Can't resist posting this-Water springs up from ground

[AintNoMonkey]

"artesian spring" is an awkward term. Strictly speaking, it is a wrong term.

It is a term that discribes exactly what we are talking about. Artesian: Describing an aquifer with a potential hydraulic head above the earth's surface. Spring: describing a point at which groundwater flows out of the ground. Artesian spring: Describing a point at which groundwater flows out of the ground due to a potential hydraulic head above the earth's surface.

Argue semantics all you want, but it is a working term.

But, if I understand your question, then, most likely, it won't.

It has been shown that it can and will.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5n5967010k189w5/

Oh gosh, lookey there! They use the term 'artesian spring' in a SCIENTIFIC, PEER-REVIEWED paper! Heavens, I guess that shows the term to be useful and acceptable.

This is not a question a BS in geology should phrase. It is a wrong question.

Take the question in context. Alone, yes, it looks rather shabby, but in the context of the paragraph it works perfectly. But feel free to re-phrase in a way that you think would be better, and then proceed to answer it.

That was what I meant. A BS in geology is pretty ignorant in geology.

This coming from somebody who clearly googles and pastes for their answers, I'm not particularly offended.

Feel free to present actual geologic knowledge, and we'll all be more than happy to take you seriously. But don't expect it as long as you continue your duck-and-weave strategy when it comes to answering (read: not answering) our questions.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Monkey,
I have a doctorate and I've been attempting for the past month or two to get Juvenissun to settle on a topic long enough to support any of his contentions. He engaged me and a couple of other geoscientists in a game of "conceptual Whack-a-mole" a few threads back on water for the Flood. He made a couple of contentions, when asked to support his claims or explain the details he dodged and weaved. Or he simply restated his points without providing support or details.

After he was pushed to the wall a couple times on this, he ultimately got pretty nasty toward those of us with degrees.

I honestly cannot tell if Juvenissun has a real college degree or not. He uses a large number of technical geologic terms, but his total lack of understanding of how to convince someone of his point (ie defending his point) indicates that he has never had to defend a thesis or dissertation.

So if he has a college degree it is an associates or bachelors. Even then, I can't imagine he interacted much in class if his usual modus operandi is any indication of how he defended his points.



Don't be surprised if he changes the subject.

Ultimately he'll likely resort to THIS type of comment if it veers over to religion and geology. Check it out.

Yeah, I know how he operates. But I can't help but continue arguing. It's a sickness, really.

I read the flood geology thread, and he showed a lot of heart, but not much knowledge. I don't expect any real answers from him, so I suppose I won't be disappointed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yeah, I know how he operates. But I can't help but continue arguing. It's a sickness, really.

I read the flood geology thread, and he showed a lot of heart, but not much knowledge. I don't expect any real answers from him, so I suppose I won't be disappointed.

Honestly when I first read his posts I was intrigued. I actually wanted to see him expand on his positions. Really and truly it would be fun to see a YEC or Creationist who could carry through with the geology side. The fact he was rolling out some technical geologic terms that most YEC are not prone to know, was interesting.

I got really frustrated though, when he refused to support his points with backing data or worry over the details. I'd even be willing to learn from him if he'd simply show us where he's coming from.

What I find most frustrating about his points are, however, that he seems uniquely incapable of teaching others why he thinks the way he does. He could be right on some point here or there, but he won't bother to support them.

It really is annoying.

So you're pretty close to graduating? BS? Are you going on to grad school? Good luck! If you're into petroleum these days it looks hot again. But my wife and I learned how quickly that cycle swings. Every time we stepped out with our degrees it was always on the ebb.

I wound up working as an industrial R&D coatings chemist. My wife went into Environmental.

Some of our friends wound up in the Oil Patch. It sounds like feast and famine there all the time. But it sure was attractive. Organic geochem was my thing and I desperately wanted to do that for a living. Thankfully I had the chem to fall back on!

Make sure to solidify your basics as you move forward. The cool thing about geology is that it has basics in all the sciences!

 

[AintNoMonkey]

So you're pretty close to graduating? BS? Are you going on to grad school? Good luck! If you're into petroleum these days it looks hot again. But my wife and I learned how quickly that cycle swings. Every time we stepped out with our degrees it was always on the ebb.

I wound up working as an industrial R&D coatings chemist. My wife went into Environmental.

Some of our friends wound up in the Oil Patch. It sounds like feast and famine there all the time. But it sure was attractive. Organic geochem was my thing and I desperately wanted to do that for a living. Thankfully I had the chem to fall back on!

