
A cliff that changed our understanding of time - MiriamWeiner
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180312-how-siccar-point-changed-our-understanding-of-earth-history
======
SlowBro
You can now eat Hutton’s unconformity. Behold: Hutton’s Unconformicake :-)
[http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2011/01/the-baking-of...](http://all-
geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2011/01/the-baking-of-an-angular-unconformity-
huttons-unconformicake/)

------
dmix
> Siccar Point is one of the most important geological sites in the world –
> but it took a 62-year-old farmer to spot its significance

Calling James Hutton a "farmer" is really a twist in narrative, when it
proceeds to describe how he was a semi-genius polymath/inventor educated in
medicine and chemistry who only bought a few farms after becoming wealthy as a
scientist then being alienated from upper society for having an illegitimate
son.

~~~
jacobolus
I see you read 3 short paragraphs further into the article, where that was all
explained in detail (except you missed the note that the farms were inherited
from his father) ...

Considering that (according to this article) he later called agriculture “the
study of my life”, perhaps “farmer” is an appropriate one-word summary after
all.

~~~
dmix
As far as I can tell his relation to farming is limited to his obsession with
the processes and geological side-effects of agriculture rather than the act
of farming itself. Calling him a "farmer" would be quite a stretch, when you
compare the typical archetypes of the two. Especially in the context of his
contributions to natural history/sciences.

In regards to inheritance, this analogy reminds me of the two brothers who
inherited a farm in East of Eden from their father. Just because you both own
it doesn't make you both a "farmers". Only one brother worked the farm as a
traditional farmer, even after becoming wealthy.

------
dmix
Wikipedia contains a far better example of this phenomenon of a rock face in
Argentina over the authors photo:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Qu...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Quebrada_de_Cafayate%2C_Salta_%28Argentina%29.jpg/1280px-
Quebrada_de_Cafayate%2C_Salta_%28Argentina%29.jpg)

Source:
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Stratum](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Stratum)

Edit: Very interesting article none-the-less. Thanks for sharing

~~~
buserror
Actually I was less than impressed with the rather poor HDR impression of the
photos in that original article. Makes me think of all the wrong cheap tools
around that makes dark skies, fluo greens and halos around everything....

~~~
dmix
Yes, it was quite disappointing after reading the introduction of the authors
trip to the rock face on a boat trip to find the picture wasn't very revealing
of the topic... the editing tried to highlight it but the pictures didn't do
it justice.

------
arethuza
I love Hutton's line _" We find no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an
end"_....

Hardly surprising that Edinburgh became the birthplace of geology - few cities
have their geological wonders quite so blatantly on display.

I can recommend the Geowalks around Edinburgh:
[http://www.geowalks.co.uk/](http://www.geowalks.co.uk/)

------
SlowBro
> Hutton realised that the formation and movement of these rocks to create the
> coastline we see at Siccar Point couldn’t happen in sudden cataclysms over
> years or decades

Color me skeptical. Why couldn’t these be quickly deposited layers that were
later turned upright in some cataclysm? Why couldn’t they have taken decades?

Yes I know it’s heresy to question long established science, but that is the
essence of science is it not? Questions and skepticism :-)

Off to do more reading I suppose.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I was at a cave tour with family, and there were stalagmites and stalactites
in an early room. The guide said "These took thousands of years to form."

Then later in the tour, there was a super thick layer of rock formations
coating (layered mind you) a large section, it looked nearly identical to the
stalagmites and stalacties from before, and the guide said "This all formed in
a few months from a rush of hot mineral rich water from a broken geyser."

The guide seemed to realize how these two notions completed conflicted in the
story telling, got all flummoxed, tried to justify the difference in time
claims (no one even questioned the guide) and then awkwardly stopped talking
and continued the tour.

I think there is a reasonable possibility we may be wrong about the timing of
at least some rock formations...

~~~
jofer
The key in that case would be composition. Gyeser deposits are typically
silica, and even when they're carbonate, they have a very distinct
composition.

Also, I doubt what you saw was related to a geyser. It's not impossible, but I
can't think of anywhere with volcanic activity and large caves formed in
carbonates.

More likely, you were in the Carlsbad area, in which case you have some
massive gypsum formations that are related to acidic waters formed by bacteria
decomposing hydrocarbons. They form relatively rapidly (and the acidic waters
formed the huge caverns). However, they're a completely different chemical
composition than the stalactites just beside them (Gymsum vs calcite --
basically, gypsum has sulfur, which isn't in the rock around it, while calcite
is what the "native" rock is made of).

~~~
RobertRoberts
Sorry for the second reply, but just for the technically curious, I found
photos:

The government site says these stones are calcite, flowstone, round bubbly
rocks. (formed in a same/similar manner as stalagmites?) Almost all the rocks
in this cave are calcite. (I looked through a number of them on this site) [0]

This appears to be the thick layer of rock that I was told formed rather
quickly. [1]

This is a clear picture, and it looks like large crystal growth? Which would
explain the difference from slow stalagmite/stalactite growth? [3]

A detailed description, I honestly don't get all the chemistry/geology enough,
but I have to trust they are being consistent. :P [4]

[0] [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/flowstone-formations-
jewel...](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/flowstone-formations-jewel-cave)

[1] [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/cross-section-calcite-
crys...](https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/cross-section-calcite-crystal-
covering-jewel-cave)

[3] [https://media-
cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/53/d9/bd/...](https://media-
cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/53/d9/bd/jewel-cave-national-
monument.jpg)

[4] [https://www.nps.gov/jeca/learn/nature/geology-of-jewel-
cave....](https://www.nps.gov/jeca/learn/nature/geology-of-jewel-cave.htm)

~~~
jofer
Oh, yeah! Jewel Cave is a bit unique in this regard. There's a lot of sparry
calcite (large, well-formed crystals) inside the cave. The difference is in
the size and shape of the crystals. Large crystals like that can only form
when they have lots of room to grow (i.e. when everything is underwater).

Those formed while the cave was flooded with water that was over-saturated
with calcium carbonate. The rate of growth of a calcite crystal is a lot
faster (inches per decade) under those conditions. The speleothems that are
forming today grow slower (inches per century) because they're precipitating
from a very thin layer/drip of water that only becomes saturated when it
starts to evaporate or flow differently. Both processes are very rapid in
geologic terms, but there's a significant difference in rate between the two.

------
hownottowrite
Ref: Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth (1802) from Charles
Darwin's Library

[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/107595#page/7/mode/...](https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/107595#page/7/mode/1up)

------
decasteve
Along with Joggins Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia [1], which were studied by
Lyell and Darwin as well.

[1] [http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net](http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net)

------
moomin
If you're going to write a biographical piece (which is what this is) it's
worth being precise. He was ostracized from polite society not for /having/,
but /acknowledging/ a son born out of wedlock. The 18th century crawled with
hypocrites.

~~~
chopin
I don't think this changed much. Only the subjects.

~~~
RobertRoberts
It won't ever change, someone will always find something to be hypocritical
about.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I think hypocrisy gets a bit too much stick -- recognising the right way, and
doing things the right way are different.

I, for example, get my kids to bed at a sensible time and teach them good
sleep hygiene whilst having appalling sleep habits myself. In some cases it's
precisely because one realises the magnitude, or outcomes, of ones failure
that one emphasises something one personally fails to achieve.

I imagine most politicians are just targeting a particular voting group
however.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> _I think hypocrisy gets a bit too much stick -- recognising the right way,
> and doing things the right way are different._

I think the correct definition of hypocrisy is pretending your are doing
something you are not, and then expecting others to do what you "pretend" to
do.

As a parent you are doing the right thing, but you are obviously not
"pretending" that you are achieving what you expect your kids to do.

But there is a limit.

I had (and have) issues I deal with as a parent similar to yours, but when I
was later called to the mat by my kids (when they got older) I told them "I am
trying to do the right thing.", but that only goes so far. You may actually
cause your kids to have the same issues if you don't solve yours, and if you
continue to make excuses, you may cross over from simply failing to hypocrisy.
(why should a kid "try" to maintain a good habit and be punished when they
fail, if the parent doesn't?)

I have changed my children's behavior by changing my own, my motivation
happened when I hit the hypocrisy wall. (on some issues anyways)

The politic issue is just sad and out of control though, are there no truly
ethical and moral leaders left?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I don't reveal my flaws, eg to my kids (though I'm not lying to hide them)
which makes it hypocrisy IMO.

I'd rather politicians do things morally, but if they realise the
moral/ethical thing, fail, and cover up their failure but nonetheless support
the position they know to be morally superior: I think I'd rather that than
have them shrug and say "well I failed so that moral position isn't worth
fighting for".

If I supported non-violent protest as a politician, but got in a fist-fight at
a rally, hid that fact ... should I give up on promoting and supporting non-
violent protest.

I don't see private failing as necessarily discounting oneself in public
office.

A not uncommon situation is an adulterer being outed; they probably know
better than others the harm that can come through such acts.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking response.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> _I don 't see private failing as necessarily discounting oneself in public
> office._

I agree. If everyone knew everyone's failings no one could live together. I
think we all can agree that there's a time and place to not reveal someone's
error or publicly denounce an error. (thankfully the choice is personal and
it's no one's business but our own to decide which is which)

In the case of parenting, there are some flaws you can't hide. Might as well
face those and teach your kids how to do it right. They can learn from your
example not only how to humbly present errors, but also be gracious in return.

A side benefit of this is easier correction. (this has happened to me a few
times) One time an older child failed at something that I have historically
failed at, and I corrected her. She shouted at me "well you do it too!", and I
could boldly state, "You know I think it's wrong, you know I am working on it,
I have made progress and I plan on permanently changing, and I can expect you
to try as well."

What I said was honest and true, and she'd witnessed me completely changing
other behavior before. And then we both calmed down, and everything was just a
little bit better.

And I do agree with your sentiment about hiding some things from your kids. I
knew too much as a kid, and it was a burden.

------
iamthepieman
Interesting biographical piece but very little science (or even reference to
science) in the article. To be expected I suppose for a mainstream article.
Hutton seems like an interesting guy, historically, but he could hardly be
considered a scientist, even by 18th century standards.

Stephen J Gould writes in “Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in
the Discovery of Geological Time” that

    
    
        Hutton did not draw his fundamental inferences from more
        astute observations in the field, but by imposing on the
        earth, à priori, the most pure and rigid concept of
        time’s cycle ever presented in geology—so rigid, in fact,
        that it required Playfair’s recasting to gain 
        acceptability.
    
    

Geike writes

    
    
        In the whole of Hutton’s doctrine, he vigorously guarded
        himself against the admission of any principle which
        could not be founded on observation. He made no
        assumptions. Every step in his deductions was based on
        actual fact...
    

To which Gould says in the same book

    
    
        Geike’s mythical Hutton has been firmly entrenched in
        geological textbooks ever since.”

~~~
mannykannot
S. J. Gould, whose works I thoroughly enjoy, was not immune to casting a story
according to his world-view, either, and these passages seem to be part of his
rejection of the extreme uniformitarianism that he claims permeated geology at
the start of his career. In other works, he writes approvingly of Hutton's
perspicacity, while pointing out that his broader theories were speculative.
The passages quoted above appear more critical of Geike than Hutton.

Hutton's dogmatic uniformitarianism must be regarded in the light of the then-
prevalent, and equally dogmatic, catastrophist theories, which claimed that
the Earth as we see it now was shaped by extreme events that no longer occur.
In presenting contrary observations from the field, Hutton was at least as
much a scientist as those holding on to the other view.

~~~
iamthepieman
Thanks for the perspective. Gould clearly has an axe to grind in some of his
writings. As to him being more critical of Geike than hutton, he has a LOT
more to say about hutton in the referenced book. I didn't want to be too
inflammatory but Gould has no such compunction in "Time's Arrow". He mostly
criticizes Hutton for relying on metaphor and being reactionary to the
catastrophists. He does not reject him out of hand though.

I think it's important to be able to criticize important figures in any fields
history while recognizing the good that came from their disruption of the
field. You can come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. In such
cases it's natural to reject the conclusion as wrong, or to recast your morals
to see the reason as right depending on your world view. Both are obstacles to
scientific thought.

------
PetitPrince
Please flag me if unappropriated but: the pictures used to illustrate this
article uses HDR in a particularly unsubtle way (i.e. there are visible halos
between the sky and the colors are way over saturated).

There are probably pictures of Siccar Point that reflect better the reality of
the place than those gaudy images.

~~~
_tulpa
Also the saturation is cranked up to 11, and maybe some kind of diffuse-glow
effect.

I don't think you're being inappropriate. The processing totally ruins what
would otherwise be strong contrast between red-orange sandstone and greywhacke
which is normally grey (plus whatever is growing on it) instead of the orange-
ish colour it has in those particular photos. In other photos the unconformity
is much easier to see.

------
yarrel
Cliff Richard?

