folder Filed in Random Tusks
#YDB impact confirmed again: Volcanos and Asteroids and Mammoths -- Oh My!
Restored from the library fire 1/1/20
event April 14, 2014 comment 54 Comments

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

Galileo to Kepler — 1610

Screen Shot 2014-04-14 at 10.25.49 AM

Press Release from Liverpool John Moores

I have only scanned this new paper and there is a lot in there. Cheers to readers who help sort through.

We report new stratigraphic, tephrochronology and dating results from the Tocuila Mammoth site in the Basin of Mexico. At the site there is evidence for a thin meteorite airburst layer dated between 10,878 and 10,707 cal BC at the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) cool period. The Upper Toluca Pumice (UTP) tephra marker, caused by a Plinian eruption of the Nevado de Toluca volcano, dated from 10,666 to 10,612 cal BC,is above that layer. The eruption must have caused widespread environmental disruption in the region with evidence of extensive reworking and channelling by the Lake Texcoco shoreline and contributed to the widespread death and/or extinction of megafaunal populations, as suggested by earlier authors, but the new work reinforces the view that both catastrophic events must have caused large environmental disruption in a short time period of around two hundred years. There is no evidence for megafauna (mammoths, sabre toothed cats, camels, bison, glyptodonts) after the UTP volcanic event and subsequent lahars in the Basin of Mexico. — From abstract

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Cancel Post Comment

  1. So, the “Tusk” also had a closely aligned and massive volcanic event?

    So Tusk, Mexican erruption, mass extinctions.

    Chicxulub (plus Shiva crater?) and the Deccan traps, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction

    Siberian Traps, Wilkes Land crater, Permian-Triassic extinction

  2. The sequence at Tecuila sounds very much like the one in Europe, the Usselo Layer being covered by the Laacher See tephra. My hypothesis is that of a causal connection, the volcanic eruption being caused by the impactquake.

  3. Tephrachronology is fairly precise nowadays, and so that hypothesis won’t work for the Laacher See event, which is clearly dated to roughly 200 years before the Younger Dryas.

  4. Since I an intensely interested in the age of the rocks I’ve been turning over, I have been following the work of folks like Rick Firestone for years. Radiometric dating of rocks, and sediments of the YDB may seem on the surface to be a very exacting science. And in terms how precisely, and carefully samples in the lab are handled, it is. But in the end, in terms of a precision result, after all the gritty, repetitious, sifting, sorting, and measuring has been done, it still comes down to statistical analysis, and the often subjective application of the latest C14 calibration curve. There is so much room for subjective interpretation of the data that anyone who claims they can resolve a date for any given sample with an accuracy better than +/-100 years is living in a fantasy world. So 200 years maybe on the edge of it, but it’s still within the margin for error.

  5. Dennis, tephrachronology is statigraphic, calibrated against lacrustrine varves and tree rings, and is fairly exempt from most of those issues. Some of the stuff is known to annual precision, certainly 20 to 40 years is well within the error bars.

  6. There is a minor problem with the headline quote as well, Copernicus was not a contemporary of Kepler, and I believe that was a letter written by Galileo to Kepler. Kepler was not an conversationalist, and it’s probably doubtful he ever looked through a telescope as well.

    As far as the so called ‘asteroid airburst layer’, that looks fairly definitive, and so I would expect that som some samples would be released and dispersed to some interested independent groups for some kind of replication and verification, and perhaps a look for some more nanodiamonds. That would firm things up a bit in my mind.

  7. I take that back, upon further research it appears that the ‘observationalist’ Johannes Kepler DID pick up the telescope in later years and made some significant improvements in the optics as well. Silly me. lol.

  8. Whoops, was reading up on Copernicus after I decided to use the Galileo quote, and Nick’s name was stuck in my head! Changed…

  9. Dennis –

    I share your suspicions about dating tech. At the same time, the C14 Calibration curves are really based on the latest – and they even specifically spell out – ON THE GRAPH – which studies are used for any era. Subjective? Yes, because they do beat on it and do leave some out. But for my money, they are doing a decent job of trying to get it right. More critical are the factors you mention – handling of samples. Ad into that the fact that if they don’t get near the lab results they want, they toss out the “inconvenient” sample results (on the unvetted and normally unexplained assertion of “contamination”) – which I see as horrible science.

  10. Dennis –

    Oh, and I DO agree with the claimed resolution precision. Samples from the same site give differing dates for the same type of samples. Either their samples were taken at slightly different depths, or the terrain was sloped giving misleading results, or the labs did a bad job of it. Having SOME idea of how many redundancies there are in labs, I suspect the two former causes.

    van Hoesel is a prime example of someone who doesn’t have a clue as to what the mis-matches mean. She just posts them all in her papers and blithely thinks that a 100 years resolution (or less) is really attainable.

    Temporal resolution is a thing I’ve been hollering about a LONG time in climate studies, but no one else has picked up on it yet. You see spagehtti graphs (lots of curves on one plot) and the peaks and valleys don’t match up, even though the pitch of the curves is very similar. This strongly points to simple misses on the time element. Shifting the curves till they peak together should be done, but no one does it. It is quite obvious that the climate WAS the climate and that the climate could not be out of phase with itself.

  11. The HSIE impactite layer also shows up in dense concentrations in the North East United States volcanic eruption studies.

    The timing from all of this data will likely be used for work on plate tectonic mechanics and eruption sequences.

  12. That is funny about the movement of continents. Funny as in “Ha ha” funny. What a load of tripe. That is – BTW – the same 3.26 Bya impact that was supposed to have nearly ended all (pre-)life on Earth. So now we have TWO unverifiable things attributed to that impact – at the time the world was less than 3/4 billion years old. (It is a nice safe no-risk paper to write up to keep up with “publish or perish” – no one can prove it wrong.)

    Evidently, like global warming, droughts, rising sea level, tornadoes, hurricanes, toe fungus, bad movies, and polar bear populations dropping (WRONG: They are going UP, not down), everything and its brother is going to get blamed on that impact. I am going to blame it for my ex-girlfriend dumping me!

  13. I really do not know how to handle comments on dating accuracy and climate made by people who can’t/don’t know the difference between the Allerod and Younger Dryas.

  14. From Wikipedia:

    “The Allerød oscillation was a warm and moist global interstadial that occurred at the end of the last glacial period. It raised temperatures in the northern Atlantic region to almost present-day levels, before they declined again in the succeeding Younger Dryas period, which was followed by the present interglacial period.
    In some regions, especially in northern Eurasia, there is evidence for a cold period known as the Older Dryas interrupting the interstadial. In such regions the shorter oscillation ending with the Older Dryas is known as the Bølling oscillation, and the Allerød period is the interstadial following the Older Dryas.The Allerød period was named after a type site in Furesø municipality in Sjælland, Denmark (near Copenhagen), where deposits created during the period were first identified in work published in 1901 by Hartz and Milthers.”

  15. I really do not know how to handle comments on dating accuracy and climate made by people who are pretty well ignorant of the primary literature on North American phytolith sequences.

  16. And since you cite no specific paper, much less how that nebulous, and arcane work which you cannot name applies to this conversation, or the subject of this thread, your point is?

  17. Phytolith studies are neither nebulous, nor arcane, and are well known by those with even an introductory basic competency in the field.

    Aside from that point, perhaps I’ll include them in a publication of astroblemes from the HSIE.

    You will be able to buy a copy.

    You will even be able to buy a copy for your good friend David Morrison.

  18. No, what’s nebulous, and arcane is any evidence beyond your naming of the subject of phytoliths that you yourself have actually read the nameless literature you use beat us with, or that the sum-total of your own understanding of the subject consists of more than what you may have gleaned online in blog comments from folks you percieve to be “a lot smarter” than you to use your own words; proclaiming our apparently unredeemable ignorance of un-named literature without any real evidence whatsoever of your own self-assumed, and self-proclaimed supperiority.

  19. Ed is doing his lack of specificity thing again with vague comments that everyone is supposed to read his mind about. With never any particulars, none of us can make any responses (there is nothing to respond to) – which plays into his “I know everything and no one else knows jack” meme. At least in his head.

  20. Dennis – remember that Ed is a reporter (without an audience or publisher) and doesn’t need to be responsible for sourcing anything he says.

  21. Steve,

    Have you ever noticed how very few from the impact archaeology community stop in here at the Tusk public comment section?

    As far as my sourcing goes, and my audience, my reporting is known to be literally lethally accurate, and my audience is around 50,000 people, despite many efforts at suppression and many deliberate acts of slander.

