Talk:Loess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soil WikiProject This subject is within the scope of Soil WikiProject, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve these articles or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Earth sciences Portal
Loess is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

About etymology: The term derives from the German word for "loose". Loess (Löß in German) is obviously not derived from German "lose" but from a distantly related Swiss German word lösch.
Source: Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 23rd ed., Berlin 1999 Kosebamse 06:29 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The OED confirms this. Kokiri 17:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] and what about wind erosion?

And where is the reference to the loess which is formed by the natural filtering of sand particles which occurs in dunes? --Mecanismo 22:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The different origins of loess is discussed in detail by:
Iriondo, M. H., and D. M. Krohling, 2007, Non-classical types of loess. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 202, no. 3, pp. 352-368.
In addition to the classic glacial loess, he discusses six types of nonglacial loess. They are 1) volcanic loess in Ecuador; 2) tropical loess in northeastern Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay: 3) gypsum loess in northern Spain; 4) trade-wind deposits in Venezuela and Brazil; and 5) anticyclonic gray loess in Argentina. The existence of loesses that are not associated with glacial outwash deposits needs to be addressed in some fashion. For example the loess deposits of China are not associated with continental ice sheets. Instead, they consist of sand, silt, and clay blown out of a desert source area.Paul H. (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loess origination has major problems

There are major problems with the idea that loess could have been formed by glaciation:

(1) composition of loess: we find loess comprised of inorganic rather than organic particles. If glaciers formed loess, we would find much organic matter (grasses, shrubs, trees etc). The salts/minerals comprising loess are not found in nearly high enough amounts in the rock/soil supposedly ground up by a glacier to create loess. They are found in those high amounts many miles deeper into the crust.

(2) fossil evidence: fossils are very rarely found within loess. However, fossils only of large animals (mastadons, mammoths, rhinocerous) are found UNDER loess. Glaciers move slowly, so if and when they moved over an area previously inhabited by large land animals, the animal remains would have decayed long before glacier overlayment. But Mastadon/Mammoths found under loess are commonly complete specimens WITHOUT decay.

