From the Abstract:
One reason the theory has been muddy is that there are 32 variables to take into account. It’s a fundamentally complex system. Floccule formation, for instance, relies on variables such as “settling velocity, floccule size, grain-size distribution, ion exchange behavior, and organic content” as well as particle concentration and the intensity of turbulence. Other variables affecting the outcome include electromagnetic properties, biological material present, chemical composition, and more. The scientists did the best they could controlling variables. They tried distilled water, lake water, and salt water, with various types of mud particles. They watched what happened on all sides of the flume, including looking up from the bottom, and examined the floccules with electron microscopes.
Previously, geologists thought that mudstone had to be deposited in calm water because currents would disrupt the previously-deposited mud on the seabed or lakebed. Not so. These experiments showed that laminated mud can be deposited under currents strong enough to transport sand particles – orders of magnitude larger than mud particles. Floccules can actually grow up to the size of sand particles.
A glimpse at the implications of this paradigm shift can be gleaned from these quotes:
As if these issues are not daunting enough, Macquaker and Bohacs added this thought:
In short, a huge tower of interpretation, touching on fields as diverse as climate change, earth history and even solar system dynamics, has been built on a flawed assumption: that mudstones always settled out slowly in calm water. Now that the assumption is shown to be unfounded, it is not just the geologists who will have to consider a paradigm shift.
Speaking of mud, Live Science reported the discovery of undersea mud waves in the Arctic, an “unexpected surprise.” In a quizzical inversion of the above story, scientists thought strong currents were required for such things; “researchers had thought the Arctic was too calm to produce the mud waves,” the article stated. “Scientists aren’t sure what formed them.” With apologies to Thomas Kuhn, maybe it was another paradigm shift.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Macquaker and Bohacs, “Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud,” Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1734-1735, DOI: 10.1126/science.1151980.
2. Schieber, Southard and Thaisen, “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples,” Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760-1763, DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001.
One reason the theory has been muddy is that there are 32 variables to take into account. It’s a fundamentally complex system. Floccule formation, for instance, relies on variables such as “settling velocity, floccule size, grain-size distribution, ion exchange behavior, and organic content” as well as particle concentration and the intensity of turbulence. Other variables affecting the outcome include electromagnetic properties, biological material present, chemical composition, and more. The scientists did the best they could controlling variables. They tried distilled water, lake water, and salt water, with various types of mud particles. They watched what happened on all sides of the flume, including looking up from the bottom, and examined the floccules with electron microscopes.
Previously, geologists thought that mudstone had to be deposited in calm water because currents would disrupt the previously-deposited mud on the seabed or lakebed. Not so. These experiments showed that laminated mud can be deposited under currents strong enough to transport sand particles – orders of magnitude larger than mud particles. Floccules can actually grow up to the size of sand particles.
A glimpse at the implications of this paradigm shift can be gleaned from these quotes:
As if these issues are not daunting enough, Macquaker and Bohacs added this thought:
In short, a huge tower of interpretation, touching on fields as diverse as climate change, earth history and even solar system dynamics, has been built on a flawed assumption: that mudstones always settled out slowly in calm water. Now that the assumption is shown to be unfounded, it is not just the geologists who will have to consider a paradigm shift.
Speaking of mud, Live Science reported the discovery of undersea mud waves in the Arctic, an “unexpected surprise.” In a quizzical inversion of the above story, scientists thought strong currents were required for such things; “researchers had thought the Arctic was too calm to produce the mud waves,” the article stated. “Scientists aren’t sure what formed them.” With apologies to Thomas Kuhn, maybe it was another paradigm shift.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Macquaker and Bohacs, “Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud,” Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1734-1735, DOI: 10.1126/science.1151980.
2. Schieber, Southard and Thaisen, “Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples,” Science, 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760-1763, DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001.
