Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: Carolina Bays

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Carolina Bays

    As the originator or the "Saginaw" hypothesis, allow me to offer some insight. As noted above, the bays are close to "Elliptical;" or "Ovoid", yet my detailed survey of 50,000+ bays show they conform to five stylized ovoid shapes, along with a precious few that are actually elliptical. Each shape is restricted to a portion of the annulus running 900 to 1400 km around Saginaw. I interpret the slight variations from a geometric ellipse driven by interactions between the ejecta outflow trajectory and the tangential eastward speed of the Earth's surface as one moves south from Saginaw to lower latitudes. I apply the term "skew", with an airplane crab landing in cross wind as an analogy. Here are the planforms archetypes:



    My mapping of the bays uses Google Earth and the "Image overlay" facility to place one of those planforms over a bay, as a semi-transparent png file. It is the fitted to the bay in a best-effort to capture the stylistic variances seen in the archetype overlay. The overlay editing can only change the length and width of the presentation, and the only difference seen bay-to-bay is the eccentricity, While I have been offering these facilities to all for 10 years now, few have taken me up on the dare to actually look at how exquisitely robust the match is.

    Perhaps it is Google Earth, or the network speeds and computer power necessary to view my hsv-shaded LiDAR-resolution digital elevation maps projected on the virtual global that has limited review by others. That bare-earth imagery really bring out the true nature of the bay rims, which typically run 360º around the bay, regardless of what has been said about them having a "prominent SE rim".

    At the GSA Southeastern Section Meeting in Charleston this past March, I presented a talk announcing a web-based facility to view the bays and my overlays in a simple browser window. Even works well with latest mobile platforms. In a set of 550 web pages, I present one bay at a time in normalized horizontal 9x16 format, and it can be clicked up into full screen mode (browser ability dependent). To invite critical inspection of "my" planform fit, the web page offers a slider to roll on and off the overlay, using the visualization technique referred to as "before-after".

    These 550 bays are selected out of 15,000 appearing within two USGS 1º quadrants (Florence_W and Florence_E). The link here will take you directly to the sequence of bays from largest to smallest. One step up in the page hierarchy you will find a discussion of the "bayCarolina" archetype and some examples of diving deeper into the indexing of the 550 "before-after" bays, along with links to jump into Google Earth and look at all 15,000 bays in those two quads.

    Have a look: Planform Sliders, bayCarolina

    (I run on a shared platform and don't pay $$$ for a dedicated IP with SSL enabled, so some browsers state "not secure", since I sell nothing and ask for nothing by way of input).


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    As the originator or the "Saginaw" hypothesis, allow me to offer some insight. As noted above, the bays are close to "Elliptical;" or "Ovoid", yet my detailed survey of 50,000+ bays show they conform to five stylized ovoid shapes, along with a precious few that are actually elliptical. Each shape is restricted to a portion of the annulus running 900 to 1400 km around Saginaw. I interpret the slight variations from a geometric ellipse driven by interactions between the ejecta outflow trajectory and the tangential eastward speed of the Earth's surface as one moves south from Saginaw to lower latitudes....
    No one is disputing the fact that the bays are roughly ovals. The issue is the postulate that the bays formed as the result of impacts from a comet impact on or above the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago. It is obviously wrong when the bays in general have different dates, etc. See my post above yours. If you think that the bays around Saginaw were created in a single event then you need to show that they were created at the same time.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If you think that the bays around Saginaw were created in a single event then you need to show that they were created at the same time.
    I concur fully with your Reality. My post here was to simply to invite scientists to see how robustly the rims of 15,000 bays maintain precisely the same shape. It's OK if you don't try it out, but I do appreciate the opportunity to offer the visualization facility to the community, should someone care to check it our for themselves. And LiDAR is Reality, not obfuscated by vegetation, offering an easy way to discriminate recent (OSL datable) eolian dune features from the erosion resistant circumferential rim features.

    As for the date, you are correct in demanding proof of a common date of 788 ka, since "exceptional proof" is required for an exceptional claim. My two GSA presentations this year (SE and the recent Annual) both ended with a falsification statement to that effect, along with a call to engage in extensive Beryllium/Alluminum cosmic isotopic burial dating by anomalous regolith accumulations. 10Be/26Al can reach back 5 million years to discriminate the arrival date of the various "Post Miocene" non eolian surficial terrigenous sediments which mantel the coastal terraces. OSL can date only to 140 ka, leaving a wide gap across a vast majority of the Quaternary, because those sediments contain no datable fossils, and any organics are decidedly carbon dead.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago
    BTW, trying to strike me with a 12,900 date is unconscionable, and suggests that you have failed to reference my work, which is represented in over 20 posters and talks at GSA and AGU meeting over 15 years. As noted in a Cosmoquest post five years ago, I have been following the data regarding the temporal aspects of my proposal from the LGM to the Illinoian and then even earlier ice ages (and thanks to Be/Al dating we now know just when all those glacial tills were deposited).

    Since our presentation to the 2015 GSA North Central Meeting 4 1/2 years ago, our proposal invokes a well-documented 788 ka impact event. Please reference my work, not that of the YDB crowd. They do leverage my Saginaw triangulation and LiDAR work (because it is freely distributed), but I reject their date as totally unscientific due to C14 dating alone. The YDB smear is a big impediment for my work to be investigated (i.e., fail to even open a link to a GSA Abstract), because the anti-catastrophic legions find it to be an easily supported dismissive remark.

    Sadly, I have been drawn way off topic, which is to share the crisp planform shape of the bays in LiDAR.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    BTW, trying to strike me with a 12,900 date is unconscionable, and suggests that you have failed to reference my work, which is represented in over 20 posters and talks at GSA and AGU meeting over 15 years. As noted in a Cosmoquest post five years ago, I have been following the data regarding the temporal aspects of my proposal from the LGM to the Illinoian and then even earlier ice ages (and thanks to Be/Al dating we now know just when all those glacial tills were deposited).
    Cintos

    That comment is completely inappropriate. You do not accuse other members of inappropriate actions. If you have a problem with someone's post, you Report it (black triangle in the lower left corner) and you let the moderators deal with it.

    As it is, the question about the age of formation seems completely appropriate to the discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Cintos

    That comment is completely inappropriate. You do not accuse other members of inappropriate actions. If you have a problem with someone's post, you Report it.
    Guilty as charged. My apologies to Reality Check and to the forum community as a whole. I had no right to expect that Reality Check was familiar with my non-YDB date of 788 ka.

    I had hoped to enjoin the discussion of bay shape without going off-topic by discussing the temporal evidence of Carolina bay geomorphology. Swift is correct that the dating is important, and the community is correct in recognizing that theYDB is a non starter, being far too recent. I feel passionate about the need to do exacting dating using the best available technologies, as required to discriminate a 788,000 year old event from the gradualistic reworking applied to them since that date.

    Back on topic, my data shows that the Carolina bay rims are not conic sections. I have attempted to invite members of CosmoQuest to interrogate the LiDAR planform of 550 bays. Should any of them care to comment after reviewing them, however critically, I shall endeavor to remain dispassionate in my communications.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    6
    I'm not sure I understand why any discussion of the origin of the Carolina bays must be in a different thread from this one, but questions/comments about the age of their formation are completely appropriate to this thread. I guess the thread title pertaining to their shape and not their origin would be one way to differentiate what is OK and what is not OK for this particular thread, even though it seems to me that their shape would be a direct result of whatever process formed them into that shape. (can I say that in this thread?)

    Naturally, the Carolina bays unit geologic formation is an imprint of some kind of natural formative process, be it catastrophic or gradualistic or whatever. In that regard, it would seem that their formative mechanism and their observed shape would be inseparable. The imprint is a snapshot of the process. I assume that is what a Geologist would say (that's what they usually say to me, at least). The Davias Archetype planforms don't vary with size, no matter if the bay is only a few hundred meters in major axis length, or several kilometers. That is a very curious observation, and difficult to rationalize when considering any surface environmental forces that may have been responsible for shaping the Carolina bays. Further, there is a complete lack of any biotic detritus within the bulk sand layer in which the shallow depressions of the Carolina bays are expressed. The sand in the rims in particular is described by researchers as monotonously uniform, lacking any observable bedding structure or other discernible structure, stratigraphic or otherwise. This is a problem when trying to determine possible formative scenarios, especially any involving gradual process, where long term environmental exposure to shape their contours (all of their contours) would be expected to blow leaves, branches, bugs, or other biotic remnants into the sand, and presumedly some animals would die in or on the sand, leaving bones in that bulk volume as a result.

    Interestingly the sub-elliptical or generally oval shapes of the Carolina bays compare (identically?) to regional-scale ballistic targeting diagrams, which get their shape due to the laws of suborbital motion which govern such ballistic trajectories. As a practicing Orbit Analyst on a Dept. of Defense ComSat fleet in the post-cold war Aerospace industry, I saw institutional tools from that industry that were designed for analysis of ballistic trajectories and produced those shapes in all their subtle nuances.

    That similarity of the Carolina bays' shapes with regional ballistic targeting diagram shapes would suggest to me that the observed emplaced shapes of the Carolina bays may have somehow been governed by orbital Mechanics, or that the giant unit sand blanket with those tens of thousands of systematically oriented shallow oval depressions (and not a trace of any significant substrate damage beneath them relative to their variable scale or size) may be a suborbital ballistic emplacement. Any unpacking of that idea speaks to some possible origin of the bays, which I will leave out of this thread.

    Instead of dwelling on such a paradigm of origin for the Carolina bays, I will simply point out that the slightly-off-elliptical planforms of the Carolina bays, the six Davias Archetype shapes that apparently define 50,000+ bays and still counting, are easily derived using the ballistic targeting technique of conical perturbation. This is only true when also convoluting the perturbed cone of launch or trajectory vectors through a suborbital arc to trace their fallback or emplacement pattern as a set of those trajectories. Then it matches the observed planforms of the Carolina bays, when the cone is circular in cross section and the speed or magnitude of the velocity vector around the perimeter of the cone of launch vectors is allowed to vary by up to only 3 parts in 10,000 (a few centimeters per second out of 3.5 or 4.0 km/s), or 0.03%.

    That two stage convolution works for 50,000+ of the Carolina bays so far, a rather large sample count for any two-stage physical or mass transport convolution to be accurately predictive simply by chance. Readers may assume whatever they want about the origin of the Carolina bays in that case. The six Davias Archetype planform shapes of the Carolina bays are identically described by conical perturbation within Suborbital Analysis, using a circular cross section for the cone and no more than 3 parts in 10,000 for variation of launch speed. I have published some abstracts on this and the surrounding suborbital paradigm. The concept of Suborbital Obstruction Shadowing that I presented at a GSA conference provides for the Carolina bay shapes based on known Physical Mechanics such as proximal interactions of hypersonic bodies and Suborbital Analysis. It also implies some conditions of the formative process of the bays so I'll leave those details for any folks who may be interested or want to pursue that in a different thread.

    Search the phrase "Suborbital Obstruction Shadowing Harris GSA". The GSA page has an abstract along with further links to the poster elements that offer possible Mechanics of sand transport for the Carolina bays. Caution: it does suggest a mechanism of origin.

    It seems the bay rims are of a more compact and interlocking grain texture (angular to sub-angular, highly fractured) due to some kind of energetic emplacement process. This makes them hard to dig through or drill through vs. sand with smaller grains and rounded grain texture (i.e. normal sand affected by any known process of terrestrial transport, such as coastal, fluvial or aeolian with their traditional rounding of grain edges). The large and angular to sub-angular grain texture of the Carolina bay rim sand also preserves the rims to survive far longer than any pediment overburden when the environment of the local settings shift to erosional. In many cases the entire rim of a given Carolina bay may not express at all at the surface in the usual shallow and somewhat diffuse raised mound or hump where bays do have rims (typ 100 m wide but only 2 m high). It is not immediately obvious if such "rim gaps" or missing rims are due to lack of a rim being present in the shallow subsurface, or simply due to lack of erosion in the setting preventing exposure of a buried rim.

    Most of these concepts are well explained at M. E. Davias' Cintos.org web site and its detailed references. The extensive high-resolution LiDAR imagery of this gigantic sand blanket unit geologic formation, presented in outstanding volumes at Cintos.org, is an easy way to get lost in a timeless wonderland of geologic mystery. It is both fantastical and frightening. Nature is not a single discipline worker. We must follow suit if we are to decipher her imprint, seeking input on possible shape-influencing processes from all scientific disciplines.

    The Carolina bays formation covers roughly 400,000 square km as it is currently documented. It may still grow to include smaller, disconnected section that lie further from the general focus of the unit formation. Everywhere the sand is encountered, it is considered by geological researchers as allochthonous, or non-native to where it is found. For the observed average sand layer thickness of 2 to 10 meters, this represents somewhere between 1000 and 2000 cubic kilometers of "non-local" or non-indigenous sand that must have been transported from somewhere, but doesn't show the erosional wear of terrestrial transport (rounded grain texture). Whatever the ultimate combination of properties and processes that determined the shapes of the Carolina bays, the combined set of observations surrounding the Carolina bays eludes conventional explanation. Even harder to comprehend, the enormous scale of the overall unit formation has paralyzing implications if any kind of catastrophic process was responsible.

    THSHarris
    Last edited by Thsharris; 2019-Oct-06 at 02:12 PM. Reason: typos, a few omitted words, minor formatting (bold & italic)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thsharris View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why any discussion of the origin of the Carolina bays must be in a different thread from this one, but questions/comments about the age of their formation are completely appropriate to this thread. ...
    There is not much to question about the ages (plural) of the formation of the Carolina bays: OSL dating of the rims of the Carolina bays, paleoenvironmental records obtained from cores of Carolina bay sediments, and other research that shows that many of them are as old as, or older than, 60,000 to 140,000 BP.[16][17][18][32][33] Thus means that a single event could not have created all of the bays. Their formation was a process that lasted over tens of thousands of years. That does not rule out the possibility that some bays may have been created in an impact event but makes it hard (maybe impossible) to distinguish between bays from the process and the event.

    Thus writing "ballistic trajectories", etc. is a waste of time unless you can somehow identify the bays that must have been created in the impact event. Your conference presentation was based on an theory that has been discredited since the bay ages were measured in 1996.

    There also the coincidence that the impact created bays that matched the existing bays.

    ETA: A poster at a conference is not published, peer reviewed science. It is someone literally putting up a poster outside of the main conference meetings describing their ongoing work. The conference was GSA 2015. If the poster had credible science in it, it would be a published paper by 2019. What I read is a Thomas H. S. Harris ignoring the measured ages of the bays and writing lots of posters about the discredited impact origin of the bays but no published papers that I can see.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-06 at 08:30 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Falsiification of a 788,000 year formation age

    The vast majority of dates for Carolina bay rims have been funded by archeological research, extending down 50 cm into Carolina bay rims to date human artifacts buried by gradualistic blanketing of surficial sediments. Those exercises have been quite successful in documenting the history of human occupation over the last 20,000 years in North America. I reject that those dates correlate to the formation of the rims, as clearly the rims and their enclosed exotic wetlands were there before the PaleoIndians discovered their dry, elevated presence near rich hunting and fishing grounds (which certainly did not develop the year before humans arrived). Such dates falsify a YDB date, not one from 788,000 years ago.

    Since the 1930's, carbon dating has shown the deep bay organics to be older than 50,000 years, and are "Carbon Dead". Those findings are not a falsification of our 788,000 year formation age.

    Similar extensive analysis of pollen in bay sediments document the transition of the bays' paleoenvironment through multiple glacial ages, which does not falsify an MIS 20 date.

    Most correlative are the very few dates which reach 120,000 years with OSL (its practical maximum), but again are to be considered "no younger" ages, not falsification against a 788,000 year hypothesis.

    Our position holds that a wetland existing for 800,000 years, and surviving through 7 deep glacial cycles, would host many surficial features associated with a gradualistic landscape. Dating those surficial features do not date the rim, other than to constraint the age to be "older than". One might question just how such "wispy ephemeral" features could have survived that long. We deduce they are instead robust features deeply rooted into the landscape.

    LiDAR revels more bays are pirated by headward dissection of their host terrace than remain hydraulically closed and recognizable as Carolina bays. The foundational "terrace" is a Cretaceous-age passive continental margin, which has yet to be fully dissected despite that great age (take that, Utah!). Uncompromised bays only exist on broad undissected terraces, or on tiny slivers of undissected terraces far inland, such as The Ridge, a cretaceous-age drainage divide 200 masl far inland in South Carolina that hosts hundreds of beautifully preserved bays (but under assault from all sides).

    Our efforts will continue until Beryllium / Aluminum cosmic isotope burial dating of the underlying terrace surfaces fails to return supportive evidence of an anomalous regolith deposition across North America during the well-accepted Mid Pleistocene Impact event that also created the Australasian tektite strewn field as distal ejecta.

    I respect the conservative scientific approach that until such findings are identified and accepted, our hypothesis should be viewed as highly speculative. My offering to the thread is simply to share with the inquisitive mind 550 bays in my LiDAR interactive facility. I look forward to someone (anyone?) in the CosmoQuest community to view a few (or a few hundred) of those and report back on their take of LiDAR Reality.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    ...I respect the conservative scientific approach that until such findings are identified and accepted, our hypothesis should be viewed as highly speculative. My offering to the thread is simply to share with the inquisitive mind 550 bays in my LiDAR interactive facility. I look forward to someone (anyone?) in the CosmoQuest community to view a few (or a few hundred) of those and report back on their take of LiDAR Reality.
    Dating of human artifacts is not how some bays were dated to be 60,000 to 140,000 BP thus disposing of the impact hypothesis - either your hypothetical 788 ka impact event or the usual 12,900 years ago hypothesis to fit the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

    If the evidence is that a bay was formed after 140,000 BP then obviously no one can say this bay was formed about 500,000 years before that without evidence. If there is no valid dating of the bays especially to ~788,000 years ago then the hypothesis is not even a hypothesis. Why not attribute the bays to the dinosaur killer impact .

    ETA: That "788,000" number is from Australasian tektites while the Carolina bays are fairly local and are far from Australasia (and where are the tektites in the bays?).
    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319
    High resolution 40Ar-39Ar step heating dating of australites and indochinites, representing a large area of the Australasian strewn field, and more recently discovered tektite-like glasses from Central America (Belize) and Western Canada, were carried out. Precise plateau ages were obtained in all cases, yielding indistinguishable ages of 789 ± 9 ka for four australites, 783 ± 5 ka for four indochinites, 783 ± 17 ka for one Western Canadian and 769 ± 16 ka for one Belize impact glass. Concerning major elements and REEs, australites and the Western Canadian impact glass are indistinguishable. If the Western Canadian sample was transported by impact ejection and belongs to the Australasian strewn field, this implies extremely far ballistic transport of 9000 km distance, assuming a source crater in southern Asia. The distinct major element and REE composition of the Belize impact glass suggests formation in another separate impact event. We conclude that the Australasian/Western Canadian impact glasses formed 785 ± 7 ka ago in a single event and Belize impact glass in a separate event 769 ± 16 ka ago. The two impact events forming these two strewn fields occurred remarkably closely related in time, i.e., separated by <30 ka
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-07 at 01:16 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    The Quaternary evolution of Herndon Bay, a Carolina Bay on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA): implications for paleoclimate and oriented lake genesis
    Geological investigations of Herndon Bay, a Carolina bay in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA), provide evidence for rapid basin scour and migration during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 of the late Pleisto-cene. LiDAR data show a regressive sequence of sand rims that partially backfill the remnant older portions of the bay, with evidence for basin migration more than 600 meters to the northwest. Basin migration was punctuated by periods of stability and construction of a regressive sequence of sand rims with basal muddy sands incorporated into the oldest rims. Single grain OSL ages place the initial formation of each sand rim from oldest to most recent as ca. 36.7 +/-4.1, 29.6 +/-3.1, and 27.2 +/-2.8 ka. These ages indicate that migration and rim construction was coincident with MIS 3 through early MIS 2, a time of rapid oscillations in climate. The fact that Carolina bay basins can migrate , yet maintain their characteristic shape...
    This is a bay with multiple sand rims, the oldest of which is dated to 36.7 +/-4.1 ka.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    6
    That paper by Chris Moore is addressed in detail here:
    https://www.andywhiteanthropology.co...-carolina-bays
    As a reality check, when we are looking at reworked surface sediments (0.5 m depth or less, typically) then we are asking for recent OSL age results. If we want to find the age of the emplaced Carolina bays, go to the foundational rim structure, bore to the lower contact, and study the sand just above that contact. Consistent sampling at such locations at various bays should provide consistent dating or age results. Make sure it is the large-grained, angular to sub-angular, highly fractured and interlocked, monotonously uniform part of the structure. Thats the old and un-reworked part of the rims that doesn't erode easily at all.