Therefore, if glaciation is going to be proposed as the mechanism for loess origination, this article should at least say there are major problems with this theory. In my opinion a better mechanism should be proposed, or you should say that we don't know how loess was formed. This should be a scientific article, not an imaginative article. Jmh2114 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is not imaginative and unscientific. Instead it is Jmh2114's objections to the loess article which are imaginative and unscientific. for example, the statement "If glaciers formed loess, we would find much organic matter (grasses, shrubs, trees etc)." is completely untrue. Once an area is stripped of vegetation by glaciers, no new vegetation will grow under the glaciers. As a result, only a negligible amount of ground vegetation relative to the glacial outwash produced will be created by glaciers. Also, any ground vegetation produced by glaciers will either completely decay or be separated from the heavier sediment as it is carried down meltwater rivers in case of glacial loess. In case of desert, volcanic, and other types of nonglacial loess, the sources of nonglacial loess lack any "ground up vegetation” to be incorporated into the resulting loess deposit. The typical lack of any organic matter in either the sources or deposits of any the nonglacial types of loess is documented in detail by:
Iriondo, M. H., and D. M. Krohling, 2007, Non-classical types of loess. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 202, no. 3, pp. 352-368.
Jmh2114 further stated “fossil evidence: fossils are very rarely found within loess.” This is not always true. For example, in outcrops of loess along both sides of Mississippi Alluvial Valley, fossils of terrestrial snails typically are quite common in unweathered loess. For a more detailed discussion of these fossils, a popular account of how glacial loess forms, and citations to peer-reviewed publications that document what is stated in this article go read Louisiana Loess Fossils and Loess.
In addition, he continued: "However, fossils only of large animals (sic) (mastadons, mammoths, rhinocerous) are found UNDER loess." This claim is completely false. The fossils of large animals do occur in loess along with the fossils of terrestrial snails. For a picture of a mastodon skeleton being excavated from within the the loess, go look at Picture of Mastodon Dig at Angola, Louisiana. One of at least 18 mastodons discovered within the Peoria Loess in the Vicksbug, Mississippi, region is discussed and illustrated by:
Cragin, K. S., 1984, Excavation of a mastodon at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Mississippi Geology. vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1-10.
The numerous mammoth skeletons that have been found within the Peoria Loess along both the Illinois and Mississippi rivers in Illinois are documented by:
Willman, H. B., 1941, Mammouth found in Peorion loess near Belleview, Illinois. lllinois State Geological Survey Circular. no. 66, 4 pp.
In Europe and Siberia, archaeological sites are also found within the loess.
Also, he stated: "The salts/minerals comprising loess are not found in nearly high enough amounts in the rock/soil supposedly ground up by a glacier to create loess." This statement is also completely false. The peer-reviewed literature concerning loess clearly demonstrates that its composition of unweathered loess directly reflects the composition either of the glacial tills, deserts, volcanic, or other sources from which they came. Where either the modern soil or ancient paleosols (buried soils) occur within loess, its composition understandably has been altered by geochemical processes associated with pedogenesis. Publications, which completely refute the scientifically bankrupt claim about the composition of loess being unrelated to its source include;
Mario E. Teruggi, 1957, The nature and origin of Argentine loess. Journal of Sedimentary Research. vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 322-332.
Daniel R. Muhsa and E. Arthur Bettis, III, 2000, Geochemical Variations in Peoria Loess of Western Iowa Indicate Paleowinds of Midcontinental North America during Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research. vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 24-36.
and
David A. Grimley, Leon R. Follmer and E. Donald McKay, 1998, Magnetic Susceptibility and Mineral Zonations Controlled by Provenance in Loess along the Illinois and Central Mississippi River Valleys. Quaternary Research. vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 49-61.
These and many more peer-reviewed publications soundly refute the argument concerning “salts/minerals comprising loess are not found in nearly high enough amounts” in loess as being without any scientific basis.
Finally, Jmh2114 stated: "But Mastadon/Mammoths found under loess are commonly complete specimens WITHOUT decay." This statement is one hundred per cent false. the fossil mastodons found under and within loess are commonly not complete and show evidence of decay, gnawing, and weathering before burial. For example, both the Angola, Louisiana Mastodon and the mastodon found in Vicksburg, Mississippi, consist of incomplete and noticeably decayed skeletons. Such condition is typical of any mastodon skeleton found either below or within the loess as illustrated by the Vicksburg Mastodon discussed in:
Cragin, K. S., 1984, Excavation of a mastodon at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Mississippi Geology. vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1-10.
Although the article on loess can stand a lot of work, scientifically bankrupt claims about the what are the "problems" and is wrong with the article does not help in improving it in anyway.Paul H. (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly alludes to an aeolian mechanism of loess deposition. The idea is that in some locations, runoff from glacial melt resulted in vast floodplains of silt, which, during dry periods were picked up by prevailing winds and deposited in dune formations, as with the Loess Hills of Iowa. However, certainly not all loess is necessarily post-glacial. Jerry picker (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problems remain, and the rebuttal is illogical:

1. Would a glacier strip all vegetation, then lay down very thick sheets of loess? The mechanism is illogical: if the glacier strips vegetation it will strip loose soil, weak (enough) rock etc, and what will be left is simply the layer of rock/soil that did not get stripped by the glacier. Loess is often found to be very thick (120 feet and more), whereas a glacier would only leave churned material a few feet thick. Note that layers of loess cover wide ranges of hundreds of miles, much of it thick. Therefore if a glacier formed loess, it would have churned all matter (organic and inorganic) together. We do not find this, therefore the glacier model is highly doubtful.

2. Fossils are rarely found within ORIGINAL loess - the loess area containing snail fossils is secondary loess. Loess is found all over the earth (China, Siberia, polar regions) and unweathered loess especially in the frozen regions does not contain significant numbers of snails or other fossils (other than Mammoths and other large animals). Again, the rebuttal is illogical or false at best.

3. The fact that large animals but rarely if ever small animals are found in loess is not addressed by the rebuttal. If glaciers produced loess, where are all the fossil foxes and rabbits and squirrels and wolves and turkeys and pumas? How could a glacier preserve mammoth/mastodons but not small/mid-sized animals? The rebuttal ignores not only this huge problem but also the following:

4. Glaciers are SLOW movers. How could a mammoth/mastodon die, not decay, be gobbled up by a 2-inch-per-year glacier that stripped huge trees, NOT be crushed at all itself, then neatly deposited within the churned up loess created by the glacier? This is utter NONSENSE and illogical. Again, the glacier mechanism is wholly deficient.

5. Loess composition: the 3 articles cited in the rebuttal all discuss secondary loess, produced by either wind-blown or river-swept original areas of loess. Naturally if loess was initally formed in one place, then transported by wind or water to another location, the loess deposits in each location would have similar composition. Secondary loess was not produced by the same mechanism as the original loess, which is in question. Original loess deposits do NOT have the same mineral composition as surrounding/underlying rock that glaciers would have churned to create loess.

6. Where are Mammoth/Mastodons found with and without decay? The Mastodons found in SECONDARY loess (Louisiana, Mississipi etc) have decay because they have been re-deposited by loess and/or water that also transported loess from one location to another. Hence there would be opportunity for decay/weathering before final burial in secondary loess. What we find in permafrost regions (Siberia, and some Alaska) where the original loess is perfectly unweathered, are UNDECAYED whole specimens of mammoths that were flash frozen (in a matter of minutes or hours at most) and then deposited in loess. A glacier cannot accomplish this. The idea that frozen Mammoths are found in a decayed state is 100% FALSE.

The lack of a reasonable, scientific mechanism of the supposed formation of loess by glaciers is appalling. You must make the article say that loess formation is unknown, or that the glacier model is riddled with flaws.

This article should be about science, not imagination. Jmh2114 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Jmh2114’s comments are not only imaginative, but also quite illiterate it their understanding of what loess is and how it differs from glacial tills. For example, he asks: “1. Would a glacier strip all vegetation, then lay down very thick sheets of loess?” If he would bother read anything beginning textbook on physical geology he would find that glaciers do not directly deposit loess. Glaciers deposit unsorted mixtures of sand, silt, clay, and often gravel called “glacial till”. Glacial tills are completely different in character from loess, which consists of wind-blown silt. For a discussion of how one type of real loess is deposited, people can read Louisiana Loess Fossils and Loess and Glacial Deposits: Loess and Till.
Then Jmh2114’s falsely states “2. Fossils are rarely found within ORIGINAL loess - the loess area containing snail fossils is secondary loess.” The Mississippi Valley loess, which contains abundant fossil snails, is “original”, not “secondary” loess. Any of the below publications soundly demolish that Jmh2114’s statement about this loess being a secondary loess is a complete and utter falsehood.
Bettis, E. A., III, D. R. Muhs, H. M. Roberts, and A. G. Wintle, 2003, Last glacial loess in the conterminous U.S.A. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1907-1946.
Krinitzsky, E. L., and Turnbull, W. J., 1967, Loess deposits of Mississippi. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 94. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, 64 pp.
Miller, B. J., Lewis, G. C., Alford, J. J., and Day, W. J., 1984, Loesses in Louisiana and at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Guidebook for the Friends of the Pleistocene Field Trip, April 12, 13, and 14, 1984. LSU Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 126 pp.
Mossa, J. and Autin, W. J., 1989, Quaternary Geomorphology and Stratigraphy of the Florida Parishes, Southeast Louisiana. Louisiana Geological Survey Guidebook Series no. 5. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 98 pp.
Muhs, D. R., and E. A. Bettis, III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74.
Saucier, R. T., 1994, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley. U.S. Army Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 346 pp.’
Then Jmh2114’s stated “Loess is found all over the earth (China, Siberia, polar regions) and unweathered loess especially in the frozen regions does not contain significant numbers of snails or other fossils (other than Mammoths and other large animals).” Again Jmh2114 shows a complete lack knowledge of loess by making numerous false claims about loess. The fact of the matter is that if Jmh2114 would read the published literature, even a physical geology textbook, he would find: 1. that Chinese and Siberian loesses are deposits of wind-blown sediments like the Mississippi River Valley loesses; 2. the Chinese and Siberian loesses contain just as many fossil snails as the Mississippi Valley loess; and 3. that the Chinese loess consists entirely of sediments derived from nonglacial sources, large deserts. The Chinese loess is completely devoid of any association with either glaciers or glacial meltwater rivers.
Two papers that document the nonglacial (desert) source of the Chinese loess are;
Ding, Z., and J. Sun, 1999) Changes in Sand Content of Loess Deposits along a North–South Transect of the Chinese Loess Plateau and the Implications for Desert Variations. Quaternary Research 52, 56–62 (1999)
Lu, H., and D. Sun, 2000, Pathways of dust input to the Chinese Loess Plateau during the last glacial and interglacial periods. Catena. vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 251-261
A few of many papers, which document the abundance of fossil mollusk shells in Chinese loess and refutes Jmh2114’s false claim about the lack of fossils in Chinese loess, are;
Naiqin, W., D. D. Rousseau, and L. Xiuping, 2000, Response of mollusk assemblages from the Luochuan loess section to orbital forcing since the last 250 ka. Chinese Science Bulletin. vol. 45, no. 17, pp. 1617-1622.
Wu, N., T. Liu, X. Liu, and Z. Gu, 2002, Mollusk record of millennial climate variability in the Loess Plateau during the Last Glacial Maximum. Boreas. vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 20-27.
XueFen, S., C. Jun, J. JunFeng, and S. YunXia, 2005, An EPR study on mollusk shells from loess-paleosol sequences in the Loess Plateau, central China. Geochemical Journal. vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 61-67.
Then Jmh2114 stated “Again, the rebuttal is illogical or false at best.” This is an ironic statement, since Jmh2114’s comments consist of numerous well-documented falsehoods about loess and Young Earth Creationist folklore about imaginary “perfectly preserved” and “flash-frozen” mammoths.
Then Jmh2114’s stated: “If glaciers produced loess,…” Glaciers do not directly produce loess. Instead they deposit typically unsorted mixtures of clay, silt, sand, and often gravel called either “till”, “glacial till”, “glacial drift” or “boulder clay”. Glaciers do not directly create loess as discussed in Louisiana Loess Fossils and Loess and Glacial Deposits: Loess and Till. The latter web page of the Illinois State Museum clearly states:

