Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, of course. I suppose as these are Christian forums, my mind automatically went to the way in which "glorify" is used in a Christian context, as for example:
“For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1Co 6:20 NKJV)
Yes, of course. I suppose as these are Christian forums, my mind automatically went to the way in which "glorify" is used in a Christian context, as for example:
“For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1Co 6:20 NKJV)
The fact that it is unevidenced does not mean that it was false. All I am saying is that the geographical descriptions in the Bible can be read as a local flood. And that would make more sense than thinking about a global flood. I agree with you that it could be a wildly exaggerated story or based on one such local flood.
What more does it take for a story to be called
false if there’s no evidence, nothing in the story
actually happened, and, being false, brings discredit
to the god involved, the point of the story, and the
people who blindly believe it?
This post seems to be where you entered this part of the discussion. It was in reply to an AI summary posted by @dlamberth
In response to this post, you have had posted for your information a lecture about the dating of the floods. A link to an organization interested in the floods has also been posted. In furtherance of the information here is the wikipedia article about the floods which contains many references within:
The dates given for the floods are from approximately 15,000 to 13,000 years ago with numerous floods separated by dozens of years.
Since you've been given the links, we won't worry about this one.
5000 versus 10000 is not a small difference. It is half, or double, (depending on your perspective). Nothing in evidence suggests that the Missoula floods are even possibly only 5000 years ago.
Since we have multiple posts about radiocarbon, I won't elaborate here, but I will note that compared to the 15,000 to 13,000 years given by various methods for the floods, a 1000 year difference is small and does not get even close to 5000 years ago.
Again, we are talking about *maybe* 1000 years. (And where do you think they measure the climate with ice cores for the PNW, Vostok in Antartica, or perhaps in Greenland?) 1000 years is not going to shift the Missoula floods anywhere near the 5000 years ago you seem to be focused on.
It wasn't. The last glacial period ended 11700 years ago.
That's even more recent. It is about 2000 years after the invention of writing and 100 years after the completion of the Great Pyramid of Khufu on the Giza plateau. Not in the ice age.
Sir. For one thing, "we are talking about *maybe* 1000 years" is false.
The 1,000 years mentioned is an isolated case, mentioned in one article, and is not limited to that (I see this every time an article gives an estimated figure. Persons then limit that figure Can you give me a valid reason for that sir? Why can the figure not be more at any given time?) and are you ignoring the article that mentioned thousands of years off mark - It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.?
Concerning the Missoula and Bonneville floods - A review of ice-age megafloods in the Columbia River basin...
Evidence also comes from the glacial Lake Missoula basin, where stratigraphy indicates dozens of filling and emptying cycles. Varve counts in conjunction with radiocarbon dating and paleomagnetic secular variation show the repeated filling-and-release cycles of glacial Lake Missoula had intervals possibly as long as 100 years early in the lake’s history but diminished to just one or two years for the last few floods.
Radiocarbon dating of sparse organic materials remains key to defining flood chronology but has been lately bolstered by analyses of terrestrial cosmogenic nuclides and optically stimulated luminescence.
The age of the Bonneville flood is most securely known by the radiocarbon chronology of pluvial Lake Bonneville.
All radiocarbon ages are reported in 1000s of calendar years before present, ka, referenced to 1950 AD. Unless otherwise noted, if not calibrated in the source literature we have calibrated specific age results using the IntCal 13 radiocarbon age calibration curve (Reimer et al, 2013) implemented by OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009; OxCal) and report the resulting two-standard-deviation confidence range of the calibration of the radiocarbon age and its original counting-error uncertainty.
Hofmann and Hendrix (2010, p. 71) infer that glacial Lake Missoula had ended prior to 14.6–14.3 ka from a radiocarbon dated sediment sequence deposited in a proglacial lake dammed by a terminal moraine of the Flathead ice lobe after glacial Lake Missoula had left the basin. These age determinations and inferences have some inconsistencies but in general show that glacial Lake Missoula existed for at least 3-4 ky during 20–14 ka.
