>But as the story unfolds, it is necessary to know that Pittock's paper,
>published in 1978, says that there is no firm link between the solar cycle
>and any weather phenomenon. Pittock wrote:
>
>"Following a survey of the literature it is concluded that despite the great
>number of recent papers on the subject, little convincing evidence has yet
>been produced for real correlations between sunspot cycles and the
>weatehr/climate on the 11- and 22-year time scales...." Pittock, Reviews of
>Geophysics and Space Physics Aug 1978, p. 400
>
> If Pittock is correct then the cycles in the Green River probably aren't
>due to the solar cycle. But my friend, disproved Pittock's case.
In your marvelous account of your experience with Robert G. Currie (who
incidentally has dropped out of academia after a number of years at The
Marine Science Research Center at Stoneybrook, and was last reported living
soemwhere near Alpine Texas, which for those of you unfamiliar with Texas,
is somewhat equivalent to a Russian moving to Siberia), you recorded his
efforts to document cycles in the modern environment, which he and many
others have done for years. Having taught dendrochronology, I would never
want to deny solar cyclicity in the present environment, nor does Pittock
deny the possibility of such, just uncritical acceptance of such claims.
However, Currie could hardly be said to have disproved anything Pittock
said, since Pittock's paper was a review article, and did not include any
original work to disprove. The problems Pittock points out still exist and
in my opinion cast a great cloud over those who would want to establish
trends from fossil data where the criteria for measurement are dubious at
best, and the knowledge of the environmental parameters is missing. Even
in the modern environment, where parameters can be checked and
cross-checked, such measurements require the most sophisticated kinds of
techniques to establish the cyclical processes. I guess what I am saying
is: the supposed 11 year cycles and the longer period Milankovitch cycles
are extremely dubious in the Green River Shales, and would only find
uncritical acceptance from believers.
With respect to the Green River Shales being varved or just laminated, the
following quote from Bennett's MS Thesis is relevant: "Some authors have
questioned whether the fine laminations in the Green River Formation
actually represent annual layering (Eugster and Hardie, 1975; Lundell and
Surdam, 1975; Anderson and Dean, 1988; Buchheim and Biaggi, 1988). Buchheim
and Biaggi (1988) show that the number of laminations between two ash
layers in the Green River Formation in the Fossil Buttes Basin in Wyoming
is not constant; they report twice as many laminations in basinward
sections as in more marginal locations. Davis (1964) reports that there are
typically two major annual algal blooms in lacustrine settings, suggesting
that varves may be biannual phenomena in some cases. Therefore,
sedimentation rates determined from varve counts should be viewed with some
caution." Note also that Eugster, Hardie, Surdam, and Buchheim have been
some of the most active workers in these deposits over the last 20 years,
and certainly know as much about the beds as anyone.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu