The Quigley Book

[Jet Black]

has anyone actually read any more of it than dave and AiG quote? I know what AiG are like and tbh I don't trust them to correctly represent what Quigley was saying.

[SteveF]

There's a copy in my library. I'll pop over this afternoon and have a look.

[Jet Black]

It would certainly be interesting to see the context of the quote, especially given its age, and what quigley says about identification of varves/non-varved laminar sequences.

[Dave Hawkins]

I agree. Thanks Steve.

[SteveF]

Right, so there are 4 pages on varves in glacial environments (including piccies). I can't be bothered to type the whole lot out and it would probably be against copyright anyway.

It is split into three sections and is pretty standard stuff. We have (in this order):

- Varved clays in proglacial lakes

- Varved and laminated clays in postglacial lakes

- Varved clay structure

The part that Oard quotes from comes from the first of these sections. I'll type out the full paragraph in which this quote appears. Firstly, Oard:

It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as “varved.” There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units ... without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation

the full paragraph is:

It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as “varved.” There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units (Fig. 6.8) without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation. The formation of varved silty-clays requires the cessation of melt runoff into the lake during winter to create a closed lake system in which precipitation of clay particulates can take place. In many cases where large ice lobes of glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continuously resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. These turbidity currents deposit single or multiple graded (fining up) laminae (Fig. 6.8) and clay laminae may be thin or non-existent as a result of infrequent quiet water conditions in proximal areas. Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition (Ashley, 1975).

Note that this is mainly specific to this particular depositional environment. The next section says:

Current regimes and sedimentary conditions were different in postglacial freshwater lakes no longer in contact with the ice front. Suspended sediment loads were greatly reduced (probably less than 0.1 g/L) and under such conditions, streams enter lakes as overflows and interflows (Fig. 6.7B). Heavy-density bottom flows would only occur during spring floods or as products of slumping.

Present-day sedimentation in Hector Lake, Alberta (Smith, 1978) probably reflects conditions in many postglacial lakes. During the summer, warm stream water with its suspended sediment enters the lake as overflows and interflows, overriding heavier cold water (Fig, 6.9). Even during reduced winter stream flow, the very cold (~0degreesC) stream water overflows heavier 4degreeC water in the lake. Deposition of sediments is largely by year-round settling with silt and fine sand settling out during the summer and clay during the winter. Smith (1978) reports classical varve couplets in Hector Lake near the inlet delta where there is adequate sediment to produce them but the varves rapidly decrease in thickness with distance, becoming thin laminae or even massive clays only 2km from the inlet. This rapid attenuation is largely related to the inefficiency of overflows and interflows as carriers of sediment along with the small sediment loads. (See also Gilbert and Shaw, 1981).

[Febble]

This, I like:

Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.

[Pappy Jack]

Originally Posted by Febble

This, I like:

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.

Colour me surprised.

[Jet Black]

+rep for steve. Thanks for that.

just out of interest, how different did fig 6.8 look to sequences like suigetsu?

[SteveF]

It's a different system, so not really a meaningful comparison. However, they look reasonably different. One of them is completely different; indeed it's so obviously not varved, just from simple inspection, that I doubt anyone ever believed it was (it's probably just there to illustrate the point). The other looks a bit more regular at first glance.

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by SteveF

It's a different system, so not really a meaningful comparison. However, they look reasonably different. One of them is completely different; indeed it's so obviously not varved, just from simple inspection, that I doubt anyone ever believed it was (it's probably just there to illustrate the point). The other looks a bit more regular at first glance.

That's a good point. Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff.

So not only is the quigley quote not about the same sorts of lakes, but it doesn't say what dave thinks it says.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Febble

This, I like:

So Quigley thinks there are actually diagnostic criteria for varves. No wonder Oard left that part out.

Oh brother. Give the conspiracy theory a rest. Did you so soon forget that the early investigators of Three Sisters Lake also had criteria? And it turned out to be wrong?

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

<post duplicated and moved here for the ice age discussion - Jet Black>

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

[Lucretius III]

Originally Posted by Jet Black

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

Funny in a way but also pathetic really,just what I have come to expect from Dave.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Oh brother. Give the conspiracy theory a rest.

Geez, Dave!

Oard was warning us (apparently) that we shouldn't regard all alleged varves as varves, presumably because if some alleged varves ARE varves, the earth is very old.

But he omitted the part that told us how to tell the difference.

Doesn't need a conspiracy theory. Just a bit of elementary deduction, dear Watson.

Did you so soon forget that the early investigators of Three Sisters Lake also had criteria? And it turned out to be wrong?

I'm starting to wonder whether you have actually READ that paper. Did you?

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

err... what does that have to do with anything? are you going to tell us that all the post An-Ei layers are glacial runoff now,? Are you going to do a Lillooet on me again?

[SteveF]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Jet Black

you just blew up my irony meter.

The person who is telling us that there is widespread systematic fraud taking place in isochron dating labs, non-publishing of the vast majority of results, repeated sampling until it gives the right number and so on is telling Febble to give the conspiracy theory a rest.

does anyone else find this funny?

I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by SteveF

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?

No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I have never suspected systematic fraud. I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional. I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

What you need to posit is for there to be vastly more data unpublished than are published, and for all those data to be wildly discrepant.

What you need, in other words, is not "bias" but widespread, organised fraud.

Pretending that mere "bias" will do the trick won't work. If you doubt me, then be specific about how you think the alleged bias works in your favour. I know about bias, Dave, and I know the kinds of methods used to detect it.

Please be specific, or retract.

[SteveF]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

I'm not aware of any evidence for it. I'm not an expert on the glacial stratigraphy of Japan, but I' under the impression it mainly involves mountain glaciation. For example:

Ono, Y et al. (2003) Present and last-glacial Equilibrium Line Altitudes (ELAs) in the Japanese high mountains. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, 47, 217-236.

Plots of present ELAs in Kamchatka Peninsula based on 317 firn-line measurements and 5 mass-balance studies revealed that the ELA has a steep gradient, rising inland from the Pacific coast, the main source of moisture, being toward the Sea of Okhotsk. In the Japanese high mountains, present perennial snow patches decrease in altitude steeply towards the Japan Sea, the main source of moisture, from the Pacific side, suggesting also a steep gradient of the hypothetical ELA over Japan. Calculation of the hypothetical ELA attempted on the basis of summer (JJA) air temperature and winter precipitation gives a value of 2970 m at Kuranosuke Cirque in the Northern Japanese Alps, and 4192 m on Mt. Fuji. The distribution of glacial landforms reveals that a similarly steep ELA gradient also existed in the last glacial period, suggesting a strong influence of the winter monsoon and the role of the Japan Sea as the main source of moisture. Tephrochronological studies reveal that glaciation occurred in the Japanese high mountains in MIS 6 (or 8), 5d, 4, 3 and 2, but the resolution of dating of tephra is not sufficient to determine whether the maximum advance occurred in MIS 6, (8), or 5d. The ELA depression during the last glaciation was much greater in MIS 3 and 4 than in MIS 2, reflecting a drastic decrease of snowfall in the latter. The major factor causing glacier fluctuations in the Japanese high mountains is sea surface temperature changes in the Japan Sea, controlled by sea-level changes and sea-ice extent.

Note the ELAs at many thousands of metres. Suigetsu is next to the sea. There is, of course, the complete absence of evidence in the Suigetsu sediments for glacial activity.

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Obd

Bullshit, there were 2 ice ages and no. 3 is coming in 2009.

your name always makes me think of "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"

[Jet Black]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I have never suspected systematic fraud.

you're saying that disposal of the vast majority of the results obtained in multiple scientific tests isn't fraud?

I suspect biased results. Nothing intentional.

I think they truly believe what they are doing is OK.

it's ok to chuck away almost all the data points?

come on dave, the suigetsu graph has of the order of 200 points in it. there are many other graphs like that, then there is the cumulative collection of three or more decades of isotope dating techniques which return the results that we see published, and you're talling us that the vast majority of the results that were actually found have been discarded? and you're telling us that isn't fraud?