Is Climate a Lesbian?

Im a BM wrote:
The Mother Lode is full of marine sediment fossils, originally deposited as sea floor sediments on the continental shelf.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The Ione Formation is a geologic marvel.

About forty million years ago, a tropical rainforest grew there.

Under very warm, wet conditions for a very long time, it created the kind of soil profile that can ONLY be found under tropical rainforests. Near the surface, a meters thick layer of blood-red hematite clay overlies a much thicker layer of chalk-white kaolinite clay. A very old soil under a very old tropical rainforest.

Then a local volcano blew its top and poured lava over the forest. A new layer of hard, volcanic basalt rock capped the whole thing and preserved it from erosion for forty million years.

They still mine kaolinite from the place. It makes excellent ceramics. But kaolinite cannot possibly form in any soil under California's existing climate regime. The ancient soil profile is proof that a tropical rainforest once grew.

At least on a forty-million-year time scale, climate has been known to change.

Interesting.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hematitic_kaolinite_(Ione_Formation,_Middle_Eocene;_clay_pit_in_the_western_foothills_of_the_Sierra_Nevada_Mountains,_central_California,_USA).jpg

https://www.clayimco.com/product/709-ione-kaolin/41

Do both the red hematite and white kaolinite clays only form in tropical climate, or just the white clay?

I'm not sure it was 40,000,000 years.

Do you know if sea levels were ever much higher in California?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Are you talking about the process of subduction?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Are you talking about the process of subduction?

Yes, as the Pacific seafloor gets subducted under the continental shelf, it lifts the coastline higher.

To the east, the Atlantic Ocean is being split down the middle, as Africa moves further from South America. On the east edge of the Americas, the continental plate is pretty firmly attached to the seafloor. Not much new mountain formation going on.

To the west, the Pacific Ocean is getting squeezed as Japan moves closer to California. This is where the seafloor-continental-plate connection keeps buckling under the pressure. Continental plate is comprised of less dense (lithic) rock than (mafic) rock in the seafloor, so it is what "floats" in the mix.

While the deeper layers of seafloor get pushed under the continental shelf, a lot of the uppermost (mafic) material gets scraped off and combined with the less dense (lithic) material from the continent, getting pushed up out of the sea.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Are you talking about the process of subduction?

Yes, as the Pacific seafloor gets subducted under the continental shelf, it lifts the coastline higher.

To the east, the Atlantic Ocean is being split down the middle, as Africa moves further from South America. On the east edge of the Americas, the continental plate is pretty firmly attached to the seafloor. Not much new mountain formation going on.

To the west, the Pacific Ocean is getting squeezed as Japan moves closer to California. This is where the seafloor-continental-plate connection keeps buckling under the pressure. Continental plate is comprised of less dense (lithic) rock than (mafic) rock in the seafloor, so it is what "floats" in the mix.

While the deeper layers of seafloor get pushed under the continental shelf, a lot of the uppermost (mafic) material gets scraped off and combined with the less dense (lithic) material from the continent, getting pushed up out of the sea.

Just thought I would send a picture of a Sierra Nevada peak, Mt Whitney.

I guess in 50,000,000 years this what my home in the East Bay will look like.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Are you talking about the process of subduction?

Yes, as the Pacific seafloor gets subducted under the continental shelf, it lifts the coastline higher.

To the east, the Atlantic Ocean is being split down the middle, as Africa moves further from South America. On the east edge of the Americas, the continental plate is pretty firmly attached to the seafloor. Not much new mountain formation going on.

To the west, the Pacific Ocean is getting squeezed as Japan moves closer to California. This is where the seafloor-continental-plate connection keeps buckling under the pressure. Continental plate is comprised of less dense (lithic) rock than (mafic) rock in the seafloor, so it is what "floats" in the mix.

While the deeper layers of seafloor get pushed under the continental shelf, a lot of the uppermost (mafic) material gets scraped off and combined with the less dense (lithic) material from the continent, getting pushed up out of the sea.

Just thought I would send a picture of a Sierra Nevada peak, Mt Whitney.

I guess in 50,000,000 years this what my home in the East Bay will look like.

By the time the Coast Range is uplifted that much, Mt. Whitney, in the Sierra Nevada, will have eroded off at least a few thousand feet of its peak elevation.

Another day trip you might consider is to Lake Berryessa, on Putah Creek in Solano County. You can park at the Monticello Dam and right on the other side of the road see marine fossils in the road cut rock.

Layer after layer, now tilted and twisted away from their horizontal sediment bedding, with visible sea shells sticking out in places. And when you see just how many different layers, hundreds of feet thick of them. Some layers with sea shells, some without. Some pure sand. Some pure clay. A record of all the different sedimentation events that occurred on the continental shelf of northern California's coastline over millions of years. The layers are tilted so one can walk along the road a ways and go back in time along the sedimentary rocks.

I think is was Leonardo Da Vinci who noticed the sea shells in the rocks of the mountains of Italy. Logic suggested the site had once been beneath the ocean. Leonardo couldn't know if it meant the sea had dried up, or if it meant the land had lifted up. It certainly suggested that some major change occurred over time.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris asks if the clay formed because it was underwater, in reference to the uplifted submarine sediments found in the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame.


During the time those sediments accumulated on the seafloor of the continental shelf, primarily from eroded material washed out in river flows, there were clay forming processes in progress.

However, for the uppermost part of the Ione formation paleo-oxisol required continuously warm, well-drained (aerobic) conditions. Hematite couldn't form on the seafloor, in part because it is just too cold.

The Ione Formation is complex because the very same land that had been lowland, wetland delta rainforest for kaolinite formation during the middle Eocene was uplifted high enough for a well-drained upland oxisol to form on it by the later Eocene, several million years later.

The article Spongy Iris posted a link to discusses the middle Eocene KAOLINITE, in the very thick layer that formed before the hematite layer was created on top of it much later.

Whether in a delta wetland or a bit higher in elevation, it all occurred under a much warmer and wetter climate than California has today.

I doubt that Sacramento was ever too close to the coast, as my earlier thoughts probably expressed too far along that hypothesis.

But I still wonder if there was a stronger river system connecting from the Pacific to the Sacramento land in the ancient past.

Here are a couple pics I took in Vallejo, around 2019, if I recall correctly around the Carquinez straight.

I just got a hunch looking at that area, that the water once rose to the top of that hill, but it gets nowhere near that level now. What do you think?

The Carquinez straight connects to the Napa river.

I don't doubt for one second that Sacramento, or at least the bedrock deep beneath it, was just off the coast of northern California, under the sea.

However, the Sacramento Valley sits on top of up to a couple of thousand feet thick alluvium, washed down from the Sierra Nevada. So, the bedrock deep beneath Sacramento is covered by a very, very deep layer of eroded material.

Just looking at topography, it looks as if the whole Central Valley was once a sea, the whole thing being so flat and all. But that's just the flat way eroded material lays itself out as part of a wet sediment load flowing down off the mountains.

The Sacramento River, and especially the San Joaquin River have had much higher average annual flows in the past, but the pathways remain the same.


Spongy Iris, if you want to look at photos of topography and speculate about the processes that created the landforms you see, take a look at the "Ecological Staircase", near Mendocino, CA.

The "Ecological Staircase" is a sequence of five coastal terraces, on the "Navarro Block" piece of tectonic plate, along a short section of the northern California coastline.

The combined effect of continuous tectonic uplift and cyclical rise and fall of sea level creates wavecut terraces. The unique position of the Navarro Block, at the infamous tectonic "Triple Junction" creates vertical uplift without tilting. The terraces remain level over geologic time.

The oldest and highest of the wavecut coastal terraces are where the "Pygmy Forest" grows on what is arguably the world's MOST infertile soil that can actually sustain any kind of plant community.

So, look at the pictures of the "Staircase" of coastal terraces and you see physical proof that the coastline rises as the sea level rises and falls in a glaciation cycle.

Are you talking about the process of subduction?

Yes, as the Pacific seafloor gets subducted under the continental shelf, it lifts the coastline higher.

To the east, the Atlantic Ocean is being split down the middle, as Africa moves further from South America. On the east edge of the Americas, the continental plate is pretty firmly attached to the seafloor. Not much new mountain formation going on.

To the west, the Pacific Ocean is getting squeezed as Japan moves closer to California. This is where the seafloor-continental-plate connection keeps buckling under the pressure. Continental plate is comprised of less dense (lithic) rock than (mafic) rock in the seafloor, so it is what "floats" in the mix.

While the deeper layers of seafloor get pushed under the continental shelf, a lot of the uppermost (mafic) material gets scraped off and combined with the less dense (lithic) material from the continent, getting pushed up out of the sea.

Just thought I would send a picture of a Sierra Nevada peak, Mt Whitney.

I guess in 50,000,000 years this what my home in the East Bay will look like.

By the time the Coast Range is uplifted that much, Mt. Whitney, in the Sierra Nevada, will have eroded off at least a few thousand feet of its peak elevation.