    50,000 people.

    I know that does not compare to your friend David Childress’s H2 numbers, but then how many of the people that he has p***d off with those shows would like to see him and the entire operation exposed?

    More importantly, how can I monetarize their desires?

    As far as my sourcing goes, do you remember my using a microcassette to record your comments on Richard Kieninger and Stelle?

    There is a huge difference between “could be” and “is”. I deal with the “is” side of things.

  22. Dennis, Steve –

    How much should I charge you to stop making fools of yourselves?

    Or should I just sit back and enjoy the laughs?

    David Childress’s and David Morrison’s mouthpieces together in the same place – kind of a very strange irony. Have you read “He Walked Among Us”?

  23. Heck Ed, the only fool here is a siily old fart pretending to advanced knowledge he doesn’t really have. He has no real concept of the science he imagines he’s got such a good grasp of. So he memorizes some sciencey sounding titles, and pretends the he’s the only one with a clue. But he can’t cite a single relevant paper, much less comunicate any valid arguement from that paper. Because since his stroke his reading comprehension skills have fallen on the rocks. So he goes for the personal ad hominem attack every time. That way he can pretend he’s superior well enoigh to convince himself, even if no one else is buying it.
    As for Eds book, I have finally figured out a good use for it. You see, I’ve got this cabin way up in the high country. The place has outdoor plumbing, and sometimes hikers will stop in to use the facilities. But they always use up the paper, so I’ve taken to leaving old books, and magazines instead. The tradition started with an old sears catalogue. But last fall I put V’s Worlds in Collision out there, and it ws a big success. The first half got wiped away in a couple of weeks. But that old paper back’s getting mighty thin out there in that old outhouse. I think Ed’s book will make a good replacement

  24. Deenis –

    About that 100 year precision for dating things:

    I ran across this — http://climateaudit.org/2014/04/17/radiocarbon-calibration-and-bayesian-inference/#comment-550313

    I haven’t read through all the article or comments, but this comment by Geoff Sherrington really perked my ears up — http://climateaudit.org/2014/04/17/radiocarbon-calibration-and-bayesian-inference/#comment-548310

    I quote it here (almost) in full, because it is a killer:

    Nic,
    Thank you for this clear essay.
    It is not common to find this depth of understanding expressed in peer reviewed papers for the IPCC (here more broadly than carbon dating)by authors of diverse backgrounds indulging in statistics. A possible conclusion is that many do not understand the treatment of error at your level. Indeed, I use the treatment of error as a rough guide to the eventual quality of a paper. It is a factor that has led me to generalise over the years that much climate work is not of very high quality.
    Researchers who do not comprehend your essay have a doubtful place in the writing of papers that are used for major policy considerations. Yet time and again I see huge errors accepted ‘because it is convenient’. The TOA radiation balance varies from satellite to satellite. The Surface Sea Temperature varies with make of probe. The atmospheric temperature record varies between balloons and satellite microwave methods. Etc, etc.
    Background. At age 29 I borrowed a lot of money and established a fairly large private laboratory from which I sold analytical numbers to clients in several industries. It was an advanced lab, including the only private fast neutron generator for NAA seen here in Australia before or since.
    I sinned in my younger years. I was one of a large set of optimistic analysts whose self-described prowess was greater than I realised as I aged. It is entirely possible, for it seems to be in the breed, that laboratory estimates of accuracy and precision now used in carbon dating have this optimistic element. I apologise for my sins, which time has shown to have had no major practical consequences.
    Your article was easy to comprehend because I spent a career doing this type of inspection of results, either hands on or by supervision. The blue calibration curve in your figure 1 troubles me greatly, not because I have mathematical evidence (I’m now too old and have forgotten too much detail) but because decades of experience screams that it does not look right. The blue envelope is inconsistent with the slope reversals, for a start. It is too optimistic. It should maybe be wider at the ends where low or high instrument count rates can produce less precision. Above all, it seems not to recognise that some analyses have a very low probability of being correct, the ones way out on the wings of the distribution curve. They happen, though rarely. If the person constructing the curve has independent confidence that the analysis is correct, it can distort the proper form of the curve and widen the blue envelope. But, I don’t see this (though I do not claim deep recent reading of the detailed literature).
    Your essay points to the need that has always been there, for replication, replication, replication such as multiple sampling of test material where possible. It reinforces old concepts like carefully prepared calibration standards, which in this case might be being used. But mostly it repeats the valuable observation that subjectivity can enter the picture and that there must be proper, appreciated ways to deal with it. The proper way delves into sources of bias, well beyond the simple calculation of a statistical factor such as a standard deviation, shown as if it is an obligatory inclusion of little importance.