    That's the hypothesis. Its backed up by extensive morphologic observation with respect to the unit geologic sand blanket formation in terms of erosion, adjacent overprinting, interaction with neighboring aeolian dunes where present, and other features of the 400,000 square kilometer formation.

    The energetic emplacement referred to by Moore seems to be consistent with a rapid atmospheric descent from NW toward SE that would naturally also most likely influence the final emplaced shape of the bay(s). And that's important since we are talking about their shape in this thread, even though those observations of the structure by Moore are consistent with such "energetic emplacement" origin. As another reality check, the sand scooping out lenses of the substrate and carrying them downrange to the SE as observed in the paper would also be consistent with rapid descent to energetic ground contact of a 2 to 10 meter thick blanket of sand going several hundred miles per hour or a few km/s. Moore is calling it like he sees it, but shallow sampling at depths subject to rework (as indicated by Moore himself) is never going to be representative of the deeper, more permanent (un-reworked) structure based on observations of erosional resistance in the formation as stated above. Thats 10 years and 50,000+ samples worth of observation using high precision LiDAR altimetry over the 400,000 square km known coverage of the blanket to date, as a very solid reality check.

    I think I'm starting to see why any discussion of the origin of the Carolina bays may be outlawed from this thread, since it seems to be such a somewhat contentious and emotionally charged issue for some forum members who can't seem to manage response without aggressive, unwarranted or inappropriate attacks, me thinks.

    THSHarris

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Hypothesis, conjecture or speculation...whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If there is no valid dating of the bays especially to ~788,000 years ago then the hypothesis is not even a hypothesis. Why not attribute the bays to the dinosaur killer impact .

    ETA: That "788,000" number is from Australasian tektites while the Carolina bays are fairly local and are far from Australasia (and where are the tektites in the bays?).
    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319
    Reality Check makes a valid point. Perhaps our Mid Pleistocene Transition Impact scenario for the Carolina bays is not yet a "hypothesis". As I mentioned in my last post, and as quoted in Reality Check's reply, until more data is put forward supporting an anomalous regolith aggregation event on the continent, it is only speculation. I have identified only three supportive 10Be/26Al burial dating data points thus far, but thousands will likely be required. Agreed!

    Can we speak of speculation at CosmoQuest, or must it be a proven hypothesis... whatever that is?

    In the opening episode of Cosmos, Dr. Sagan offers this guidance:
    We wish to pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism, both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.
    I have used this as guidance across my 15 years of bay research. I do not hold my personal insight as facts, but merely speculation. I can share facts about the bays - as illustrated in my LiDAR maps integrated into Google Earth, and my detailed survey of 50,000 bays and their metrics. Those images and their generated measurements are facts, accepted by all at the GSA and AGU as being faithful renderings of billions of digital LiDAR elevation cloud points. And allow me to once again state my only purpose for entering this thread was to share those facts by making my maps and data as transparent and accessible as possible for 550 bays, requiring only web browser.

    Reality check was kind enough to evoke the tektites from the Australian DISTAL ejecta strewn field as being associated with tektite finds in the Northwest Territories and Belize. The Australasian tektites are direct evidence of terrestrial cosmic impact(s) that has been discussed in over one thousand peer reviewed papers. Many of those papers offer proof that the impact was into a continental landmass, and specifically exclude a marine target. And now, it seems multiple impacts at the same time, each producing tektites (an exceedingly rare occurrence found in only three crater-to-strewnfield pairings out of ~180 of confirmed Earth cratering events) and each and every one of those "multiple impact craters" from just yesterday geologically have not been found.

    We do speculate the Carolina bays are artifacts in a "local" ejecta blanket associated with the Australasian DISTAL ejecta strewn field of tektites. In half century of searching searching the Indochina strewnfield region for the DISTAL tektites' parent impact structure, there has not been one ounce of classic proximal or medial ejecta identified there. To solve that quandary, many are now declaring tektites as the requisite proximal ejecta. I reject that, and furthermore have no expectation of finding DISTAL ejecta tektites in the proximal/medial ejecta blanket that hosts the Carolina bays. Our rational for joining the two events is as easy as applying Occam's Ruler: there simply should be only one massive impact event during the Pleistocene who's impact structure is MIA.
    Last edited by Cintos; 2019-Oct-07 at 04:59 AM. Reason: erroneous font modifier corrected

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    400 cross-bay transect relief maps

    Back on the thread subject, allow me to offer another set of my work product that documents the "shape of the bays". As a component of the ~400 "Carolina bay of the Day" posts I had made to a Google + blog from 2012 through 2014, each bay's LiDAR elevation map was rendered from point cloud data using Global Mapper GIS, and augmented with a cross-bay transect and its attendant vertical profile across that transect. When Google + folded earlier this year, I began the process of re-generating each post on my own site, an effort still underway.

    In addition, I created a 400-page "slide show" containing just the elevation transect maps. The site is mobile friendly, and allows the thumbnails to be scrolled through for selection, or just sequentially page through the full-size images. Many of these were produced using the original 3-meter resolution North Carolina LiDAR, which was revolutionary at the time (early 2000's), but comes up short when compared to todays standard horizontal grid of 15 to 30 cm. I have made no attempt to include the rim height in the survey metrics of the bays, as many are filled with meters of organics, so the evidence in these elevation maps must suffice for now.

    The example transect elevation map below, from the CBotD site, yields the following metrics:
    • Location: 33.17081839645407,-81.98760552555694
    • Major: 0.81 km . . . Minor: 0.59 km
    • Eccentricity: 0.681
    • Area: 38.48 hectares
    • Bearing: 161.16º
    • Elevation: 89.17 m
    • Archetype: baySouth
    • Effective Diameter: 699.958 m

    The bay presents several different aspects of rim evolution as one traverses it. My speculative interpretation: some foundational rim remains imbedded in the surrounding pediment, a stretch to the west is shared with a neighboring bay, a section to the east has been unroofed by sheet erosion to the nearby drainage basin and headward stream erosion is attacking the rim on the northern and southwestern sides. Efforts by humans to drain the bay has allowed it to be clear-cut (it was likely full of beautiful Pond Cypress before 1700), but remains a wetland.