Till is a geologic term that refers to deposits of unsorted and unstratified sediment deposited by a glacier.

In case of the Chinese loess, no glaciers are involved. The source of the dust composing Chinese loess are deserts, neither glaciers nor, as in case of the Mississippi River Valley loesses, the floodplains of glacial meltwater rivers.
Jmh2114’s also stated: “4. Glaciers are SLOW movers. …” As in case of the above paragraph Jmh2114’s arguments are utterly meaningless because glaciers **do not** directly deposit loess. Instead, they create the sedimentary deposits are unsorted and unstratified sediments called either “till”, “glacial till”, “glacial drift” or “boulder clay". Jmh2114’s presumption that glaciers directly deposit loess is demonstrated to be completely false by the below peer-reviewed publications.
Bettis, E. A., III, D. R. Muhs, H. M. Roberts, and A. G. Wintle, 2003, Last glacial loess in the conterminous U.S.A. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1907-1946.
Iriondo, M. H., and D. M. Krohling, 2007, Non-classical types of loess. Sedimentary Geology. vol. 202, no. 3, pp. 352-368.
Muhs, D. R., and E. A. Bettis, III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74.
Muhs, D. R., T. A. Ager, E. A. Bettis, III, J. McGeehin, J. M. Been, J. E. Beget, M. J. Pavich, T. W. Stafford, Jr., and D. S. P. Stevens, 2003, Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance of late Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986.
Zarate, M. A., 2003, Loess of southern South America, Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1987–2006.
Anyone, who will take the time to read the above peer-reviewed papers, will find that Jmh2114 is totally wrong about glaciers directly depositing loess. Loess, by definition, consists of well-sorted silty sediments, which have been transported and deposited by wind. The source of the wind-blown sediment can be either glacial or nonglacial.
In addition to the classic “glacial” loess, Iriondo and Krohling (2007) documents six types of nonglacial loess. They are 1) volcanic loess in Ecuador; 2) tropical loess in northeastern Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay: 3) gypsum loess in northern Spain; 4) trade-wind deposits in Venezuela and Brazil; and 5) anticyclonic gray loess in Argentina. None of these loesses lack any association with any type of glaciers. Contrary to the false claims of Jmh2114, none of these loesses have any relationship to glaciers of any type.
The Argentine loesses contain, in addition to an abundance of fossil snails, an abundance of vertebrate fossils of all sizes, which demolishes Jmh2114’s completely false claim that all loesses lack the fossils of small vertebrates such as “…foxes and rabbits and squirrels and wolves and turkeys and pumas.” In addition, the loess deposits of China also contain an abundance of fossil shells contrary to Jmh2114’s utterly false claims. As noted before, Chinese loess also lacks any association with glaciers of any type. Instead, they consist of sand, silt, and clay blown out of a desert source area.
The presence of vertebrate fossils of all types and sizes in the Argentine loesses is documented by numerous publications, including:
Montalvo , C. I., R. N. Melchor , G. Visconti, and E. Cerdeno, 2008, Vertebrate taphonomy in loess-palaeosol deposits: A case study from the late Miocene of central Argentina. Geobios. vol. 41, pp. 133–143
Quattrocchio, M. E., A. M. Borromeia, C. M. Deschamps, S. C. Grill, C. A. Zavala, 2008, Landscape evolution and climate changes in the Late Pleistocene–Holocene, southern Pampa (Argentina): Evidence from palynology, mammals and sedimentology. Quaternary International. vol. 181, pp. 123–138