Make sure to solidify your basics as you move forward. The cool thing about geology is that it has basics in all the sciences!

Yeah, all I need is 3 more geology credits to fulfill my requirements (I enrolled in petroleum and subsurface geology today, yay!), and a basic spreadsheets class. So I'm taking 7 hours of real classes next semester, and probably 5 hours of basketball, tennis, and wine tasting; classes in those realms.

I'll graduate in December, so I'm going to decide next semester about grad school. Studying for GRE this summer, will take it in september. I expect to do pretty well on it, as I'm fantastic at taking standardized tests. Depending on how that goes, what schools I can get into, and what kind of funding/salary I can get, I'd like to go to grad school. But if things don't work out that way, I'll probably go into the field. A couple of the guys graduating next month already have $60k+ jobs lined up, so economically it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to go to work and then come back in a couple of years for grad school.

Edit: This summer I'm working on the EarthScope project that the NSF is funding (http://www.earthscope.org/home), so that should be fairly interesting. Doesn't pay as well as an internship, but i do get to be close to home, which will be nice.
Edit

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yeah, all I need is 3 more geology credits to fulfill my requirements (I enrolled in petroleum and subsurface geology today, yay!), and a basic spreadsheets class. So I'm taking 7 hours of real classes next semester, and probably 5 hours of basketball, tennis, and wine tasting; classes in those realms.

I'll graduate in December, so I'm going to decide next semester about grad school. Studying for GRE this summer, will take it in september. I expect to do pretty well on it, as I'm fantastic at taking standardized tests. Depending on how that goes, what schools I can get into, and what kind of funding/salary I can get, I'd like to go to grad school. But if things don't work out that way, I'll probably go into the field. A couple of the guys graduating next month already have $60k+ jobs lined up, so economically it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to go to work and then come back in a couple of years for grad school.

Edit: This summer I'm working on the EarthScope project that the NSF is funding (http://www.earthscope.org/home), so that should be fairly interesting. Doesn't pay as well as an internship, but i do get to be close to home, which will be nice.
Edit

Very neat! When I got my BS back in 1986 it was 6 short months after the bottom fell out of the petroleum market. The folks who graduated a year before me were initially sitting pretty in good paying oil jobs. But I suspect they were also some of the first axed when the bottom fell out.

The great thing about grad school is its always waiting for you, and in geology you can usually get a good TA. So make hay while the sun shines and go back to grad school when the time is appropriate.

I took a year off between all my degrees. One year as a graphic designer then back to get the MS. Between MS and PhD I got to work as an oceanographic chemical lab tech with one of the Ivy League schools. It was really fun, but it certainly clarified for me that oceanography was not my thing (too prone to seasickness), so it was back to the mid-continent and back into organic geochem and coal this time 'round.

Have fun doing the earthscope thing! Sounds pretty neat. I take it you've already finished your "Field Course" summer?

 

[juvenissun]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5n5967010k189w5/

It is useless in trying to prove an erroneous use of term by citing a reference which made the same mistake.

Artesian is artificial. If it is a spring, then by definition, it is not an artesian. Any spring flows under pressure, otherwise, there is no spring. In the cited article, it used the word artesian because the aquifer is partially confined. That is not special. A karst spring could emerge tens or hundreds miles away from surficial karst feature. That is why people need to trace the flow. The reviewer of the article should catch this small problem.

Take the question in context. Alone, yes, it looks rather shabby, but in the context of the paragraph it works perfectly.

No. It is a wrong question. A Karst landform, by definition, is a surface landform. Even it developed underground, but one can always detect it from the surface (for example, by airphoto).

-------

In both cases, it demonstrated that you overlooked fundamental elements in the definition of these terms. Yes, a BS learned some big ideas in geology. But needs to be polished from the basics to become really useful. This is my gift to you for your graduation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Artesian is artificial.

Where are you getting your "definitions"?

There are numerous springs which occur at the water table, which means they are at the same level as the hydrostatic head.

Artesian springs are a special case of a spring. It is in no way "artificial". It is a spring that is under hydrostatic head which causes it to spontaneously rise above a confining bed or a ground surface.

Here's an artesian spring:

Here's a non-artesian spring:

Note how the spring flows out from the perched aquifer. At about the same potentiometric surface.

If it is a spring, then by definition, it is not an artesian.

You really need to go back and hit the Geo 1 textbook.

Any spring flows under pressure,

Not necessarily. Some springs flow under gravity. Such as this example:

In both cases, it demonstrated that you overlooked fundamental elements in the definition of these terms.

No. He didn't.

Yes, a BS learned some big ideas in geology. But needs to be polished from the basics to become really useful. This is my gift to you for your graduation.

Monkey, take not "gifts" from a person who simply wants you to "take his word" for it. I highly recommend if Juvenissun wants to "teach" anyone anything, he should learn how science is communicated.

It isn't just "Juvenissun's Word" that we all cling to.

If there is some fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of the terms, Juveniussn, post your references.

Honestly, if there is something we are all missing here, I would love to learn my error. So far I see nothing you are posting that appears correct. If you have something, present the references to back it up.

 

[juvenissun]

I got really frustrated though, when he refused to support his points with backing data or worry over the details. I'd even be willing to learn from him if he'd simply show us where he's coming from.

In the learning process, you should pass every thoughts by yourself FIRST. If not enough, then search for references. It is ridiculous in trying to find literature to support everything you think. If so, why do you need to go to school?

What we talked about here did not leave the content of lesson one on the topic. Why would anyone need any literature support at this stage? The fact you cited this and cited that to demonstrate what an artesian system is, in fact, is pretty funny. Simply take a look of any intro geology textbook. All the "references" you need are in there.

I do not expect any geological discussion takes place in this forum needs to cite any reference. If I sensed you need one in sincere, I will give you some.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's an artesian spring:

No. This is an artesian "well".

 

[thaumaturgy]

In the learning process, you should pass every thoughts by yourself FIRST.

I do. Then when your "thoughts" start smelling really bad, I decide to get out the actual supporting data to show you where I see your errors.

You just run away or you just repeat the errors. You never bother to provide me with information that I can learn from.

If not enough, then search for references. It is ridiculous in trying to find literature to support everything you think. If so, why do you need to go to school?

You bore me with your ignorance. Honestly, if you have something of value to teach, you are free to provide your own data if you can't find anyone else's data to support your contentions. I'd consider that.

But you never really do even that. You just tell us what is so and what isn't.

You'd know that fails the "stink test" pretty fast if you had actually gone through graduate school.

What we talked about here did not leave the content of lesson one on the topic.

It will, if your prior posts are any example. You'll just have to run away from a couple of scientists who can bring data to the table. Which is something you can't really seem to do.

Why would anyone need any literature support at this stage?

Well, considering you are busy basically "redefining" the words "spring" and "artesian", literature support is pretty fundamental.

The minute you leave the simple, Geology 101 stuff then maybe we can get into deeper thought. But right now I don't see what you are posting as correct, so I'm pointing out the errors with as much support as I can find.

The fact you cited this and cited that to demonstrate what an artesian system is, in fact, is pretty funny.

No, it shows I know geology. The fact that you are incapable of finding a piece of literature to support your unique definition of artesian or your points on what karst can and cannot do is actually quite startling.

It makes people think maybe you don't have the facts on your side.

If you have something to teach, provide as much supporting evidence for it as you can.

If not, then continue as you are.

(The really ironic thing is that I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I've taken my lumps time and again, even on this forum! I'm not an hydrologist, so I'm willing to learn if you have anything to teach.)

Simply take a look of any intro geology textbook. All the "references" you need are in there.

Yes, and if you have something that proves the numerous citations I have made somehow fundamentally incorrect I highly recommend you post them.

I can learn. I have spent years teaching geology classes.

I do not expect any geological discussion takes place in this forum needs to cite any reference.

Then you, sir, are no scientist. You don't understand how science is done, and you don't understand how to present a scientific case.

If you are afraid of facts and references and data, then please, continue in your current vein.

If I sensed you need one in sincere, I will give you some.

AND HERE WE GO! THE USUAL JUVENIUSSN "DODGE"!

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.(SOURCE)

Again, if the facts and data are real then I suggest you present them, or just do your usual dodge, weave and run away.

You present your cases so poorly it makes me sad to think you think you are presenting anything.

Don't waste our time.

 

[Gremlins]

No. This is an artesian "well".

To a layman, a spring and a well are both the same thing.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Have fun doing the earthscope thing! Sounds pretty neat. I take it you've already finished your "Field Course" summer?

Yeah, it should be fun. Wish there was more interesting geology in the area, but at least it'll be easy to learn and interperate.

Yeah, I did my field course last summer. 1 month in the rockies, then 2 weeks in the Walker Lane Belt, western Nevada mapping tertiary volcanics. The WLB was great. So much complexity, and so hard to map, but once it was done, it was a great sense of accomplishment, and I learned more in that 2 weeks than I ever learned in a semester of lecture.

 

[flatworm]

In the learning process, you should pass every thoughts by yourself FIRST. If not enough, then search for references. It is ridiculous in trying to find literature to support everything you think. If so, why do you need to go to school?

To find and read said literature, I would suppose.

Tell me, have you ever come across a claim that you felt required more than your personal authority to justify? I think it's clear here, from the fact a Ph.D. geologist is calling you on it, that your assertion is "not enough" in this case and by your own arguments it's time to bring in the references.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Tell me, have you ever come across a claim that you felt required more than your personal authority to justify? I think it's clear here, from the fact a Ph.D. geologist is calling you on it, that your assertion is "not enough" in this case and by your own arguments it's time to bring in the references.

Indeed. That is my primary point. Sure I've got a PhD in geology, but I could be mistaken on some point of order here. Like I said earlier, I'm not an hydrologist. I'm a geochemist. And this discussion really is a Geology 101 type discussion mostly around definitions and details.

Perhaps there's something from my undergrad I'm forgetting, but I sure can't find it. If Juvenissun has a valid point, it will be borne out by the literature. (I completed my BS in 1986, so, while I've taught Geo 1 for years, maybe there's something about karst, aquifers and springs I am wholly just blanking on.)

If he is incapable of even providing one simple supporting reference, then I'll procede with the assumption that the numerous references I and Aintnomonkey have found means Juvenissun is mistaken.

If he isn't, I should hope he'd care enough to teach us.

(NOTE Juvenissun: I will steadfastly refuse to take the word of a person who cannot bolster his own points with external data or references, especially when it is someone who has shown in the past that they would gladly hide data pertinent to the discussion, as in HERE, HERE or HERE.)

 

[juvenissun]

To a layman, a spring and a well are both the same thing.

Even to a lay person, they are still obviously different. One is artificial and one is natural.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it shows I know geology. The fact that you are incapable of finding a piece of literature to support your unique definition of artesian or your points on what karst can and cannot do is actually quite startling.

One simple reference to this word is the dictionary.

------

Hey, thaumaturgy, since you are an organic geochemist about coal, could I ask you a question about it? It will be off the topic of this thread. If you agree, how should I do it?

 

[juvenissun]

To find and read said literature, I would suppose.

Tell me, have you ever come across a claim that you felt required more than your personal authority to justify? I think it's clear here, from the fact a Ph.D. geologist is calling you on it, that your assertion is "not enough" in this case and by your own arguments it's time to bring in the references.

Of course I do. That is when I argued on some specifics I do not quite understand, and I am saying that to people with an equivalent understanding on the subject as I am.

When I talk to (undergraduate) students, I AM the authority. Even I said something not quite right, I do not need to justify it. It would be to their advantage to catch my mistake. However, if they do, I do admit the negligence and try to explain thing again more carefully.

 

[Nathan45]

... Juvenissun, what is your point in arguing this thread?

do you seriously agree with the OP that this is the result of fountains of the deep or are you just trolling for an argument?

I think that it's a general principle of methodological naturalism that the water in this case did not come from faeries or leprechauns or God, do you disagree?

do you think that some kind of artesian system resulting from some kind of blockage in underwater hydraulics is an unlikely explanation for this occurance?

 

[juvenissun]

(NOTE Juvenissun: I will steadfastly refuse to take the word of a person who cannot bolster his own points with external data or references, especially when it is someone who has shown in the past that they would gladly hide data pertinent to the discussion, as in HERE, HERE or HERE.)

You seriously over estimated the level of the discussion. We do not need any "data" for this issue as far as the discussion has gone to.

 

[juvenissun]

... Juvenissun, what is your point in arguing this thread?

do you seriously agree with the OP that this is the result of fountains of the deep or are you just trolling for an argument?

I think that it's a general principle of methodological naturalism that the water in this case did not come from faeries or leprechauns or God, do you disagree?

do you think that some kind of artesian system resulting from some kind of blockage in underwater hydraulics is an unlikely explanation for this occurance?

That is my point. My answer is NO. It is not.
People argued that this could be a Karst artesian. I said no to that too.

I never considered this issue has anything to do with God. May be I missed the point right from the beginning.