    The bay can be inspected interactively using the Google Earth Virtual Globe and this KMZ file.

    Last edited by Cintos; 2019-Oct-07 at 04:56 PM. Reason: and/an

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thsharris View Post
    That paper by Chris Moore is addressed in detail here:
    https://www.andywhiteanthropology.co...-carolina-bays...
    The reality check is that bays have been dated using OSL and other techniques and none of them have been dated to your 788 ka impact event. They have been dated to be over ~500, 000 years younger. That means you have no dating evidence to support your hypothesis.
    The blog article A New Paper on the Origin and Evolution of the Carolina Bays is about the Moore et. al. paper being more evidence that the bays were formed over a period, not in a singe event.
    A new paper by Chris Moore and colleagues (see full reference below) in Southeastern Geology provides more evidence that the bays were formed and modified over long periods of time by natural, terrestrial processes. You can read the paper for yourself here.
    ...
    The evidence and analysis that Moore et al. present is a pretty strong argument against the idea that the bays were formed by a single event (i.e., an extraterrestrial impact). I encourage you to take a look at the paper. I'll just paste in a paragraph from their conclusion (pg. 168):

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    Reality Check makes a valid point. Perhaps our Mid Pleistocene Transition Impact scenario for the Carolina bays is not yet a "hypothesis". ..
    That is correct, Cintos. That impact scenario does not explain the existing data which is a fundamental requirement for a scientific hypothesis. So it is at best a speculation, at worst science fiction.
    The Australasian tektites from an impact ~790 ka ago are thought to be from an Australasian impact. They were found in Australasia! You have given no evidence that tektites of the same date have been found in the Carolina bays.

    More posts with the trivial fact that the Carolina bays are roughly oval. We have agreed that the Carolina bays are roughly oval since the beginning of the thread. Geologists have described the shapes of the Carolina bays for many decades (from the 1930's by memory).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    Reality check was kind enough to evoke the tektites from the Australian DISTAL ejecta strewn field as being associated with tektite finds in the Northwest Territories and Belize.
    The paper I cited is that the Australasian tektites are not associated with both the Northwest Territories and Belize tektites.
    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319
    "783 ± 5 ka for four indochinites, 783 ± 17 ka for one Western Canadian and 769 ± 16 ka for one Belize impact glass" means that Australasian and Belize tektites came from separate impacts by date.
    "The distinct major element and REE composition of the Belize impact glass suggests formation in another separate impact event" means that Australasian and Belize tektites came from separate impacts by composition.
    The evidence suggests that the Australasian and Western Canadian tektites came from the same event (same date, same composition so the alternative is the unlikely event of 2 impacts at around the same date in similar terrain).

    A tektite is a "black, green, brown, or gray natural glass formed from terrestrial debris ejected during meteorite impacts.". There have been many meteorite impacts. Cherry picking one with no evidence turns speculation into fiction. Arbitrarily turning 2 impact events into 1 impact event is definitively fiction!

    I suspect that tektites give the longest range of an impact. So the Australasian and Western Canadian tektites suggest that a 790 ka ago impact did not create ejecta that got as far as the Carolina bays. But you can always add to your story that geologists somehow cannot find these Australasian and Western Canadian tektites in the bays.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thsharris View Post
    I think I'm starting to see why any discussion of the origin of the Carolina bays may be outlawed from this thread, since it seems to be such a somewhat contentious and emotionally charged issue for some forum members who can't seem to manage response without aggressive, unwarranted or inappropriate attacks, me thinks.
    This is not true, Thsharris, since this thread is partially a discussion of the scientifically supported origin of the Carolina bays. You are free to make up stories and post them. We are free to point out that is all they are. The existing physical evidence and your lack of evidence says that these are unsupported stories.

    The Carolina bays are dated to a range of dates: many of them are as old as, or older than, 60,000 to 140,000 BP. You have cherry picked one impact event out of many (Australasian strewnfield) which happened ~500,000 years before the date of the oldest bay.

    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319 has 1 Western Canadian tektite that suggests that the ejecta from the impact that created the Australasian tektites got to western Canada. You have cherry picked one impact event which probably did not have ejecta that traveled to the Carolina bays (eastern USA).

    The orientation of the Carolina bays suggested an impact event with ejecta from the area of the Laurentide Ice Sheet to the north of Carolina, etc You have cherry picked one impact event with ejecta probably coming from a different direction.

    ETA: This reduces to a couple of questions.
    What evidence do you have that the Carolina bays were all formed 790 ka ago?
    What evidence do you have linking the formation of the Carolina bays to the impact that created the Australasian tektites (or even the Belize tektites)?
    No evidence makes your hypothesis into a speculation at best.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-07 at 10:42 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    All

    This thread has become a bit of a quandry. It is advocating a non-mainstream idea and thus belongs in our Against The Mainstream forum, though in a field we don't often deal with. The latest discussion got added to a previous non-ATM thread. And the ATM idea seems to be advocated by two different people (Thsharris and Cintos), though our ATM rules forbid collaborative efforts.

    So here is what we are going to do.

    I have split all the recent posts into this new ATM thread. Since Cintos started it, it is YOUR thread. Thsharris, you may collaborate with Cintos behind the scenes (such as by PM), but you may not advocate in this thread.

    Cintos, since you did not initially post in ATM, I will give you an out. Please very carefully review our rules, particularly rule 13, and the stickies at the top of the ATM forum. If you are not prepared or do not wish to follow those special rules, please say so in your very next post and this thread will be close; no harm, no foul. Otherwise, you will be expected to follow all the requirements of the ATM forum.

    If you wish to pass the baton to Thsharris, that will require special discussion among the Moderation Team. The best way to communicate that, or any other questions or concerns or desires, is to use the Report button for this post (black triangle, with !, lower left corner).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,793

    Wiki Article

    The current Wiki article is here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays

    Have fun!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    6
    It is good to bring up cherry picking. This is typically a technique used in Carolina bay research such as Moore's paper reference in the above thread, where the author applies dating to a self-admitted reworked sedimentary overburden (surface sediments) in an effort to find the date of an underlying stratigraphic geologic unit. This approach would fail any freshman Geology class.

    Likewise, picking the oldest OSL-derived date would be cherry picking if the value were somewhere shy of 140 ka, the old-age limit of the OSL technique. Instead, it is simply an indication of open-ended age. 140 ka results from applied OSL dating tell us that the age must be something beyond 140 ka. This fact is not understood by many who quote the values of OSL, and I only recently looked into it to get a better feel for that technique.