Another day trip you might consider is to Lake Berryessa, on Putah Creek in Solano County. You can park at the Monticello Dam and right on the other side of the road see marine fossils in the road cut rock.

Layer after layer, now tilted and twisted away from their horizontal sediment bedding, with visible sea shells sticking out in places. And when you see just how many different layers, hundreds of feet thick of them. Some layers with sea shells, some without. Some pure sand. Some pure clay. A record of all the different sedimentation events that occurred on the continental shelf of northern California's coastline over millions of years. The layers are tilted so one can walk along the road a ways and go back in time along the sedimentary rocks.

I think is was Leonardo Da Vinci who noticed the sea shells in the rocks of the mountains of Italy. Logic suggested the site had once been beneath the ocean. Leonardo couldn't know if it meant the sea had dried up, or if it meant the land had lifted up. It certainly suggested that some major change occurred over time.

Seems like a record of a cataclysm to me, global torching.

The rate of decay of rocks and land has not been constant, which makes radiometric dating little more than garbage in garbage out.

Im a BM wrote:
Actually, it is the record of a long series of cataclysms.

Im a BM wrote:
Not one single cataclysm of any kind of Biblical proportions. For example, the alluvial fans that filled in California's Central Valley. Each time a new alluvial fan got laid down, it represented a cataclysmic event.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change played a big role in provoking most of the cataclysms.

Im a BM wrote:
Each time the climate dried out,

Im a BM wrote:
woody perennial vegetation died off on the hillslopes. Eventually, the dead vegetation burned in a fire. And then, eventually, the heavy rain came again, washing away the hillslopes in a cataclysm. An alluvial fan gets dumped during the kind of flooding event that would have been recorded and reported if one happened in recent centuries.

It's not just swollen creeks full of muddy water. It is a high wall of mud pushing forward with destructive force across a broad front. Such a thing could account for the highest scouring seen on canyon walls. But it is easy to confuse that kind of scouring with what you see from even more ancient stream terrace cuts.

Im a BM wrote:
Another great "cataclysm" of geologic history that happened over and over was the so-called "oxygen catastrophe". The theory was that once cyanobacteria evolved the capacity to produce oxygen in photosynthesis, it provoked a "catastrophe". Oxygen is poisonous to obligate aerobic organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
However, banded iron formations reveal that the "catastrophe" happened thousands of times over a period of more than 2000 million years. The rock record also shows that it wasn't so catastrophic. The presence of oxygen created a new niche for bacteria that could oxidize things like sulfur, hydrogen or carbon using a powerful new terminal electron acceptor.
Biomass INCREASED during the catastrophic events.

Im a BM wrote:
One example of this beneficial cataclysm shows up as a three-layer fossil.

Im a BM wrote:
The top layer was cyanobacteria on the water's surface. The middle layer was aerobic sulfur oxidizers, exploiting the powerful new oxidant to get a LOT a bang for the buck from sulfur oxidation. The bottom layer was sulfur REDUCERS. They exploited the weaker terminal electron acceptor produced by the sulfur oxidizers. They used sulfate to oxidize organic carbon, abundantly present. The sulfate reducers turned the sulfate back into sulfide, which the aerobic sulfur oxidizers used.

Im a BM wrote:
It was a very efficient ecosystem, recycling the sulfur between oxidized and reduced forms, back and forth. Oxygen was not poison. It was a precious new resource to be competed for. It was the most powerful terminal electron acceptor any organism could use to get energy from the oxidation of carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, iron, manganese, ammonia, or anything else out there to eat.

Im a BM wrote:
In contrast, massive erosion events are a bit more cataclysmic.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The evidence that the Earth got torched by the unfiltered radiation of the Sun and Moon, which are powered by the cosmic winds of Gravity, has convinced me that radiometric dating, again, is garbage in garbage out. It assumes a constant rate of decay, but the torching of the Earth sped up the decay.

Perhaps this is what makes for layers: the top layer got very torched, and the lower layers not as much. This could also account for some of the seas drying up.

The Earth was probably finished as habitable about 12,000 years ago, when Niagara Falls, a great wonder of the world, began to flow.

Looks like the wedding planning took another 6000 years and it has been the honeymooners ever since.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The evidence that the Earth got torched by the unfiltered radiation of the Sun and Moon, which are powered by the cosmic winds of Gravity, has convinced me that radiometric dating, again, is garbage in garbage out. It assumes a constant rate of decay, but the torching of the Earth sped up the decay.

