Re: Roots in coal?

Sorry to take so long to respond, Kevin. These posts take a little time
for me to get together.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:36:58 -0700 "Kevin and Birgit Sharman"
<ksharman@pris.bc.ca> writes:

> "If a vitrinite layer shows no structure, either in
> incident or transmitted light, this is due in most cases not to the
> absence of cellular structure, but to the fact that the cell structure
is
> masked as a result of the infilling with colloidal humic gel
precipitated from
> humic solutions"

But the vitrinites do show banded structure, which is what would be
expected if the macerals settled from a floating mat. Stach has found
another explanation, but I'm not convinced that a mass of intertwined
roots can be "metamorphosed" into horizontal bands. "Masking" the cell
structure is quite different from _metamorphosing_ the original fabric of
the peat into a fundamentally different material structure. Masked cell
structure would still retain the original shape of the root, which would
still prevent planar partings from forming parallel to banding. When you
originally used the word "metamorphosed", I understood you to be saying
that the entire structure of the peat was transformed, similar to
metamorphosing an igneous or sedimentary rock into granite. The granite
bears no structural imprint of the parent rock. And indeed, this is what
you must do to get banded structure from intensely rooted peat - which
doesn't happen.if the peat is not completely restructured.

I believe you are now retreating (or maybe I misunderstood your position)
from the extreme (or what I consider the standard) definition of
metamorphosis to a much softer concept, more in line with what I
envision. We can, of course, define words any way we like, and I think
maybe Stach overstated the definition of metamorphosis to suit his
purpose. The retention of root morphology, with or without cellular
structure, is not supportive of your model to transform an intensely
rooted peat into a banded coal.

> The inertinite maceral group preserves cell structure more than the
> vitrinite group.

And why would this be so?

> As is so often in geology, things are not clearcut. If there were
> abundant roots, it would support my view. If there were no roots
> found, it would support your view. The fact there are some roots puts
us
> right in the middle, doesn't it?

{:-) Nice try, Kevin, but if we are going to argue for a naturalistic
origin for what we see we need to find a model that fits all of the data.
 The presence of "some" roots fits comfortably with my view; I can accept
plenty of roots settling out of a floating mat, however many coals in
Alabama do in fact have no roots.

OTOH, for you to support "some" roots beneath a swamp peat, you need to
find a modern analog. The peat swamps I have read about and seen photos
of all show _intensely-rooted_ mats, which is not what we see in the root
zones of your photos. "Trees in the mixed peat-swamp forest and pole
forest...have spreading, buttressed, and prop roots, which are generally
confined to a root mat 50-80 cm thick at the top of the peat and do not
penetrate to the deeper peat or mineral sediments below thick peat."
(from Neuzil, S.G., Supardi, Cecil, C.B., Kane, J.S., Soedjono, K., 1993.
Inorganic geochemistry of domed peat in Indonesia and its implication for
the origin of mineral matter in coal. Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming
Environments, GSA Special Paper 286, 25.) You need to show a root mat,
Kevin, not individual roots and _occasional_ radiating roots. What you
have shown to date supports my model, not yours.

> If you are proposing the shedding mat model for these Cretaceous
> coals (that's what I asked) we are back to trying to stand roots on end

> vertically and encase them in the sandstone floor of the seam,
including the
> branching shrub root, which Glenn pointed out wouldn't work.

It's easier for me to envision enveloping vertical roots in sand than it
is to explain roots branching upward and roots with a common plane of
truncation. As to the branching (radiating) shrub root now on Glenn's
web site < http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm>, Glenn rates his own
separate post (later).
>
> There would not be a zone of acid water preserved beneath a floating
mat
> once it floated in a turbulent ocean. Leaching of sphagnum moss in
> horticultural applications rapidly depletes the acidity. Floating
> around on the ocean would do it also. Even flocculated clays need calm
water
> to settle out, which is not common in a marine setting.

> How can these be laterally and vertically segregated in specific
> areas after deposition? In other words, why do Carboniferous coals
with their
> characteristic vegetation accumulate in the areas they do, and Jurassic
and
> Cretaceous coals with a different unique vegetation accumulate in other
> areas, when you are proposing that they were all floating around
> together?

I didn't say they were all floating around together. They were
segregated in life, and remained segregated after being lifted by the
rising flood waters. We're talking about massive mats of vegetation, not
loose debris.

> While we're at it, why are coals associated with characteristic
> rocks, principally non-marine sediments, and not deep water ocean
> sediments, pyroclastic volcanics, evaporites, chalks, etc? In a flood
> scenario, these rocks were all being deposited in that year, and in
your model,
> shedding mats should have dropped veg material on them and made coal.
We
> don't find coal in these rock types, do we? To me, this is a
falsification of
> the Biblical flood floating mat model. Your thoughts on this crucial
> point?

I don't see the flood as a big mixer, but rather a big lifter. You,
Glenn and so many others that try to refute the flood model wave your
arms and say everything should have been mixed together if there were a
flood. You're not looking at empirical data when you say that, you are
using your imagination to prove your point - not exactly the best way to
do science.

> Are you suggesting that lignite deposits we see today were formed
> after "at some point (when) the flood ended"? This would include
growth and
> accumulation of peat, burial with overlying sediments to the depths
> needed to coalify the peat, structural deformation in some cases, and
> erosion of the overlying sediment in areas where the lignite outcrops
today?
> If you are talking about the time after the Biblical Flood, this is
only a
> few thousand years. There are lignite seams hundreds of meters thick
in
> the geologic record. I sent a reference to Glenn Morton on the Hat
> Creek deposit in BC (he has it on his coal page), which has 550 meters
of
> lignite to sub-bituminous coal in a 1500 meter section. To suggest
that all
> this happened in a few thousand years with "normal" post-flood rates of

> processes is, to put it politely, untenable. Remember, there were
people
> around who would have been able to observe during this time period.

Two points: 1) I'm really not concerned with the time scale (which is
admittedly another way of saying that you have a good point here); and 2)
"burial with overlying sediments to the depths needed to coalify the
peat" is an assumption about how coalification proceeds, and it's my job
to challenge all those assumptions. Cross questioned the process:
"Waterworn pebbles of banded coal often occur in the base of the
overlying sandstone and, according to a few specimens which were examined
for microfossil content, they appear to have been derived from the
Pittsburgh coal itself. It is very difficult to explain how such coal
pebbles could have been loosened from a coal seam, then so recently
deposited, and become waterworn and then have been redeposited in the
first sandstone to be laid down such a short time later. By the time of
reworking, the peat deposit must have been advanced in rank at least to
the stage of lignite for the pebbles are normal banded, have well
developed cleat and usually retained their basic shape even though they
very often lie at some angle to the bedding plane of the underlying coal
or shale." (from: Cross, A.T., 1952. The geology of the Pittsburgh coal:
stratigraphy, petrology, origin and composition, and geologic
interpretation of mining problems. Second Conference of the Origin and
Constitution of Coal, p 75)

So there is at least some data from coal pebbles that burial may not be
required to initiate the coalification process.

________________________________________________________________
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 Thu Dec 25 23:11:46 2003