Atwater (1986, p. 36, plate 2) also infers last-glacial blockage of the Spokane valley by the Columbialobe blockage, denoted by four anomalously thin Missoula flood beds in glacial Lake Columbia deposits downstream. From varve counts tied to a radiocarbon date, he proposes that Columbia lobe blockage lasted “one or two centuries around 15,340±400 [radiocarbon] yr B.P.,” which calibrates to approximately 19.6–17.7 ka. Atwater’s interpretation, based on varve counts, of only a couple of centuries duration for glacial Lake Spokane possibly conflicts with the duration implied by the 15–16 flood beds and interbedded varves exposed at Latah Creek. The varve counts between Latah Creek flood beds are not fully reported, but range between 10 and 60, with two intervals containing as many as 125 couplets (Kiveret al., 1991, p. 240), although Waitt (1984, p. 53) posits 55 at most. Very approximately, these counts might indicate a last-glacial Lake Spokane duration of ~500 yr
An alternate interpretation offered for the timing of glacial Lake Spokane is that the lacustrine part of the Latah Creek section was from an older middle Wisconsin lake and flood episode (e.g. Kiver and Stradling, 1985; Kiver et al., 1991, p. 241). Two radiocarbon dates of detrital organic material within floodbeds low within the sequence give ages of >40,000 and 32,450±830 14C yr BP, possibly consistent with these deposits being older than last-glacial (Gaylord et al., 2016, p. 21). Such ages are largely discounted as too old elsewhere along the flood route because of reworking of the dated materials (e.g. Fryxell, 1962; Benito and O’Connor, 2003). Waitt (1985b) further asserts a middle Wisconsin age is inconsistent with the dated glacial chronology.
Age estimates from glacial Lake Columbia, impounded by the ice lobe, derive from radiocarbon dates, the presence of the Set S tephra, and varve counts. Two radiocarbon dates from detrital plant material within varved lacustrine sediment give ages of 14,490±290 14C yr BP (Atwater, 1986, p. 29; Manila Creek section) and 13,400±100 14C yr BP (Hanson and Clague, 2016, p. 74; Hawk Creek section), showing the lake persisted until at least the 16.4–15.8 ka calibrated age of the younger date. Additional lake duration of several centuries beyond this younger age is implied by 37 flood beds inferred above the 16.4–15.8 ka sample at Hawk Creek (Hanson and Clague, 2016, p. 74).
An assessment of the Manila Creek section independent and discordant from the varve counts is Hanson’s (2013) analysis of the paleomagnetic secular variation within the uppermost ~46 flood beds and intervening lacustrine deposits. Correlating the measured secular variation to an established reference curve, Hanson (2013, p. 114) estimates that the deposits formed over a period of 2600 years between 14.2 and 11.6 14C ka BP, equating to 17.3–13.4 ka. Extrapolating based on Atwater’s 1986 description of ~40 additional stratigraphically lower flood beds and the 55 yr recurrence interval estimated from the secular variation within the upper part of the section, Hanson (p. 115) suggests that the base of the lacustrine deposit is ~2200 years older, about 19.5 ka, a result about 1 ky older than the radiocarbon based chronologies. Moreover, in contrast with the 2600-yr age span and the average 55-yr interflood interval inferred from secular variation, the varves interbedded with the upper 46 flood beds at Manila Creek likely total 600–1000 and no individual interflood interval has more than 27–37 varves (Atwa er, 1986, his figs. 15–17 and plate 3). Taken together, the chronologic information indicates the Okanogan lobe blocked the Columbia River for 2–5 ky after 19.5 ka and before 13.5 ka, and during the ~16 ka Mount St. Helens tephra fall. The radiocarbon- and tephra-based chronologies from the Manila Creek section give a tighter approximate range; ~18.5 ka to ~15.5 ka with about 1 ky uncertainty for both beginning and ending
As noted above, the age of this section is uncertain. Waitt (1984, 1985b) asserts that it is entirely last glacial, yet Kiver et al. (1991, p. 241) suggest the lower, lacustrine, part may be middle Wisconsin, in part based on several radiocarbon dates from nearby flood sediment by giving ages of 30–40 ka (p. 238).
Most dating has been by radiocarbon but OSL and TCN techniques are now being applied (Baker et al., 2016, p. 11; Bjornstad, 2014; Balbas et al., 2017). Key radiocarbon ages (calibrated to calendar years) from within deposits include a 17.9–17.6 ka mammoth bone from within high-elevation rhythmites in the Yakima valley (Lillquist et al., 2005), 18.3–15.9 ka and 16.6–14.6 ka shells within lower Yakima valley rhythmites (Waitt, 1985a; Baker and Bunker, 1985). High-elevation rhythmites in the Walla Walla valley are overlain by a soil containing molluscs dated at 15–14.3 ka, calibrated from ages reported in Spencer and Knapp (2010).