Jmh2114’s also stated “5. Loess composition: the 3 articles cited in the rebuttal all discuss secondary loess, produced by either wind-blown or river-swept original areas of loess. Naturally if loess was initally formed in one place, then transported by wind or water to another location, the loess deposits in each location would have similar composition. Secondary loess was not produced by the same mechanism as the original loess, which is in question.” If Jmh2114 would take the time to read these three papers, he find that what he falsely calls “secondary” loess is actually what Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists consider to be “primary” / “original” loess. Jmh2114 clearly does not understand that wind-blown loess is “primary” / “original” loess, not what he falsely calls “secondary loess” as describe in Glacial Deposits: Loess and Till and documented by
Krinitzsky, E. L., and Turnbull, W. J., 1967, Loess deposits of Mississippi. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 94. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, 64 pp.
Miller, B. J., Lewis, G. C., Alford, J. J., and Day, W. J., 1984, Loesses in Louisiana and at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Guidebook for the Friends of the Pleistocene Field Trip, April 12, 13, and 14, 1984. LSU Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 126 pp.
Mossa, J. and Autin, W. J., 1989, Quaternary Geomorphology and Stratigraphy of the Florida Parishes, Southeast Louisiana. Louisiana Geological Survey Guidebook Series no. 5. Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 98 pp.
Muhs, D. R., and E. A. Bettis, III, 2003, Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences as examples of climate-driven sedimentary extremes. Geological Society of America Special Paper no. 370, pp. 53-74.
Muhs, D. R., T. A. Ager, E. A. Bettis, III, J. McGeehin, J. M. Been, J. E. Beget, M. J. Pavich, T. W. Stafford, Jr., and D. S. P. Stevens, 2003, Stratigraphy and paleoclimatic significance of late Quaternary loess-paleosol sequences of the last interglacial-glacial cycle in central Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1947-1986.
Saucier, R. T., 1994, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley. U.S. Army Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 346 pp.’
Zarate, M. A., 2003, Loess of southern South America, Quaternary Science Reviews. vol. 22, pp. 1987–2006.
In addition, If Jmh2114 would go to GLOSSARY OF IMPORTANT TERMS IN GLACIAL GEOLOGY, he would find that “loess” is defined as:

Loess: Unconsolidated, wind deposited sediment composed largely of silt-sized quartz particles (0.015-0.05 mm diameter) and showing little or no stratification. It occurs widely in the central USA, northern Europe, Russia, China, and Argentina.

According to Natural History of Nova Scotia, “loess” is defined as “Deposits composed primarily of windblown silt and lacking visible layers.”
As defined above by geologists and in peer-reviewed scientific papers, well-sorted, silt-size, wind-blown sediment, which Jmh2114 incorrectly calls “secondary loess” is what Quaternary and other geologists define as “original” or “primary” loess as can be seen in Eolian History of North America TASK 2: Understand the paleoclimatic significance of loess. What Jmh2114 has to say about loess is utterly and completely refuted by many of the numerous publications listed at the bottom of this web page under the heading “Task 2 Related Products”.
Jmh2114 further stated: “Original loess deposits do NOT have the same mineral composition as surrounding/underlying rock that glaciers would have churned to create loess.” Again, Jmh2114 is completely ignorant of the fact that glaciers neither directly deposits nor creates loess. Glaciers create deposits of unsorted and unstratified sediments called “glacial till” or “glacial drift”. For example, the GLOSSARY OF IMPORTANT TERMS IN GLACIAL GEOLOGY, states:

Till: (or "glacial till"): Deposits of a glacier - usually described as massive (not layered), poorly-sorted, and composed of multiple types of angular to sub-rounded rocks, but varying greatly with source material.

