Roots Below Coal

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:20:14 -0600 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:

> Explain the roots in the Canadian coal at
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

First let me say how grateful I am for your willingness to debate this
issue. As you know, this has been a pet rabbit of mine for years, and I
have a very hard time finding knowledgeable people who will even discuss
this topic. OK, Glenn, here we go.

This coal is a pretty crappy looking seam. If it weren't for the faint
vitrain (glassy luster) bands in the right 1/3 of the photo at the bottom
of the coal (the photo with "J SEAM" at the top), I'd say we are looking
at the toe of an old stockpile of mined coal. Or the gouge zone of a
fault plane.

I note that the dark shale (or sandstone) makes a sharp, knife-edge
contact with the coal above, as can been seen in the left and right sides
of the "J SEAM" photo. It's hard to tell, but the dark shale (?) seems
to make a sharp contact with the lighter sandstone in the center of the
"J SEAM" photo; I believe the dark shale
(?) pinches out to the right and left - it appears to be a lens
sandwiched between the coal and sandstone in the center of the photo.
There are a few individual root-like stringers (which I would agree are
likely roots) visible in the dark shale as well as the light sandstone
below. There is a faint horizontal line of dark detrital material in the
sandstone visible in both the "J SEAM" and the "camera case" photos.

These root structures are not all that uncommon, I've seen similar
structures below Pennsylvanian coals in Alabama. While it is possible
that the roots are in situ, it is not possible that these roots represent
the record of forest growth which provided the peat for the J seam. The
J seam appears to be at least 6 inches (15 cm) thick. On your web site
you mention the Supardi et al article, which states rapid peat
accumulation was 4-5 mm/yr, and a lesser rate was 2 mm/yr in the
Indonesian peat swamps. At the most rapid rate of 5 mm/yr, it would have
taken 30 years to form six inches of peat. I've seen estimates that peat
compresses from 10 up 20-25 times to form coal. Therefore, we have to
multiply 30 years by at least 10 to get the peat required for 6 inches of
coal, or 300 years. I would think that with 300 years of continual
forest growth, you would get more than a few individual roots 8 inches to
3 feet or so beneath the coal. In 300 years the vitrain banding (usually
formed by sheets of bark) at the bottom of the coal, and the sharp
contact between coal and dark sandstone, should have been destroyed by
root bioturbation. Furthermore, most swamps have burrowing animals which
should have left some record of their activity, but I see none. The
thin, dark horizontal line of detrital material below the primary root
zone is undisturbed by burrowing animals, suggesting rapid burial.

If you will look on pages 34-39 of the _Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming
Environments_, where the Supardi article is also published, you will see
that the contact of the base of the peat and the mineral substrate is
gradational, not sharp like the sandstone contact with the J seam, as
described above. In fact, the mineral substrate is defined as being >25%
ash, while the peat is ~1% ash. Even with compaction, which is often
used to explain these discrepancies, there would be no knife-edge contact
of coalified peat with its mineral substrate. In contrast, the graphs on
pp 127 (A & B)-129 do generally show the abrupt change in % ash as you go
from coal to the overlying/underlying and interbedded clays. The plots
for %ash in peat and coal do not correlate, even taking into account the
compaction of 10 to 25x for peat and about 2x for clay, as these
materials are compressed and the peat is coalified. Peat has a
gradational contact with its substrate, coal generally has a sharp
contact, as we see with the J seam.

The roots at the end of the arrows (J SEAM photo) do appear to be
dendritic. There is a problem though, the root at the end of the right
arrow is branching upward, not downward. Looks like the darned thing
could have at least gotten oriented rightside up before it was buried.

I think the biggest giveaway though, is something that both you and your
Canadian geologist friend seem to have overlooked -- the chunk of banded
coal buried in the sandstone to the left of the root zone. This chunk of
coal displays banding similar to that observed just above the shale or
sandstone, except the banding is vertical instead of near horizontal!
That chunk of coal was certainly transported.

It's quite obvious, Glenn, when you look at the details (where the devil
is), that the J seam was transported. As to the roots, which I said
above may be in situ, if they are in situ then they probably represent an
opportunistic burst of growth during a recession of the flood waters,
before being buried by additional sediment. Alternatively, they could
have settled out of suspension as the sand was being deposited (which
would.explain the branching-upward root).

> As I have repeatedly said, Bill, so what if the Pennsylvanian coals are
> allochthonous from floating mats.

Based upon your current understanding, would you agree that the
Pennsylvanian coals of the eastern US are allochthonous (transported, not
in situ)?

> 1. prove why there has to be a global flood if SOME coal is from
vegetational mats.

You have yet to show me a coal that isn't transported.

> 2. prove that no coal came from rooted beds

Show me a coal seam with a root mat like that of Pfefferkorn et al on the
CD I sent to you. Or one with stigmarian axial root systems like those
depicted by Gastaldo (also on the CD). I'm looking for something more
than the whimpy roots below the J seam.

You're welcome to post anything on the CD to your web site. If others
want a copy of the CD, please contact me offline.

> 3. prove that the existence of vegetation mats requires a global flood.

Water seeks its own level. If the North American continent was flooded,
then there is an outside chance that the other continents were also
flooded. Would you like to discuss the plant-free tonstein partings
(volcanic-ash beds) in the Newcastle coals in Australia (on the CD)? Or
another coal seam of your choice?

Thanks, Glenn.

Bill

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Fri Nov 28 01:51:06 2003