Some timing inconsistencies, issues, and opportunities include the following:
The local evidence of mid-Wisconsin floods (e.g. Kiver et al., 1991, p. 241–243) appears inconsistent with the established glacial chronology and formation of glacial Lake Missoula. Because this evidence is at least partly based on radiocarbon dating of detrital organic materials, it may be a consequence of old carbon. Such reworking was called upon to explain the very first reported radiocarbon age for scabland flooding—a 32,700±900 14C yr age from a clast of peat that Fryxell (1962, p. 118) concluded was “reworked deposits from an interstadial bog…preceding the last Wisconsin advance of the Okanogan lobe”. Nevertheless, some of the discounted TCN ages (Balbas et al., 2017, Table DR2) as well as unconformities within loess stratigraphy attributed to flood episodes also date to the middle Wisconsin (McDonald et al., 2012), keeping the question open.
The youngest 12.9–12.5 ka age from radiocarbon-dated offshore flood deposits reported by Zuffa et al. (2000, p. 258) is younger than terrestrial ages showing that all Missoula floods preceded the 13.7–13.5 ka Glacier Peak tephra. The marine ages may be affected by uncertainties in marine 14C reservoir corrections.
Some of the OSL ages from the region are outside the ranges just summarized, most not by much (e.g. Smith et al., 2018; Hanson et al., 2012; Wells et al., 2020). OSL dating offers great potential for understanding the floods, but discrepancies suggest more work is needed in understanding the application of OSL to the Missoula flood deposits.
The average TCN ages for the maximum extent of the Okanogan lobe at 15.4±1.4 ka and Purcell Trench lobe at 15.7±1.3 ka (Breckenridge and Phillips, 2010; Balbas et al., 2017, Table DR2) seem young relative to the radiocarbon-derived chronology. This is discrepancy is most evident relative to stratigraphic position of the ~16 k Set S tephra near the top of the glacial Lake Columbia section at Manila Creek (Hanson, 2013, p. 90, 116, 206), suggesting the demise of glacial Lake Columbia (and a Okanogan lobe terminus north of the Columbia valley) 300–500 yr after the tephra fall—about the same time as the TCN ages indicate ice pull-back from maximum positions. Post-deposition erosion of the TCN-dated surfaces or uncertain production rates could bias TCN ages to younger values. Another possibility is that the Set S tephra is younger than 16 ka, or possibly glacial Lake Columbia lasted longer than implied by the varve counts and tephra position in the Manila Creek section.
Interbedded within Missoula flood rhythmites are at least four, and possibly five Mount St. Helens tephras (Mullineaux et al., 1978; Moody, 1978, p. 43–44; Moody, 1987, p. 43–44; Waitt, 1980, p. 664; Waitt, 1985, p. 1274–1275; Bjornstad et al., 1991, p. 231; Bunker, 1982; Baker and Bunker, 1985). These tephras include the prominent So-Sg couplet of the Swift Creek Stage eruptions of Mount St. Helens. This couplet of Set S ashes is a prominent stratigraphic marker enabling correlation among flood slackwater sediments filling backflooded basins through much of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon. It offers potential to improve counts of floods (e.g. Clague et al., 2003) and to improve understanding of flood magnitude (e.g. Waitt, 1985a, p. 1284; Benito and O’Connor, 2003) and the timing of various flood routes. Clynne et al. (2008, p. 619) summarize available age information and ambiguities for the Set S, concluding it dates to ~16 ka but note discrepancies among reported ages of up to ~500 yr in both directions. A better age determination for this important and widespread stratigraphic marker would refine Missoula flood timing. Finding traces of this tephra in sections within the glacial Lake Missoula basin could enable more precise correlation of the lake history to flood and lake deposits along the flood route.
Interflood intervals indicated by varve counts between flood deposits and evidence of lake level fluctuations, paleomagnetic secular variation, and the offshore record summarized by Gombiner et al. (2016) suggest periods of a one to two years up to 100+ yr between floods or lake releases. Most varve records show a general up-section count increase followed by a more prolonged overall decrease in counts. The decreasing trend implies progressively shorter lake-formation times, smaller volumes, and hence smaller floods in conjunction with a thinning Purcell Trench lobe ice dam (e.g. Atwater, 1986, p. 18, 22). In general, the maximum varve counts are 40–60 in glacial Lake Columbia (Atwater, 1986, p. 11), glacial Lake Spokane (Waitt, 1984, p. 53), and at the Ninemile section of glacial Lake Missoula (Figure 7b; Chambers, 1971, appendix III); although Kiver et al. (1991, p. 240) report as many as 125 varves between flood beds in the Latah Creek section likely formed in glacial Lake Spokane. The 40–60 yr maximum interval is slightly to substantially less than those implied by other records, including: (1) The duration and varve counts in the Mission Valley section of Lake Missoula deposits where Levish (1997, p. 97–108) infers 66 lake cycles recorded by thickness variations in a sequence of ~2670 varves. Here, the average cycle is about 40 varves, but several have more than 60 and one has 107; (2) Paleomagnetic secular variation; Hanson (2013, p. 76–77, 114) suggests a best-match correlation giving a 55-yr flood recurrence interval within the uppermost ~46 flood beds and intervening lacustrine deposits at the Manila Creek section, which is close to Atwater’s varve counts for the lower part of the section but double or triple his counts for the upper part of the section measured by Hanson. Hanson (2013, p. 110) similarly determines a 55–80 yr refilling interval at the Rail Line section of glacial Lake Missoula; (3) The marine record described by Cosma and Hendy (2008, p. 52) and Gombiner et al. (2016, p. 135) shows a “stable” periodicity of ~80 yr separating the lowermost 22 flood beds deposited between 19.3 and 17.6 ka. Some of these discrepancies among the sites may owe to erosion of varves by floods (e.g Atwater, 1986, p. 11; Hanson, 2013, p. 39), or possibly incomplete flood records offshore (Gombiner et al., 2016, p. 35).
What this tells me @dlamberth, is that the interpretations of geologists is what speaks.
Unless there is direct evidence of anything, the inferences, extrapolations, and interpretations, are what basically tells the story.
When the story changes, it is either that direct evidence was found which refuted the geologists' interpretations, or the geologists are telling another story.
No. You do not know when the last glacial period ended.
Of course, you can accept every estimation given you, and the estimations given you every time you hear the phrase "earlier than scientists previously thought/believed", but to believe you know, in my opinion, is to think you can know everything... when you can't.
It is evident, you also do not know what you think you know.
Also, yes, radiocarbon dating was used extensively... primarily, actually.
Sir. For one thing, "we are talking about *maybe* 1000 years" is false.
The 1,000 years mentioned is an isolated case, mentioned in one article, and is not limited to that (I see this every time an article gives an estimated figure. Persons then limit that figure Can you give me a valid reason for that sir? Why can the figure not be more at any given time?) and are you ignoring the article that mentioned thousands of years off mark - It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.?
Again, that date difference was about marine life (cooked marine life in pots to be specific), show how that is relevant to the Missoula flood dating (you haven't). It is not a general problem with land plants or animals.
I doubt you have read a 100+ page scientific review paper, are these all quotes from it? I'm not getting any other links to pop up (not sure what the bold and blue are about, are they in the original).
Evidence also comes from the glacial Lake Missoula basin, where stratigraphy indicates dozens of filling and emptying cycles. Varve counts in conjunction with radiocarbon dating and paleomagnetic secular variationshow the repeated filling-and-release cycles of glacial Lake Missoula had intervals possibly as long as 100 years early in the lake’s history but diminished to just one or two years for the last few floods.
Radiocarbon dating of sparse organic materials remains key to defining flood chronology but has been lately bolstered by analyses of terrestrial cosmogenic nuclides and optically stimulated luminescence.
The age of the Bonneville flood is most securely known by the radiocarbon chronology of pluvial Lake Bonneville.
All radiocarbon ages are reported in 1000s of calendar years before present, ka, referenced to 1950 AD. Unless otherwise noted, if not calibrated in the source literature we have calibrated specific age results using the IntCal 13 radiocarbon age calibration curve (Reimer et al, 2013) implemented by OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009; OxCal) and report the resulting two-standard-deviation confidence range of the calibration of the radiocarbon age and its original counting-error uncertainty.
Hofmann and Hendrix (2010, p. 71) infer that glacial Lake Missoula had ended prior to 14.6–14.3 ka from a radiocarbon dated sediment sequence deposited in a proglacial lake dammed by a terminal moraine of the Flathead ice lobe after glacial Lake Missoula had left the basin. These age determinations and inferences have some inconsistencies but in general show that glacial Lake Missoula existed for at least 3-4 ky during 20–14 ka.