Jmh2114 stated: “6. Where are Mammoth/Mastodons found with and without decay? The Mastodons found in SECONDARY loess (Louisiana, Mississipi etc) have decay because they have been re-deposited by loess and/or water that also transported loess from one location to another.” Again, Jmh2114 is totally ill-informed of the fact that the loess in Louisiana and Mississippi, which he insists on falsely calling “secondary loess” is not “secondary loess, but in fact “original” / “primary loess” as defined by Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists. If Jmh2114 would take the time to read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including the references given above, he would find that it is absolutely wrong to claim that the loess found in Mississippi and Louisiana is “secondary”. Any geologist would find the designation of the loess found in Mississippi and Louisiana as being “secondary” to be so incorrect as to be laughable.
Jmh2114 further stated: “What we find in permafrost regions (Siberia, and some Alaska) where the original loess is perfectly unweathered, are UNDECAYED whole specimens of mammoths that were flash frozen (in a matter of minutes or hours at most) and then deposited in loess. A glacier cannot accomplish this. The idea that frozen Mammoths are found in a decayed state is 100% FALSE.” Unfortunately, what Jmh2114 has to say about “perfectly unweathered” and “flash frozen” mammoths is nothing more than outright fiction fabricated and mindlessly repeated by various catastrophists and Young Earth Creationists because it supports either their religious beliefs or pet catastrophist theory. The fact of the matter is that the mummified mammoths, horses, and other mammals are not “perfectly unweathered” and were not “flash frozen” as discussed by Claim CC361.2:, Woolly Mammoths Remains: Catastrophic Origins? By Sue Bishop, and Flash-Frozen Mammoths. It is ironic that what Jmh2114 has to say about “perfectly unweathered” and “flash frozen” mammoths is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as being completely (“100% FALSE”). Publications that document the imaginary nature of Jmh2114’s “perfectly unweathered” and “flash frozen” mammoths include;
Farrand, W. R., 1961, Frozen Mammoths and Modern Science. Science. vol. 133, no. 3455, pp. 729-735.
Farrand, W. R., 1962, Frozen Mammoths. Science. vol. 137, no. 3537, pp. 450-451.
Kurtn, Bjorn, 1986, How to Deep Freeze a Mammoth. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Jmh2114 stated: “The lack of a reasonable, scientific mechanism of the supposed formation of loess by glaciers is appalling.” What really is “appalling” is complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the origin, fauna, and physical nature of loess on which this statement is based. Given the scientifically bankrupt nature of Jmh2114’s comments, they can be completely ignored as far as making and changes to the loess article.
Jmh2114 stated: “This article should be about science, not imagination.” The ironic problem with your comments is that they are based entirely on imagination, including imaginary “perfectly unweathered” and “flash frozen” mammoths, and completely devoid of any real science that can be found in the peer-reviewed, published literature.Paul H. (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Let us revisit the original objection to the article where it says: "Loess is derived from glacial deposits...". No less than 12 times in the latest rebuttal from Paul H. does he say himself that "glaciers neither directly deposits (sic) nor creates (sic) loess". He goes on to mention 6 kinds of non-glacial loess. You cannot make both statements without qualifying one of them. Therefore the original objection stands, and the "Loess is derived from glacial deposits..." must be qualified - either mention the other 6 kinds of loess derivation, or don't mention it at all.

Also, there is no proposed mechanism for a mammoth or mastodon to become entombed in loess, especially if glaciers were involved in the process (mammoths/mastodons lived in warm climates anyway, far from glaciers). So again, the glacier model must be qualified. This is a simple request for scientific truth as opposed to unsupported, unqualified falsehoods. Jmh2114 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)