christians over there think about you…

Dave, this is not some political race! We are looking for the truth here. If the truth is that the Suigetsu varve data implies great age, we want to know. If it doesn't, we want to know. And God is the one observing these proceedings, and He will not tolerate a false weight on a scale to skew the results! That means you pretending these results are somehow skewed when they are not is a 'false weight' on the scale of evaluating the suigetsu 'worth' in judging the age of the Earth. It is no less evil than using false weights to undermine the value of the gold or silver being presented in payment. In essense, it is theivery. You steal the truth from those who would listen to your words. - oxmixmud

Dave, you shouldn't have to ask what I think of your intentional misrepresentations of my statements. You are a deceiver, and your un-Christlike behavior is a serious stumbling block for the unsaved. - KBertsche



In your case Dave, you have magnified this error by wrapping it in deliberate and willful deceit and dishonesty. Then in arrogant pride you boast of this wretched behavior when you crow that this makes you a "pioneer!"
If you are ever going to turn this around you must act immediately. A good start would be to answer the questions that you specifically said you would on grmorton's burrows thread. Follow that by ceasing to mischaracterize Dr. Bertsche's remarks and apologize (you didn't even have the decency to do it here but went elsewhere to do so where you thought you could get away with it). Dave you need to turn yourself around. Now. - Rouge6


My statements and others about your ethics stand - even more so as rather than trying to understand why what you are doing is mischaracterizing what has been said (which you already know) you still continue to play little games and act is if you are justified. You forget that there is
a God out there who KNOWS what you know, who knows your motives, even the deepest ones you don't know: You will have to answer to him, and word games don't work with Him. - oxmixmud

From reading your words I would have to agree with them.

In closing, what credentials do you have to discuss anything from a Christian perspective?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by RAFH

Mike, not any criticism, but one comment. I'd say your runoff portion is a bit high, I'd say more like 50%. But that's a wild ass guess. One would have to consult with the agricultural bureaus for the air to be accurate.

However that only increases your sediment load in the runoff water to about 16.2 mg/L. I don't know how that comes out as turbidity.

And that means the stream feeding the lake is a little more "musty". Eventually I was looking at this in terms of turnover for the lake and turbidity contribution to the lake too.

Also I was going to get out my repeating shotgun for the lake calculations with the diatom bloom. At some point the mass of minerals coming into the lake is consumed in some way by the diatoms (primarily). So I was going to find out the mass fraction of Silicon and Phosphorus in this runoff since Silicon and Phosphorus would be limiting elements in any diatom growth every year. There's only so much of this stuff to go around. So the mass fraction of Silicon in the water would limit the size of the layer of the spring diatom bloom. Then I can check whether the shotgun math layer relates to the measured thickness of the light colored varves. If I'm within say 50% of the value then I could support some conclusions about the limits of growth of diatoms in the lake every year. The devil is in the details as they say.

[Lucretius II]

Originally Posted by Wallybert

OK, this just isn't fair to Dave.

There's no way his posts can get less accurate.

Want to bet on that ?

I have this terrible feeling that Dave has much more inaccurate stuff up his sleeve

[Dave Hawkins]

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE KATO CORE, SGP-12

Quaternary International 123–125 (2004) 21–26

Survival strategy of diatom species living on now-depositing non-glacial varves

Megumi Kato,*, Yoshihiro Tanimura, Hitoshi Fukusawa

What you should notice from these diagrams is that the pattern of layers is anything but a nice, neat assemblage of 1 - 2mm layers. It's actually quite a hodgepodge -- IMHO, a strong testament to the episodic nature of sedimentation in the lake.





Notice also Kato's description of her results ...

3. Results

All the sections of the core were composed of clayey
materials intercalated by several thin turbidite and
volcanic ash layers. Based on sedimentary structure
and authigenic mineral composition observed under the
light microscope, a turbidite layer at 115–108 cm deep
was correlated with that formed by the historical
earthquake in 1662 AD detected by Fukusawa et al.
(1994). The turbidite is overlain by brackish sediments,
because seawater began to come up through the artificial
canal constructed 2 years after the earthquake (Editorial
Committee for History of Mikata Town, 1990). X-ray
images of the sediment core (Fig. 1) revealed laminated structures, especially in the uppermost sections from 12
to 161 cm deep. Based on counting these varves, detailed
chronology with 1-year resolution was established, from
1590 AD to 1729 AD. A tephra layer intercalated at
44 cm deep corresponds to 1774 AD based on the
chronology. Among these laminated sections, distinct
differences in lamina structure and thickness were
observed, with 1–2mm thick laminae with very clear
contrast of dark- and light-colored laminae at 21–25,
31–32, 38–45 cm deep, and 3–6mm thick gradually
changing to the base of superimposed lamina at 32–38,
45–108, and 118–161 cm depth (Fig. 1). In the lower
sections, including turbidite layers, laminated structure
was not recognized on X-ray images. (p.22)

Notice the bit about the chronology from 1590 to 1729 AD. They say this time period is represented by the section from 12cm to 161cm -- 149cm. IOW ... 149cm represents 139 years of deposition. Or >1cm/year!!

Did you catch that?

1 centimeter (10 mm) per year)!

Now ... I'll stop right there for now and make sure I haven't misread something here. But if I have read right, then here we have a deposition rate which is very close to what I said I needed for the 5000 year scenario --
8mm/yr --> 40m of sediment.

Notice also that there really seems to be no lamination thickness pattern at all. Notice in the second picture, there are thick laminae from 60 - 67cm and thin laminae from 38 - 45cm ... just the reverse of what we are being told it should be according to the Compression/Water Content Hypothesis.

[Faid]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Not abandoning. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.

Bullshit. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it. According to your previous delusional claims of getting all the info you need through the net, "in this electronic age", you should be schooling Glenn right now.

But how about addressing those 9.8 centimeters while we wait for your enlightening knowledge on termites, Coward dave?

Oh and I notice that you have neither RAFH nor Occam on ignore after all. Hmm. I wonder who else you are pretending to ignore, to avoid answering to...

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

you should ask. It's a free paper;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...87e0245a428b9a

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how pyrites and siderites are deposited by tsunami.

LD, I intended the bit about libraries and books to describe Glenn, not you. I do not have that complaint about you. You make the effort to support your statements from online sources or you supply the papers, etc. I'll take a look at this latest paper soon.

[Dave Hawkins]

Faid ...

But how about addressing those 9.8 centimeters while we wait for your enlightening knowledge on termites, Coward dave?

I did long ago. And you ignored it. Possibly because you are so busy trolling (like you are doing right now) that you don't bother to read my posts. Now do us all a favor and go back to doctoring and leave the science debates to people who actually make substantive posts like LD and Mike.

[Coleslaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Faid ...

I did long ago. And you ignored it. Possibly because you are so busy trolling (like you are doing right now) that you don't bother to read my posts. Now do us all a favor and go back to doctoring and leave the science debates to people who actually make substantive posts like LD and Mike.

AFDave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Not abandoning. It's just that he doesn't like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.

How very badly you are being treated -- how dare anyone expect you to go to a library and read something about a subject on which you have already made up your "mind".

Or as he expressed it, quite accurately, he has morals and will not violate copyright for a demonstrable liar and thief, which would be you dave.

You miserable lying sack of tard.

no hugs for despicable thugs,
Shirley Knott

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

1 centimeter (10 mm) per year)!

again dave, it's all the stuff near the top of the sediment, which is very loose with a high water content.