Atwater (1986, p. 36, plate 2) also infers last-glacial blockage of the Spokane valley by the Columbialobe blockage, denoted by four anomalously thin Missoula flood beds in glacial Lake Columbia deposits downstream. From varve counts tied to a radiocarbon date, he proposes that Columbia lobe blockage lasted “one or two centuries around 15,340±400 [radiocarbon] yr B.P.,” which calibrates to approximately 19.6–17.7 ka. Atwater’s interpretation, based on varve counts, of only a couple of centuries duration for glacial Lake Spokane possibly conflicts with the duration implied by the 15–16 flood beds and interbedded varves exposed at Latah Creek. The varve counts between Latah Creek flood beds are not fully reported, but range between 10 and 60, with two intervals containing as many as 125 couplets (Kiveret al., 1991, p. 240), although Waitt (1984, p. 53) posits 55 at most. Very approximately, these counts might indicate a last-glacial Lake Spokane duration of ~500 yr
An alternate interpretation offered for the timing of glacial Lake Spokane is that the lacustrine part of the Latah Creek section was from an older middle Wisconsin lake and flood episode (e.g. Kiver and Stradling, 1985; Kiver et al., 1991, p. 241). Two radiocarbon dates of detrital organic material within floodbeds low within the sequence give ages of >40,000 and 32,450±830 14C yr BP, possibly consistent with these deposits being older than last-glacial (Gaylord et al., 2016, p. 21). Such ages are largely discounted as too old elsewhere along the flood route because of reworking of the dated materials (e.g. Fryxell, 1962; Benito and O’Connor, 2003). Waitt (1985b) further asserts a middle Wisconsin age is inconsistent with the dated glacial chronology.
Age estimates from glacial Lake Columbia, impounded by the ice lobe, derive from radiocarbon dates, the presence of the Set S tephra, and varve counts. Two radiocarbon dates from detrital plant material within varved lacustrine sediment give ages of 14,490±290 14C yr BP (Atwater, 1986, p. 29; Manila Creek section) and 13,400±100 14C yr BP (Hanson and Clague, 2016, p. 74; Hawk Creek section), showing the lake persisted until at least the 16.4–15.8 ka calibrated age of the younger date. Additional lake duration of several centuries beyond this younger age is implied by 37 flood beds inferred above the 16.4–15.8 ka sample at Hawk Creek (Hanson and Clague, 2016, p. 74).
An assessment of the Manila Creek section independent and discordant from the varve counts is Hanson’s (2013) analysis of the paleomagnetic secular variation within the uppermost ~46 flood beds and intervening lacustrine deposits. Correlating the measured secular variation to an established reference curve, Hanson (2013, p. 114) estimates that the deposits formed over a period of 2600 years between 14.2 and 11.6 14C ka BP, equating to 17.3–13.4 ka. Extrapolating based on Atwater’s 1986 description of ~40 additional stratigraphically lower flood beds and the 55 yr recurrence interval estimated from the secular variation within the upper part of the section, Hanson (p. 115) suggests that the base of the lacustrine deposit is ~2200 years older, about 19.5 ka, a result about 1 ky older than the radiocarbon based chronologies. Moreover, in contrast with the 2600-yr age span and the average 55-yr interflood interval inferred from secular variation, the varves interbedded with the upper 46 flood beds at Manila Creek likely total 600–1000 and no individual interflood interval has more than 27–37 varves (Atwa er, 1986, his figs. 15–17 and plate 3). Taken together, the chronologic information indicates the Okanogan lobe blocked the Columbia River for 2–5 ky after 19.5 ka and before 13.5 ka, and during the ~16 ka Mount St. Helens tephra fall. The radiocarbon- and tephra-based chronologies from the Manila Creek section give a tighter approximate range; ~18.5 ka to ~15.5 ka with about 1 ky uncertainty for both beginning and ending
As noted above, the age of this section is uncertain. Waitt (1984, 1985b) asserts that it is entirely last glacial, yet Kiver et al. (1991, p. 241) suggest the lower, lacustrine, part may be middle Wisconsin, in part based on several radiocarbon dates from nearby flood sediment by giving ages of 30–40 ka (p. 238).
Most dating has been by radiocarbon but OSL and TCN techniques are now being applied (Baker et al., 2016, p. 11; Bjornstad, 2014; Balbas et al., 2017). Key radiocarbon ages (calibrated to calendar years) from within deposits include a 17.9–17.6 ka mammoth bone from within high-elevation rhythmites in the Yakima valley (Lillquist et al., 2005), 18.3–15.9 ka and 16.6–14.6 ka shells within lower Yakima valley rhythmites (Waitt, 1985a; Baker and Bunker, 1985). High-elevation rhythmites in the Walla Walla valley are overlain by a soil containing molluscs dated at 15–14.3 ka, calibrated from ages reported in Spencer and Knapp (2010).
Some timing inconsistencies, issues, and opportunities include the following:
The local evidence of mid-Wisconsin floods (e.g. Kiver et al., 1991, p. 241–243) appears inconsistent with the established glacial chronology and formation of glacial Lake Missoula. Because this evidence is at least partly based on radiocarbon dating of detrital organic materials, it may be a consequence of old carbon. Such reworking was called upon to explain the very first reported radiocarbon age for scabland flooding—a 32,700±900 14C yr age from a clast of peat that Fryxell (1962, p. 118) concluded was “reworked deposits from an interstadial bog…preceding the last Wisconsin advance of the Okanogan lobe”. Nevertheless, some of the discounted TCN ages (Balbas et al., 2017, Table DR2) as well as unconformities within loess stratigraphy attributed to flood episodes also date to the middle Wisconsin (McDonald et al., 2012), keeping the question open.
The youngest 12.9–12.5 ka age from radiocarbon-dated offshore flood deposits reported by Zuffa et al. (2000, p. 258) is younger than terrestrial ages showing that all Missoula floods preceded the 13.7–13.5 ka Glacier Peak tephra. The marine ages may be affected by uncertainties in marine 14C reservoir corrections.
Some of the OSL ages from the region are outside the ranges just summarized, most not by much (e.g. Smith et al., 2018; Hanson et al., 2012; Wells et al., 2020). OSL dating offers great potential for understanding the floods, but discrepancies suggest more work is needed in understanding the application of OSL to the Missoula flood deposits.
The average TCN ages for the maximum extent of the Okanogan lobe at 15.4±1.4 ka and Purcell Trench lobe at 15.7±1.3 ka (Breckenridge and Phillips, 2010; Balbas et al., 2017, Table DR2) seem young relative to the radiocarbon-derived chronology. This is discrepancy is most evident relative to stratigraphic position of the ~16 k Set S tephra near the top of the glacial Lake Columbia section at Manila Creek (Hanson, 2013, p. 90, 116, 206), suggesting the demise of glacial Lake Columbia (and a Okanogan lobe terminus north of the Columbia valley) 300–500 yr after the tephra fall—about the same time as the TCN ages indicate ice pull-back from maximum positions. Post-deposition erosion of the TCN-dated surfaces or uncertain production rates could bias TCN ages to younger values. Another possibility is that the Set S tephra is younger than 16 ka, or possibly glacial Lake Columbia lasted longer than implied by the varve counts and tephra position in the Manila Creek section.
Interbedded within Missoula flood rhythmites are at least four, and possibly five Mount St. Helens tephras (Mullineaux et al., 1978; Moody, 1978, p. 43–44; Moody, 1987, p. 43–44; Waitt, 1980, p. 664; Waitt, 1985, p. 1274–1275; Bjornstad et al., 1991, p. 231; Bunker, 1982; Baker and Bunker, 1985). These tephras include the prominent So-Sg couplet of the Swift Creek Stage eruptions of Mount St. Helens. This couplet of Set S ashes is a prominent stratigraphic marker enabling correlation among flood slackwater sediments filling backflooded basins through much of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon. It offers potential to improve counts of floods (e.g. Clague et al., 2003) and to improve understanding of flood magnitude (e.g. Waitt, 1985a, p. 1284; Benito and O’Connor, 2003) and the timing of various flood routes. Clynne et al. (2008, p. 619) summarize available age information and ambiguities for the Set S, concluding it dates to ~16 ka but note discrepancies among reported ages of up to ~500 yr in both directions. A better age determination for this important and widespread stratigraphic marker would refine Missoula flood timing. Finding traces of this tephra in sections within the glacial Lake Missoula basin could enable more precise correlation of the lake history to flood and lake deposits along the flood route.
Interflood intervals indicated by varve counts between flood deposits and evidence of lake level fluctuations, paleomagnetic secular variation, and the offshore record summarized by Gombiner et al. (2016) suggest periods of a one to two years up to 100+ yr between floods or lake releases. Most varve records show a general up-section count increase followed by a more prolonged overall decrease in counts. The decreasing trend implies progressively shorter lake-formation times, smaller volumes, and hence smaller floods in conjunction with a thinning Purcell Trench lobe ice dam (e.g. Atwater, 1986, p. 18, 22). In general, the maximum varve counts are 40–60 in glacial Lake Columbia (Atwater, 1986, p. 11), glacial Lake Spokane (Waitt, 1984, p. 53), and at the Ninemile section of glacial Lake Missoula (Figure 7b; Chambers, 1971, appendix III); although Kiver et al. (1991, p. 240) report as many as 125 varves between flood beds in the Latah Creek section likely formed in glacial Lake Spokane. The 40–60 yr maximum interval is slightly to substantially less than those implied by other records, including: (1) The duration and varve counts in the Mission Valley section of Lake Missoula deposits where Levish (1997, p. 97–108) infers 66 lake cycles recorded by thickness variations in a sequence of ~2670 varves. Here, the average cycle is about 40 varves, but several have more than 60 and one has 107; (2) Paleomagnetic secular variation; Hanson (2013, p. 76–77, 114) suggests a best-match correlation giving a 55-yr flood recurrence interval within the uppermost ~46 flood beds and intervening lacustrine deposits at the Manila Creek section, which is close to Atwater’s varve counts for the lower part of the section but double or triple his counts for the upper part of the section measured by Hanson. Hanson (2013, p. 110) similarly determines a 55–80 yr refilling interval at the Rail Line section of glacial Lake Missoula; (3) The marine record described by Cosma and Hendy (2008, p. 52) and Gombiner et al. (2016, p. 135) shows a “stable” periodicity of ~80 yr separating the lowermost 22 flood beds deposited between 19.3 and 17.6 ka. Some of these discrepancies among the sites may owe to erosion of varves by floods (e.g Atwater, 1986, p. 11; Hanson, 2013, p. 39), or possibly incomplete flood records offshore (Gombiner et al., 2016, p. 35).