Perhaps this is what makes for layers: the top layer got very torched, and the lower layers not as much. This could also account for some of the seas drying up.

The Earth was probably finished as habitable about 12,000 years ago, when Niagara Falls, a great wonder of the world, began to flow.

Looks like the wedding planning took another 6000 years and it has been the honeymooners ever since.

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The evidence that the Earth got torched by the unfiltered radiation of the Sun and Moon, which are powered by the cosmic winds of Gravity, has convinced me that radiometric dating, again, is garbage in garbage out. It assumes a constant rate of decay, but the torching of the Earth sped up the decay.

Perhaps this is what makes for layers: the top layer got very torched, and the lower layers not as much. This could also account for some of the seas drying up.

The Earth was probably finished as habitable about 12,000 years ago, when Niagara Falls, a great wonder of the world, began to flow.

Looks like the wedding planning took another 6000 years and it has been the honeymooners ever since.

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

The Moon doesn't have rays, Robert. Sunlight contains infrared light, even when reflected off the Moon's surface. That will increase the temperature of anything absorbing it.

The absorption of infrared light converts to thermal energy, raising temperature.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The evidence that the Earth got torched by the unfiltered radiation of the Sun and Moon, which are powered by the cosmic winds of Gravity, has convinced me that radiometric dating, again, is garbage in garbage out. It assumes a constant rate of decay, but the torching of the Earth sped up the decay.

Perhaps this is what makes for layers: the top layer got very torched, and the lower layers not as much. This could also account for some of the seas drying up.

The Earth was probably finished as habitable about 12,000 years ago, when Niagara Falls, a great wonder of the world, began to flow.

Looks like the wedding planning took another 6000 years and it has been the honeymooners ever since.

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

The Moon doesn't have rays, Robert. Sunlight contains infrared light, even when reflected off the Moon's surface. That will increase the temperature of anything absorbing it.

The absorption of infrared light converts to thermal energy, raising temperature.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Just thought I would send a picture of a Sierra Nevada peak, Mt Whitney.



I guess in 50,000,000 years this what my home in the East Bay will look like.

Im a BM wrote:

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

The experiment:

It is very true that, if we place in an exposed situation, 2 pieces of meat, and 1 of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the latter.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

Copying from my OP almost 3 years ago.

It is found in Popular Lectures of Astronomy, delivered by Francois Arago, at the Royal Observatory of Paris. Arago lived from 1786 to 1853.

The experiment:

It is very true that, if we place in an exposed situation, 2 pieces of meat, and 1 of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the latter.

This sounds like both pieces of meat were outdoors under moon light: 1 was covered, 1 was not.

The only significant difference seems to be exposure to moon light.

Now I say, this results because the moon is sucking energy out of the meat. That energy drain is somewhat blocked by covering the meat.

IMO this energy drain would be for the purpose of creating gamma radiation, a kind of cold fusion process between the Earth and Moon.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

Copying from my OP almost 3 years ago.

It is found in Popular Lectures of Astronomy, delivered by Francois Arago, at the Royal Observatory of Paris. Arago lived from 1786 to 1853.

The experiment:

It is very true that, if we place in an exposed situation, 2 pieces of meat, and 1 of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the latter.

This sounds like both pieces of meat were outdoors under moon light: 1 was covered, 1 was not.

The only significant difference seems to be exposure to moon light.

Now I say, this results because the moon is sucking energy out of the meat. That energy drain is somewhat blocked by covering the meat.

IMO this energy drain would be for the purpose of creating gamma radiation, a kind of cold fusion process between the Earth and Moon.

Okay, I hate to rain on your parade, but I think that fungi and bacteria rained on your meat.

The physical cover that blocked the moonlight also blocked airborne spores from falling down onto it and colonizing more rapidly into the rotting meat. At least that is one possible explanation.

I happen to believe we have a lot of reliable historical evidence about things that happened more than 6-12 thousand years ago.

For example, from ancient cave dwellings, etc., we know that humans figured out one way to prevent dead flesh from rotting more than 20,000 years ago.

By "tanning" the skin of an animal, they could prevent that flesh from rotting and use as durable leather. The polyphenols, also known as tannins, in the plant extracts used to tan the leather form bonds to the proteins in the dead skin that make it very difficult for microorganisms to decompose it.

Tannins, or polyphenols as I usually call them, form bonds to proteins in organic matter in soil as well, making them very difficult to decompose. Slows the rotting.

Here's a thought. I'm trying to figure out where mosquitoes come from. I've seen them fly up out of out of buckets of stagnant water. I've got a theory that moon beams are making them.

So, I put out two buckets of stagnant water. I cover one of them to prevent the entry of moonlight.

Two weeks later I've got mosquitoes flying up out of the uncovered bucket, but none from the covered bucket.

I just proved that moon beams are what put mosquitoes into buckets of stagnant water.

I could also prove that moonbeams specifically put maggots into exposed meat with a cover that prevents moonlight entry while it prevents flies from laying eggs in it.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You asserted that meat rots faster when exposed to moonlight.

This is not consistent with anything I ever learned in my decomposition research. I DID publish about polyphenols causing things to rot more SLOWLY.

However, I'm pretty sure that meat rots more slowly in the refrigerator, where it is protected from moonlight.

Perhaps the warming rays of the moon increase the temperature of exposed meat.

That would predictably result in more rapid decomposition.

But I'm pretty sure that moon rays do NOT caused exposed meat to increase T.

But if it is rotting faster, SOMETHING is stimulating the microorganisms to grow and thrive FASTER.

Is there some kind of life-enhancing energy in moon rays that enables fungi and bacteria to thrive better than they would in its absence?

Copying from my OP almost 3 years ago.

It is found in Popular Lectures of Astronomy, delivered by Francois Arago, at the Royal Observatory of Paris. Arago lived from 1786 to 1853.

The experiment:

It is very true that, if we place in an exposed situation, 2 pieces of meat, and 1 of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the latter.

This sounds like both pieces of meat were outdoors under moon light: 1 was covered, 1 was not.

The only significant difference seems to be exposure to moon light.

Now I say, this results because the moon is sucking energy out of the meat. That energy drain is somewhat blocked by covering the meat.

IMO this energy drain would be for the purpose of creating gamma radiation, a kind of cold fusion process between the Earth and Moon.

Okay, I hate to rain on your parade, but I think that fungi and bacteria rained on your meat.

The physical cover that blocked the moonlight also blocked airborne spores from falling down onto it and colonizing more rapidly into the rotting meat. At least that is one possible explanation.

I happen to believe we have a lot of reliable historical evidence about things that happened more than 6-12 thousand years ago.

For example, from ancient cave dwellings, etc., we know that humans figured out one way to prevent dead flesh from rotting more than 20,000 years ago.

By "tanning" the skin of an animal, they could prevent that flesh from rotting and use as durable leather. The polyphenols, also known as tannins, in the plant extracts used to tan the leather form bonds to the proteins in the dead skin that make it very difficult for microorganisms to decompose it.

Tannins, or polyphenols as I usually call them, form bonds to proteins in organic matter in soil as well, making them very difficult to decompose. Slows the rotting.

Here's a thought. I'm trying to figure out where mosquitoes come from. I've seen them fly up out of out of buckets of stagnant water. I've got a theory that moon beams are making them.

So, I put out two buckets of stagnant water. I cover one of them to prevent the entry of moonlight.

Two weeks later I've got mosquitoes flying up out of the uncovered bucket, but none from the covered bucket.

I just proved that moon beams are what put mosquitoes into buckets of stagnant water.

I could also prove that moonbeams specifically put maggots into exposed meat with a cover that prevents moonlight entry while it prevents flies from laying eggs in it.

How significant is incoming bacteria? Would the vast majority of the bacteria decomposing the meat already be attached to the meat before the experiment started? I thought that is why meat must be salted. Another point is if the screen increased moisture, that would have sped up decomposition not slowed it down.

As for your other point, how did you determine to have found evidence of 20,000 year old human corpses?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Clear penis envy, unending too

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Clear penis envy, unending too

What happened to my free pack of darts?

I had to pay $14 cuz you never showed up.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Clear penis envy, unending too

What happened to my free pack of darts?

I had to pay $14 cuz you never showed up.

More behavioral analyst nunsense

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Clear penis envy, unending too

What happened to my free pack of darts?

I had to pay $14 cuz you never showed up.

More behavioral analyst nunsense

OMG evil nuns fight to the last tooth and nail.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Haha very funny.

But moon-beam-rot-the-meat logic is best applied to orgasms.

Stop beating your meat.

Don't sacrifice your meat to idols.

You shall not drink the blood of a strangled beast.

Clear penis envy, unending too

What happened to my free pack of darts?

I had to pay $14 cuz you never showed up.

More behavioral analyst nunsense

OMG evil nuns fight to the last tooth and nail.

Nuns praying for babies are not evil. Now if you had a child, that would be evil