    And as regards the “subjective” element referred to by Geoff, there is also THIS, from Mike Baillie, about his being sued under FOIA and losing, in re to tree rings (from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/11/climate-science-tree-ring-data):

    Finally, regarding intellectual property and the release of data under FOI, when a dendrochronologist measures the widths of the growth rings in a sample, he or she has to make multiple decisions with respect to the starts and ends of the rings, problem rings, and so on. Repeated measurement of the same sample, will not give exactly the same measurements. The number of rings must be the same, but the actual measured widths will not be. This means that the ring pattern of a tree-ring sample carries the “intellectual fingerprint” of the dendrochronologist who measured it, every bit as much as this text carries my intellectual fingerprint. In my opinion, tree-ring patterns are therefore intellectual property and should not be handed out as if they are instrumental climate data.

    This is a VERY important point about tree rings and their use in what is (laughingly) called dendroclimatology. There are so many issues with tree rings that in time I predict that dendroclimatology will cease to exist as a so-called science. They simply have not shown since 1940 to be worthy proxies for temperature at ALL – in fact in later years actually going considerably DOWN while temps kept rising – and diverging very much from temperature reconstructions. The size of this problem in dendroclimatology is MASSIVE. Without good correlation of tree rings with temperature curves in the “instrument data” tree rings as proxies is simply not tenable. And without tree ring constructions (which most other proxies are tied to) being valid, pretty much pre-instrument temperature curves you will ever see are based on NOTHING.

    So, basically whenever you see precision claimed/asserted, YES, be skeptical as HELL.

  25. Why hello steve –

    If you can find the tree ring mailing list archives, you will find extensive exchanges on reducing subjectivity in visual examinations; extensive exchanges on statistical methods of combining series; along with many other fascinating messages on various technical topics of the field.

    What happened, did the tree ring specialists tell you something that you did not want to hear?

  26. Hi Dennis –

    There is a place here where George put up the offer for my book. Why not copy your remark here and post it in the review section there?

  27. Yeah, we were talking about, or perhaps I should say complaining, about the accuracy of current C14 dating tecnologies, weren’t we? And then some drip-wad drops in tryin to pick a fight, complaining he doesn’t know how to handle comments by people who don’t know the difference between the Allerød and the Younger Dryas. That insult didn’t get him the rise he was after though. So he rephrased it using, “people who are pretty well ignorant of the primary literature on North American phytolith sequences”.

    Since all plants produce phytoliths, and since they are especially well preserved in lacustrine environments, they are always a fundamental component of any stratigrahic study. The type of phytoliths produced by any given plant is unique to that plant. So they are every bit as important as pollen in any given stratigraphic sequence. Especially since a plant produces them in all the tissues of the plant, throughout it’s entire life cycle, and not just during it’s reproductive processes. The thing is, they are so fundamental that every first year geology student gets introduced to them right along with their first exposure to pollen studies. I’ve still got my old text book. So when some silly old fart comes out here pretending he’s the only one who’s ever heard of them, it comes accross as more than just a little bit ludicrous.

    Folks might note though, that back in 2005 some bright boy noticed that sometimes a plant will produce little black inclusions of carbon as impurities. There are some pretty interesting studies underway that are trying to use those inclusions to reconstruct a record of what kinds of gasses those plants were breathing. There is a good chance they’ll be able to use their data to reconstruct a pretty good paleoclimate record if they’re successful.

  28. As a final note on the subject of phytoliths Ed, we’re can all note that in spite of being the first to bring the up the subject, you have yet to use it in a sentence that actually speaks to the science of phytoliths. And that your only use of the word so far has been to use it as some sort of red flag in a childish kind of personal ad hominem attack aimed at all of us like a spoiled, and self important 5 year old running accros the playground taunting the others with, “Nyah nyah, nyah nyaaah nyah!! I know something youuuu don’t!”

    But you fail to produce any evidence at all that you, yourself have even the remotest clue what you’re talking about.