    River terrace dating in the Carolinas where Carolina bays exist on some terraces but not on others has roughly constrained the age of the Carolina bays conformal unit geologic formation sand blanket between 160 ka and 1.6 Ma. Unfortunately the work also assumes a constant sedimentation rate, an idea immediately voided if a 2 to 10 meter thick blanket of sand suddenly descended from space over the period of a few minutes, as is now suspected based on the imprint. Of course, this also borders on a circular argument. Its similar to the idea that "the crater was in the ice but the ice melted so the crater is missing..." (disappearing evidence) and somewhat similar to "the ice jumped off the planet because of high post-impact temperature" which may also be disappearing evidence unless water in the shadowed regions at the poles of the Moon shares the same D/H ratio as terrestrial water, in which case some transport explanation would be in order.

    Lets look at the Kinetic Energy (KE) of the Australasian (AA) tektite melt.
    KE = 1/2 Mass times (velocity)squared
    mass = 30 to 60 billion tons, which also equals 30 to 60 trillion kg at 1000 kg per ton
    Velocity = 10 km/s (Chapman, 1962, 1963, 1964) which also equals 10,000 meters per second.

    So KE in the lower mass case (to be conservative) is 3 x 10^21 kg/(m^2) where ^ signifies "raised as exponent" and kg/(m^2) units of energy are "Joules"
    This converts to ~717 Gigatons of TNT equivalent energy for the distal ejecta alone. As a reference the Chicxulub impact that helped finish off the dinosaurs ~ 65 million years ago is estimated to be roughly 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more than our tektite transport KE minimum

    That minimum is only for the tektite transport. In another tektite event (central European) the crater volume mass-to-tektite mass is estimated at 10^9-to-1. If we reduce that by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude just to be conservative again, the indication of excavated mass in the Australasian tektite event is 5 orders of magnitude more than the tektite mass alone, or a total excavated mass of 3*10^18 kg or 3*10^21 grams, essentially the same order of mass as Earth's entire atmosphere. Now we are getting into the Kinetic Energy scale of Chicxulub or even greater, but all we did was consider any proximal component associated with the distal AA tektite ejecta.

    Naturally this is based on observations of impact cratering where the most distal ejecta is the smallest mass fraction out of the hole relative to increasingly more proximal ejecta, with there typically being orders of magnitude difference in distal vs. proximal mass fractions.

    This amount of KE would excavate the entire surface of the Earth to several meters depth, so something doesn't make sense. Maybe the excavated mass was mostly ice. But if that much ice were liberated (it would take a huge bolide at a shallow angle into a thick ice sheet to involve that much ice mass) how would we know? Perhaps one way would be that we are still here discussing it as a species, since it apparently didn't ignite Earth's entire biosphere and collapse the global food chain, or induce an age of global cooling and fungus growth, as was the case from the Chicxulub event. Would that be circular logic? It may be indeed, especially if it were not based on measured observations of the AA tektite imprint and known cratering mass ejecta ratios.

    Another way may be to find a large proximal ejecta blanket on the opposite side of Earth from the Australasian tektite strewn field, where the Physical Mechanics of ejecta transport at the unusually high KE of the AA tektites tell us it must lie. Like the Carolina bays for example, if that is what they represent. Not sure yet, since we would obviously need more evidence to solidify such a claim. Of course that blanket would have to have unique features that identify it as being distinctly different from other formations, and likely some form of alteration from a supposedly very violent impact ejection transport and emplacement cycle. That much KE has to leave some kind of mark during partitioning at impact, but if large volumes of ice absorbed the hit and then transferred it to the substrate, the resulting convolution of imprinting would be unique and possibly unrecognizable by conventional wisdom. And that is the take away here.

    The point is that the mid Pleistocene Transition Impact event was much higher in KE yield than most researchers feel comfortable admitting, as indicated by the tektites themselves. And that is while being overly conservative on the mass estimates by orders of magnitude. So we would expect some observable effects, such as the well documented mass extinctions of benthic foraminifera in every ocean basin at every depth that occurred at the mid Pleistocene Transition.

    Additionally that Geochim' Acta paper mentioned in the thread above (Schwarz et al., 2016) also presents valuable evidence. Their proposed date at 789 ka tektite formation date is identical, within error of measurement, to the precursor spike of the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic reversal, Earth's most recent complete magnetic reversal. Further evidence may be gleaned from Barnes (1990) in his review of tektite research to that date. AA splash form tektites have the same Rare Earth Element profile , within error of measurement, as that of the North American Shale Composite geologic reference standard.

    Peace -

    THSH

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,267
    I looked at the images in the first post and now I can’t stop thinking of garlic.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,793

    Hmm . . .

    Are similar structures found anywhere other than North America? I couldn't find any on a quick check.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2019-Oct-08 at 04:58 PM. Reason: typo

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Thsharris View Post
    It is good to bring up cherry picking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    <snip>
    And the ATM idea seems to be advocated by two different people (Thsharris and Cintos), though our ATM rules forbid collaborative efforts.

    So here is what we are going to do.

    I have split all the recent posts into this new ATM thread. Since Cintos started it, it is YOUR thread. Thsharris, you may collaborate with Cintos behind the scenes (such as by PM), but you may not advocate in this thread.

    Maybe I didn't make myself clear. ATM is for one advocate to defend an ATM idea; public collaboration is not allowed. I let this post go, but next one gets an infraction.

    Since Cintos started this, I gave him the lead. If you two want to switch, you both need to inform the Moderation team, who will then consider the request.

    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    I looked at the images in the first post and now I can’t stop thinking of garlic.
    Let's try to stay serious on this.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Thsharris View Post
    It is good to bring up cherry picking. ...
    You misunderstand what you are cherry picking. Cherry picking is starting with a bias and picking data out of a range of data to support it, ignoring the existence of the other data which may debunk the bias. For some reason you are going on about a impact 790 ka years ago that created the Australasian tektites. You are ignoring that you have given no evidence of Australasian tektites in the Carolina bays. You are ignoring the measured dates of the Carolina bays (not just the Moore paper) are about 600,000 years older. You are ignoring the orientation of the Carolina bays which suggest any impact would be to the north, not toward Australasia.