What this tells me @dlamberth, is that the interpretations of geologists is what speaks.
Unless there is direct evidence of anything, the inferences, extrapolations, and interpretations, are what basically tells the story.
When the story changes, it is either that direct evidence was found which refuted the geologists' interpretations, or the geologists are telling another story.
It isn't like the end of the Soviet Union. Some judgement must be applied to a change that is fairly slow to define when it ends. So, 11700 ka or 11500 ka or 10500 is a bit arbitrary, but it is definitely not 15000 ka or 5000 ka when the glacial period ended.
Of course, you can accept every estimation given you, and the estimations given you every time you hear the phrase "earlier than scientists previously thought/believed", but to believe you know, in my opinion, is to think you can know everything... when you can't.
It is evident, you also do not know what you think you know.
What you have failed to comprehend (willingly or otherwise) is that the periods of time that are worrying or alarming the people making those quotes have no impact on the broad timing of these floods. They are concerned about impacts on timing human artifacts, not floods that *might* have been seen by humans. (And that *might* is speculation based completely on the dating of human habitation sites from (you guessed it) radiocarbon and other dating techniques.)
I've scanned through the link. Thanks, good stuff. But I have no idea what your going on about. All the paper has done is to verify everything I've been saying. One of the things the paper brings up is the physical overlapping of evidence of the Bonneville Food with the Ice Age Floods in Washington. I knew about this, but now that you brought it up, we know the dating of the Ice Age Floods and can physically see where the Bonneville Flood meets the Ice Age Floods by the the geology of rushing water floods. There is an area where they over lap which tells a story.
Again, that date difference was about marine life (cooked marine life in pots to be specific), show how that is relevant to the Missoula flood dating (you haven't). It is not a general problem with land plants or animals.
Variation in dating between labs alone can be up to 1,000 years. It is like dating Queen Elizabeth II to William the Conqueror's time.
The alternative to radiocarbon dating is using archaeological artifacts found alongside human remains. This works if we find a skeleton carrying a coin minted by Julius Caesar, say. But that rarely happens.
This is the last time I will respond to any of your claims. Either you link me to a paper, or don't bother saying anything.
I doubt you have read a 100+ page scientific review paper, are these all quotes from it? I'm not getting any other links to pop up (not sure what the bold and blue are about, are they in the original).
Perhaps you missed the primary conclusion of the review. Dating is messy, other floods took place in the Columbia basin, and:
"Overall conclusions are that glacial Lake Missoula was extant and producing floods for at
least 3–4 ky during 20–14 ka. "
Since you seem intent on moving the date much later, this does not back your apparent claim.
Are you talking to the wrong poster?
It isn't like the end of the Soviet Union. Some judgement must be applied to a change that is fairly slow to define when it ends. So, 11700 ka or 11500 ka or 10500 is a bit arbitrary, but it is definitely not 15000 ka or 5000 ka when the glacial period ended.
What you have failed to comprehend (willingly or otherwise) is that the periods of time that are worrying or alarming the people making those quotes have no impact on the broad timing of these floods. They are concerned about impacts on timing human artifacts, not floods that *might* have been seen by humans. (And that *might* is speculation based completely on the dating of human habitation sites from (you guessed it) radiocarbon and other dating techniques.)
Cool, but radiocarbon dating is not fundamentally broken and it doesn't show ice age floods peaking or even happening 5000 years ago.
I've scanned through the link. Thanks, good stuff. But I have no idea what your going on about. All the paper has done is to verify everything I've been saying. One of the things the paper brings up is the physical overlapping of evidence of the Bonneville Food with the Ice Age Floods in Washington. I knew about this, but now that you brought it up, we know the dating of the Ice Age Floods and can physically see where the Bonneville Flood meets the Ice Age Floods by the the geology of rushing water floods. There is an area where they over lap which tells a story.
I explained what I am going on about.
You said, first of all, that the geologists are looking at direct evidence.
You then said that the rocks do not lie, but tell the story the geologists claim they tell.
Both of these assertions prove to be false.
Have we lost track of the focus here?
Your claim is you cannot be wrong. I'm showing you otherwise.
In other words, look as hard as you want, you will see what you want to believe, but what you want to believe, will not become fact, or truth, on that basis.
Ideas come, and ideas go. At the end of the day, they remain ideas.
I explained what I am going on about.
You said, first of all, that the geologists are looking at direct evidence.
You then said that the rocks do not lie, but tell the story the geologists claim they tell.
Both of these assertions prove to be false.
Have we lost track of the focus here?
Your claim is you cannot be wrong. I'm showing you otherwise.
In other words, look as hard as you want, you will see what you want to believe, but what you want to believe, will not become fact, or truth, on that basis.
Ideas come, and ideas go. At the end of the day, they remain ideas.
At one time in my past I was a mayor and would occasionally receive what I called "you you" letters. They were never nice as I was accused of this or that and never accurate. Into the trash they went.
At one time in my past I was a mayor and would occasionally receive what I called "you you" letters. They were never nice as I was accused of this or that and never accurate. Into the trash they went.
I absolutely believe what the Earth itSelf is showing us because the Earth cannot lie. And that is of a very old age, always changing and evolving in itself along with the life that inhabits it.
This is interesting and I already discussed it, reposting it changes it not that a 20 year difference in the dating of iron age artefacts does not affect the overall story of the Missoula floods.
Variation in dating between labs alone can be up to 1,000 years. It is like dating Queen Elizabeth II to William the Conqueror's time.
The alternative to radiocarbon dating is using archaeological artifacts found alongside human remains. This works if we find a skeleton carrying a coin minted by Julius Caesar, say. But that rarely happens.
The writer you copied this from made a ridiculous comparison with the "now vs. 1000 years ago" because that is not the kind of error being described. No artifact's age is being changed from now to 1000 years old or vice versa. When applied to 10000+ year old artifacts. It is also completely irrelevant because the paper on which it is based (which I read) is about using genomic mixing and drift to date human remains more accurately. (You didn't like it before when I was skeptical of that technique, oh well.) The Missoula floods *might* have been witnessed, but nothing about the dating is dependent on human remains. Applying the kinds of errors you are talking about is a 10-20% error in age of the deposits. Frankly, not that big of a deal.
You've linked papers, but generally have not engaged in any discussion of them. You use them like cudgels, and like with the text above, seem only willing to cut and paste material from them.
I am not sure what your purpose in attacking radiocarbon dating and with it the age of the Missoula flood is.
At one time in my past I was a mayor and would occasionally receive what I called "you you" letters. They were never nice as I was accused of this or that and never accurate. Into the trash they went.
Would you prefer I did not say "You"?
Did I accuse you of saying something you did not say?
If I did, please point it out, so that I can correct it if it is false, and apologize if I did an injustice.
Is it the part where I said, "Your claim is you cannot be wrong."
I'm sorry. You did not say, "@dlamberth cannot be wrong", but you did say a few things which suggested to me that you were arguing that you cannot be wrong.
If you are saying you can be wrong, I was wrong to say you claimed you cannot be wrong, and I apologize.
Are you saying you can be wrong?
dlamberth said: I absolutely believe what the Earth itSelf is showing us because the Earth cannot lie. And that is of a very old age, always changing and evolving in itself along with the life that inhabits it.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I also thought that was one place where it was being argued that she cannot be wrong.
I stand corrected if that is not the case, though.
At one time in my past I was a mayor and would occasionally receive what I called "you you" letters. They were never nice as I was accused of this or that and never accurate. Into the trash they went.
I was wondering... would it not have been considerate of the posters of those letters, to respond to them, in the hope of allaying their concerns, since they may have genuinely written you, with such concerns, and it may be possible, that while they may not have phrased what they had to say, in the most appealing way, they genuinely wanted a response?
Not everything we thing is "not nice", is as damaging as we may assume them to be, and we can correct a lot of misunderstandings, by responding in a "nice" way.
The trash does not remove misunderstandings. Communication does. Isn't that true?
Can you give me a valid reason for that sir? Why can the figure not be more at any given time?) and are you ignoring the article that mentioned thousands of years off mark - It turns out that the widely-used Carbon-14 dating method may be up to 2,000 years off the mark.?