    Basically this whole tirade of yours is something you’ve done many times before, where you will typically hijack the conversation with an insulting, non sequitur comment that’s devoid of any real content, and with nothing at all really to respond to. But the gist of those attacks is allways the same.

    They all say in essence: “This conversation is meaningless. I am the only one who has any of the answers. Everyone one else is too stupid to have a clue. In fact, I consider myself to be the world’s only expert on the subject. And I have all of the answers. But the only place you will be able to read them is if buy my book”

    Since this behavior of yours a typical and crystal clear example of the kind of weak thinking, and shoddy academic and intellectual integrity from you that went into writing your book, the only use I can think of for it is to let the hikers wandering by on the John Muir trail use it in the out house as toilet paper.

  29. Ed –

    You are so psychotic and paranoid about Kieninger and Childress that you can’t see straight. Or is it jealousy? And you think that is where I get my information or whatever. You live in a fantasy world. A couple of people who never did anything to you, and you decided to try to crush them – only it is something no one is interested in, least of all me. Because I didn’t go along with your paranoid rantings, you take potshots at me that no one pays any attention to.

    Rant on that all you want to. It only makes you look more an more tinfoil hat – about the tinfoil hat guys, no less.

  30. There is no “tree ring” without specifying which specialty you are talking about.

    When anyone talks about tree rings, they need to distinguish between the dendroCHRONOLOGISTS and the dendroCLIMATOLOGISTS. Baillie was and is the former. He states very clearly that when he gave his data – unwillingly – to the dendroclimaologists, they abused his data, so he will have nothing to do with them anymore.

    Have a talk with Baillie. He will set you straight. Dendrochronology is a science. What dendroclimatology is, it isn’t science.

    BTW, Ed, I’ve probably seen more on tree rings than you will ever see – or knew existed. Data, papers, counter papers, articles. It has nothing to do with your work, so you probably don’t know squat except popular press stuff.

  31. Dennis –

    Overall, your 1:24 comment I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    The funny thing is that when all the crap started between you and Ed started, I was on Ed’s side.

    Somewhere along the way he started attacking me. Why? I have no idea. But at one point it got really old. I stopped putting up with it.

    Since then I’ve realized two things:

    1. You are not the asshole ignoramus Ed painted you out to be.

    2. Ed showed himself to be a guy who makes no sense most of the time, with his rage against everyone and comments “with nothing really to respond to.” Stuff comes out of left field, off-topic, with no sourcing, no explanation, and no follow-up. Just random acts of, well, nothingness… He seems to be locked into a world of self-loathing and that he feels he has to sustain that by getting others to do his dirty work.

    Maybe his mother didn’t love him enough…

  32. Last comment on this:

    To make it possible for 2-year-olds to understand:

    There is no single “tree ring science”. There are two. If one does not specify which, the comment is useless and impossible to respond to.

    For those over the age of 2, this is what Baillie had to say about the use of his dendroCHRONOLOGY work relative to dendroCLIMATOLOGY:

    To put the record straight, I am neither a climatologist nor a dendro-climatologist. I have no academic stance on human-caused global warming except that, as a scientist reviewing the issue from an evolutionary perspective, if humans are even partly the cause of the warming since 1990 then we are already doomed as a species. I agree with Doug Keenan (the man who placed FOI requests at Queen’s University Belfast asking for my data) that the issue of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is of critical importance at the present time. In a nutshell, either the MWP was warmer than now and we are in with a chance of surviving long enough to do something about climate change, or the MWP was cooler than now and we are probably due for rapid extinction.

    In the 1980s we supplied our modern oak data (available at http://www.noaa.gov) to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Work by the dendro-climatologists there gave rise to two papers Dr Keith Briffa and colleagues that convinced us that British/Irish oak was not a good subject for the reconstruction of instrumental-style temperature and rainfall records. Thereafter, at Belfast, we gave up any hope of contributing to the issue of climate change using tree rings. Recently a paper by Dr Garcia-Suarez (I am a co-author) on Irish trees and climate records shows results compatible with that research. It confirms that it is very unlikely that past temperatures can be reconstructed from Irish oaks. I recently stated that our Irish oak data has never been used in climatic reconstructions. It turns out I was wrong on this point. I did not know that the US climate scientist Professor Michael Mann had used a few of our oak records in a 2008 publication. I was not aware of his paper, nor of the use of the data. While this seems to be regarded by some members of the public as criminal (not to have read every paper on climate reconstruction), my reply is, why should I have known about it? I am not a climatologist. I have little research interest in present climate…

    Thus, one can see how separate are the two sciences.

    Therefore using the term “tree ring science” is a childish misunderstanding of the differences between the two fields.

    One simply tries to establish a time line for use by archaeologists and others with which to date events and other findings.

    The other declares that the density or width of the tree rings is a means of detecting the local annual temperatures in a given year, and based on measurements of those two they claim to be able to do it with a precision of about 0.1 degree Celsius. How they can separate out the temperature from other local effects – primarily rainfall IMHO – at times long past is a mystery. It is like solving ONE equation with two separate variables, say X and Y, and telling the world that one can tell how much X and now much Y affected the tree ring growth. The answer is that they can’t.

    The bald cyprus article here on CT showed how the biologists declare that the tree rings have (evidently) only to do with rainfall. Dendroclimatologists argue the OPPOSITE – that rainfall doesn’t matter and that only temperature is in the tree rings. You can’t have it both ways, folks. NEITHER ONE is constant. Both vary considerably from one year to the next. (Look at any rainfall or temperature graph for any location and you will see that the variations are considerable.

    All this is brought to the fore with the “divergence problem” in dendroclimatology. That problem exists specifically because for the last 60 years or so the tree rings and the tempratures are not in agreement. One goes up while the other goes down. That alone proves the worthlessness of tree ring science as a means of reading past temperatures. Why? Because if the tree rings aren’t a good barometer during most of the thermometer (instrument) period, then why in the world should we accept tree rings as a proxy (barometer) for temperatures in the past – anywhere?

    THIS is why I stated that dendroclimatology is not going to last as a science. As soon as someone clearly disproves the correlation between tree rings and temperature, the entire basis for the field collapses.

    I encourage anyone interested to simply google “divergence problem”. There is even a Wiki article on it.

    As with many inquiries, in dendroclimatology the initial assumptions are simplistic. When complications arise, the simplistic interpretations have to be replaced by more complex ones. In the case of dendroclimatology, which is both central to global warming claims and includes the very same scientists as are central to the global warming claim, the adjusted interpretations are – amazingly! – that it is not nature but human CO2 emissions that are somehow changing the correlation since 1950.

    IN any event, the tree rings are not able to be calibrated in the present, so the projections into the past must by any sane scientist be seen as not soundly based at this time.

  33. Amazing, Steve, scientists tell you something that you do not want to “believe”, and your reaction is to to disparage their results and the field.

    To sum up Baillie’s comment, Ireland is an island, and determining global temperatures from an isolated set from there is impossible due to currents and other factors.

    Dennis has the same reaction when geologists tell him that his impact features are illusory, in other words in his own mind.

    As far as Dennis and Morrison and you and David goes… when I want to learn their latest lines of BS, I know I can turn to you two for them.

    Both of you need to understand that I am not Velikovsky, I am E.P. Grondine, and have real work to do in the real world, and prefer to spend my time and energy there instead of communicating with idiots on the internet.

  34. But only an absolute idiot would hijack a comment thread with non sequtur, and meaningless, insults so that he could use it to hype his silly book. And only a particularly stupid, and paranoid idiot with delusions of grandeur would be able to convince himself that he is important enough that David Morrison would seek to interact with him in any way, much less antagonisticly, or harmfully through a completely independant third party. You can bet your favorite suspenders that Ed Grondine is so insignificant in Dr. Morrison’s view that only thing Dr Morrison makes any effort to do with regards to Ed is to ignor him.

    As for me, I simply have no respect, or regard for a man who uses personal ad hominem attacks in such a blatant ploy for attention. It’s sad how those who are too stupid, or dull to comprehend the science being discussed and make their arguments from there, always go to the man instead. It’s as they think we all live in a twisted fantasy world where the value of a fact becomes less if you can devalue the voice which is speaking it.

  35. Dennis; I’m going to get off the subject of Ed for a moment and ask if you ever recieved the pics of a stone I’ve been trying to send to you. If you haven’t recieved trhem I have to figure out where they’re going because I never get a no delivery reply. Good luck with de-Ed-ifying the world. Jim Coyle

  36. Jim –

    I am not “on the subject of Ed” nor am I trying to “ed-Edify the world.” There were some disrespectful comments by him and I responded. I don’t want to see Ed gone. I want him to make some constructive and civil contributions here at CT. It has been a long time since he has done so. A great percentage of his comments in recent months have been aimed at me, personally, impugning my integrity, and accusing me of not knowing things I do know, and being some sort of ignorant pumpkin, and I took it smilingly for a good while, ignoring the slurs, and hopng at some point he would say SOMETHING that I could respond to. But time after time it was stuff out of left field, stuff that wasn’t on topic, or didn’t make sense – and he never gave enough detail about his points to know exactly what his points WERE. At one point in the attacks, I said, “Enough is enough,” and began giving him what for.

    …Also, Jim, are those the same rock photos you had sent to me? I never did find them once I got them. Can you re-send and re-acquaint me with your concerns about them?

  37. Dennis; I’m glad you got the pics. I was about to do a Size 12 reboot on my home PC. Now I can save my foot some aggravation. What’s your opinion of that rock? After reading your piece on the Patterned Peats I was thinking that it might be a piece of granite-basalt from that area that may have come via air mail. I believe the ice shets were in retreat at that time from this area so I don’t think it was dragged down with the ice.

  38. Steve; I’ll resend those the other pics to you. They were of some Dolomite stones I have found in my area that are very glazed looking and pinholed on the out side but very small crystaline structure on the inside. The outside looks to me to have been subjected to extreme heat in order to come to the smooth ceramic look. I don’t think that glacial dragging could do this without some scoring showing. I also don’t know why Ed has to pick at people he way he does, it deffinitely makes no sense. Steve I need your home email again.

  39. They are interesting. But depending on the chemistry of the rock, and what kind of environment it’s been weathering in, some weathering rinds on rocks can take on an appearance that looks an awful lot like the thermal rind on a meteorite, even under a good optical microscope. That’s where an SEM comes in to the question. So, in doing your due diligence you’re gonna want to rule out the possibility you might be looking at an ordinary weathering rind.

  40. Steve; Thanks, I’ll get the pics to you in the morning after I get home from work. Dennis: Your pics are of a pink granite flow with what looks like a basalt ball imbedded in or formed around it. I remember you saying in your Patterned Peats piece that the granite in the Minnesota area was pink with a basalt basement. Granite is deffinitely not native to northern Ill. Where does one go about finding a SEM to borrow or lease for a while?

  41. Steve; I got your message about recieving the rock pics. A ways back I had mentioned about some rocks that have turned up on my “farm”. I was told these were dolomite pieces. They are glazed in appearence but with many pin holes in them like something was outgassing from them. You asked for some pics for your own interest as you had said you had seen dolomite in Switzerland and couldn’t remember it looking like that. In the pics I had split one open to show that there was no glaze or pitting on the inside, just a very fine crystaline structure in various colors. I just found another small piece today in my dry pen that was only 3/4″ dia but glazed on all sides. I’ll just add it to my pile of wife infuriation. Do you have any idesa how much heat it takes to melt or alter limestone? I might try to heat a small piece of split sample to see if it can be altered–(Glazed)

  42. HI Jim,

    I’m afraid Melting, or glazing, isn’t going to happen if you heat a piece of limestone; even in a kiln. You might want to read a bit on the chemical reactions of calcium carbonate, or CaCo3. It’s pretty basic high school chemistry stuff.

    If you heat a piece of calcium carbonate, or limestone, until it is red hot, the carbon in it will evaporate away, leaving you with calcium oxide, CaO, AKA quick lime, or burnt lime.

    It’s also known as "unslaked lime". Mixed with sand and water  it became the base for Roman concrete.

    Add water to calcium oxide (careful kids, this part can produce a lot of heat if it isn’t done properly) and you get "slaked lime", or calcium hydroxide.  Slaked lime forms the base for the lime plaster we see in the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel.

    So basically if your piece of dolomite, or limestone is still calcium carbonate, then you can know it hasn’t been altered by the heat of an impact.

  43. Dennis; Thanks for the info. Now I have to figure how the limestone got it’s polished surface without showing any striations or signs of polishing. I don’t believe weathering can produce that fine a finish, plus even the surfaces that aren’t exposed to the weather show the polished look. Big pieces, small pieces all the same with the pinhole exterior. The only thing I have seen so far that looks like it is the Rhynie chert from Scotland