    Then we get an couple of insults of the Moore et. al paper authors who did not cherry pick and are geologists that know geology.
    The Quaternary evolution of Herndon Bay, a Carolina Bay on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA): implications for paleoclimate and oriented lake genesis by Christopher R. Moore, Mark Brooks, Peter Robertson Parham and David Mallinson.
    Geological investigations of Herndon Bay, a Carolina bay in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina (USA), provide evidence for rapid basin scour and migration during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 of the late Pleisto-cene. LiDAR data show a regressive sequence of sand rims that partially backfill the remnant older portions of the bay, with evidence for basin migration more than 600 meters to the northwest. Basin migration was punctuated by periods of stability and construction of a regressive sequence of sand rims with basal muddy sands incorporated into the oldest rims. Single grain OSL ages place the initial formation of each sand rim from oldest to most recent as ca. 36.7 +/-4.1, 29.6 +/-3.1, and 27.2 +/-2.8 ka. These ages indicate that migration and rim construction was coincident with MIS 3 through early MIS 2, a time of rapid oscillations in climate. The fact that Carolina bay basins can migrate , yet maintain their characteristic shape
    They took a bay with probably not measured OSL dates and measured the OSL dates of the rims. The bay was picked because it has multiple rims that allow them to look at how the bay migrated after formation. Thus the title is about the evolution of the bay.

    The rest of the post is irrelevant. Speculations without evidence are fiction, not science. Formal questions for you to answer.
    IF01: List the papers that discovered Australasian tektites in the Carolina bays.
    An answer is that there are none. The evidence is Australasian tektites have only been found as far as Western Canada.
    Schwarz WH et. al. (2016) Coeval ages of Australasian, Central American and Western Canadian tektites reveal multiple impacts 790 ka ago. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 178: 307-319 has 1 Western Canadian tektite that suggests that the ejecta from the impact that created the Australasian tektites got to western Canada. The Carolina bays are on the eastern seaboard which as roughly 3000 kilometers away.

    IF02: List the papers that dated the ages of the Carolina bays to 790 ka years ago.
    An answer is that there are none. All of the measured ages for Carolina bays have been 600,000 years older. Carolina bays - Age
    Although some questions about their chronology remain a matter of discussion, a variety of dating techniques constrained the age of the Carolina bays. The consideration of multiple lines of evidence, e.g. radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and palynology, indicate that the Carolina Bays predate the start of the Holocene at least by tens of thousands of years to over a hundred thousand years. The range of dates can be interpreted that they were either created episodically over the last tens of thousands of years or were created at time over a hundred thousand years ago and have since been episodically modified.[16][17][18]
    IF03: Show how the impact 790 ka years ago that created the Australasian tektites also created the Carolina bays with their measured orientation.
    It was this orientation that encouraged placing the impact hypothesis on the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Carolina bays - Orientation.

    IF04: How did your Carolina bays survive the Laurentide Ice Sheet after 790 ka years ago?
    The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.
    At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]
    The Carolina bays are elliptical depressions concentrated along the Atlantic seaboard within coastal Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Jersey... Maybe a reason that the last growth of the Laurentide Ice Sheet was chosen is that previous glaciation would destroy the northern bays. There is also glacial outwash that lay down identified sedimentary layers. Maybe these should have destroyed bays? Or should bays have these sedimentary layers?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-08 at 08:38 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16

    Oriented Lakes

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Are similar structures found anywhere other than North America? I couldn't find any on a quick check.
    A common falsification raised against the Carolina bays as catastrophic landforms is the existence of similar landforms elsewhere in the world. The point was driven home in Kaczorowski’s 1977 “The Carolina Bays: A Comparison With Modern Oriented Lakes”. Ironically, the most-referenced anti-catastrophic publication is that thesis paper, not peer reviewed or ever formally re-tested, available only in a double-spaced typewriter imprinted and tape-bound booklet. I possess one of the few original imprints in existence, it even carries a signed inscription from the author.

    Kaczorowski presented oriented and aligned lakes in Chile, along the North American Arctic Circle, and on the Texas High Plains. Close inspection of each of those shows them to display all the random shoreline artifacts expected of gradualistic landforms.

    Those in Chile are clearly clam-shell blowous playas being driven across flatlands by a tightly constrained prevailing wind field. Here is his Figure 27.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Chile.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	195.7 KB 
ID:	24600
    Kaczorowski notes how these are in a unidirectional prevailing wind that is driving the entire lake downwind, and later prepares an experiment where he creates a clamshell lake from a purely circular depression in sand, then applies a 50%-50% duty cycle "prevailing wind" 180º apart every 15 min. This generates back-to-back clamshells which do not migrate, nor look like any Carolina bay in the Survey as it possesses two pointy ends. When I approach the cognoscenti about the 50-50 duty cycles, they swirl their hands in the air declaring the katabatic winds during the glacial ages went back and forth like that. Not.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Kaczorowski_Fig40.gif 
Views:	8 
Size:	168.8 KB 
ID:	24601

    Along the Arctic Circle are found numerous aligned and oriented water-filled periglacial features. Here is Kaczorowski's Figure 16:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Alaska.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	97.3 KB 
ID:	24602
    In his description he acknowledges they are considered ice-push features, and proceeds to share Short & Wright's (1974) landscape control by structural lineaments. At last Month's GSA Annual Meeting, Wolf et al of the Geological Survey of Canada presented a talk entitled "Late Quaternary Landscape Evolution And Origin Of The Oriented-Lakes Coastal Plain, Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, Western Arctic Canada". Their assessment was similar: Paleo drainage across a deltaic formation had been crossed by still active dunes, separating segments of the drainage basins into individual lakes. The orientation followed the old drainage pattern as it shifted across the peninsula. I maintain that such control would not be present from New Jersey to Lousianna.

    Ovoid lakes in Southeastern Australia are occasionally invoked as demonstrating similar mechanisms as the Carolina bays. Here is an image of them:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AustralianSaltLakes2.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	106.9 KB 
ID:	24603
    Another rag-tag assortment of gradualistic lakes. Here is the defense as stated by Huddleston, trying to have it both ways:
    “Some of the salt lake/playas deviate sufficiently from the elliptical to circular morphology to warrant exclusion from the Carolina Bay classification even though their morphologies may be in a continuum and their genesis identical.”
    There, you have it. Identical.

    The Rainwater basins along the Platt River Drainage in Nebraska were noted by Kuzila and Zanner as being related to the Carolina bays by common geomorphology. In this case we agree. Kuzila cored several of these landforms and discovered that the surficial expression was driven by landforms 10 to 20 meters below, which were even crisper in rim detail. The soils he traversed were well-recognized blankets of glacial age loess dating back hundred of thousands of years. He never did get an age on the paleosurface controlling the present-day landscape. Here is my mash-up of his coring work at one basin. He informed me that further dating work using 10Be/26Al was up to the next generation....
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	McMurtreyMarshBayLiDAR_Kuzila.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	825.1 KB 
ID:	24604
    Allow me to offer a Google Earth KMZ file that displays the two basins and the transects. About 600 Rainwater basins are included in the Carolina Bay Survey, and document a SE<>NW alignment complementing the NW<>SE of those along the Atlantic Coast in our triangulation network.
    Last edited by Cintos; 2019-Oct-08 at 09:36 PM. Reason: Link edit

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF04: How did your Carolina bays survive the Laurentide Ice Sheet after 790 ka years ago?

    The Carolina bays are elliptical depressions concentrated along the Atlantic seaboard within coastal Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Jersey... Maybe a reason that the last growth of the Laurentide Ice Sheet was chosen is that previous glaciation would destroy the northern bays. There is also glacial outwash that lay down identified sedimentary layers. Maybe these should have destroyed bays? Or should bays have these sedimentary layers?
    I have attempted numerous times to admit we do not yet have evidence of the bay's dating to 788ka. Shall I say it again? OK: The C14 and OSL dating technology does not have the capability of identifying such a date. They can only provide Not Younger Than dates. You actually provide some references to discussions that they may be hundreds of thousands of years old, again perhaps because you are still prosecuting the YDB, not a Mid-Pleistocene event. Please do not bring YDB prosecution questions to this thread.

    You suggest again that I invoke the "last growth of the Laurentide Ice Sheet". Perhaps that was simply transcribed from an earlier IF attacking the YDB dating. But thank you for raising the topic of ice sheet extent. Greg Balco and associates have done some extremely eye-opening dating on Laurentide Ice Sheet growth and retreat over the past 2.5 million years. Finally, after generations of geologists attempting to date all those events that literally describe the Quaternary, we now have the answer thanks to the application of Beryllium/Aluminum isotopic burial dating of glacial tills found across North America. There are no Carolina bays in existence on surfaces known to have been covered by any of those advances, so I certainly don't expect any glacial debris in them. There are well-recorded finding of pollen in bay basin organic fill that document the paleoclimate changes associated with the 100,000 years glacial cycles.

    As for sediment infilling, I refer to the Nebraska rainwater basins, where those massive "Carolina bays" have been blanked by many meters of glacial-era loess deposits, yet their formative rims are expressed up to the surface through those effectively paper-thin sheets (10 meters blanketing 4 kilometer structures).

    So yes, bays have sedimentary layers blanketing them. To be expected after 800,000 years of exposure to the elements. Hence our disappointment with those who measure the ages of those superficial sediments and declare they have identified the date of bay creation. Not Younger Than.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    A common falsification raised against the Carolina bays as catastrophic landforms is the existence of similar landforms elsewhere in the world. The point was driven home in Kaczorowski’s 1977 “The Carolina Bays: A Comparison With Modern Oriented Lakes”. ...
    Say that there is a geological mechanism where consistent prevailing winds create rough ovals in soil. That will happen everywhere that the conditions are right over millions of years. There will be various formation dates of these ovals. There will be various orientations of these ovals. No one would be ignorant enough to say that all of these ovals were created in 1 impact event at a specific date of 790 ka years ago. The existence of similar landforms elsewhere in the world does falsify formation of all bays in the world as impact ejects.

    Since you and Thsharris are supporting the same ATM idea, maybe you can answer my questions if Thsharris does not.
    IF01: List the papers that discovered Australasian tektites in the Carolina bays.
    An answer is none leaving unsupported guesses. Any large impact anywhere in the world in the last probably million years could have created the bays.

    IF02: List the papers that dated the ages of the Carolina bays to 790 ka years ago.
    An answer is none leaving guesses. Remember that assuring that no bay dates are correct leaves your idea without support. Asserting that the bay dates cannot go that far back also leaves your idea without support.

    IF03: Show how the impact 790 ka years ago that created the Australasian tektites also created the Carolina bays with their measured orientation.
    So far I have only seen rough invalid calculations, e.g. KE that melts the surface of the Earth to several meters which has not happened in billions of years. Not one calculation on how massive ejecta from probably Australasia landed on the eastern North America seaboard with none of the lighter tektites.

    IF04: How did your Carolina bays survive the Laurentide Ice Sheet after 790 ka years ago?

    One more question:
    IF05: Where is the ejecta or ejecta impact features from your 790 ka year impact in the Carolina bays?
    One reason that the bays being created from any impact event was rejected was the lack of ejecta or ejecta impact features from any impact. There were no meteorite fragments, shatter cones or planar deformation features.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Cintos View Post
    I have attempted numerous times to admit we do not yet have evidence of the bay's dating to 788ka. ...
    That is my point - the maximum measured age of the bays is ~600,00 years after your ATM idea thus your ATM idea is currently wrong. Trivial facts about 2 dating techniques leaves your ATM idea currently wrong (C14 goes back 50,000 years, OSL goes back ~400,000 years and they both give bay ages of > 600,00 years after your ATM idea). No one expects C14 or OSL to support your unsupported 788ka. What they give are measured bay ages that debunk your ATM idea.

    A couple of informal questions to emphasize my point.
    C14 dating gives a bay an age of 30,000 BP years for example. This is within the ability of C14 dating. Where did the 20,000 years of organic matter that should be in the bay according to your ATM idea go, Cintos?
    OSL dating gives a bay an age of 100,000 BP years for example. This is within the ability of OSL dating. Where did the 300,000 years of buried minerals that should be in the bay according to your ATM idea go, Cintos?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays#Age
    Although some questions about their chronology remain a matter of discussion, a variety of dating techniques constrained the age of the Carolina bays. The consideration of multiple lines of evidence, e.g. radiocarbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, and palynology, indicate that the Carolina Bays predate the start of the Holocene at least by tens of thousands of years to over a hundred thousand years. The range of dates can be interpreted that they were either created episodically over the last tens of thousands of years or were created at time over a hundred thousand years ago and have since been episodically modified.[16][17][18]
    Palynology ... These pollen zones corroborate the dating of Big Bay by optically stimulated luminescence and radiocarbon dating.
    Stratigraphy of Big Bay ... The physical relationship of Pleistocene sand dunes to Big Bay, South Carolina, and adjacent Carolina bays further demonstrates that they are tens of thousands of years old.[17]

    You ignored the actual question.
    IF04: How did your Carolina bays survive the Laurentide Ice Sheet after 790 ka years ago?
    This is the geological fact that the Laurentide Ice Sheet has covered parts of the northern Americas several times. That seems to include the northern bays that your ATM idea has existing since ~790 ka years ago. If not just list the sources that state that the Laurentide Ice Sheet did not cover the northern bays. Otherwise explain how the bays survived under a ice sheet that dug out the Great Lakes and other lakes.

    You ignored the other questions so is this correct?
    IF01: List the papers that discovered Australasian tektites in the Carolina bays.
    Answer none so a connection to Australasian tektites is pulled out of nowhere.

    IF02: List the papers that dated the ages of the Carolina bays to 790 ka years ago.
    Answer none so a connection to Australasian tektites is pulled out of nowhere.

    IF03: Show how the impact 790 ka years ago that created the Australasian tektites also created the Carolina bays with their measured orientation.
    You cannot show that so the orientation of the bays still debunk your ATM idea.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Oct-08 at 10:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •