The Forestry Forum

 Ya , its a whats-it , aint nothing in my galery to help with this one . Its old , can you tell me what it is and how old it could be ....



  It is not Jeff's Christmas gift ..... ;D
 

Thats what my F350's frame looked like before POR 15.

Since it is not the coal Jeff got as a gift could it be petrified Wood?

If it is you could figure its age by counting the rings and multiply by a million or so.

that's not grandpa's axe head is it Marcel. ???

Does it have a metallic luster Marcel?  I can't tell. I can't tell really, but I'm thinking it's some kind of fossilized creatures from along the mud flats of the St Lawrence.  I'd have no clue to age, millions at least.  Are they near some grottoes? ;D

(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/11009/SD_Fossil.jpg)

Here's some fossils in limestone, actually picked it up in the middle of a tree plantation. ;D

Looks like something I gave Jeff a few years back, of bovine extraction.

Maybe it's a chunk of bark off a pine tree. Or he was cave exploring and chipped off some old mummified bat guano. :D

 Mumyfied , petrified , fossilized ,  :P  it does have to do with a tropical forest  ;D

Was you far enough up north to get to those old petrified cypress logs and stumps. I've seen pictures of those and it's amazing. Looks like a log laying on bare cobble and not a green spear of grass or anything in site. ;D You can tell it's been cold up there for awhile, and must have happened in a short time span.

I know what Swamp Donkey's is.  It's a simulation of some ancient seashells imbedded in apparent  sedimentary material to form a rock of conglomerate that was bought in a Canadian owned tourist trap by a Canadian tourist, on vacation in Florida, and taken home where she showed it to her logger husband who thew it away.

There's probably the remnants of a tag on the back that said "Made in Canada".

isawlogs' is a rusty hunk of metal. :)

So SD is suggesting there were once trees up north, where it is now cold and barren?  Hmmm? If that is true, wonder what caused dat global warming and subsequent cooling?   :o :o :o

Wasn't global warming.
Was shifting tectonic plates.
At one time that part of the continent was in a warmer climate. ;)

Beenthere

Link to a tropical forest (http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic41-4-314.pdf)

   
Furby the well informed  :P :P :P

Tom the...................... ???

 
Tom ......   I aint going there , 
Marcel ... the wise one..... sometimes ...

Is it piece of fossilized Ocean Reef? :P

If not, maybe some botched Brownie recipe that broke apart while you were eatin' with a glass of raw chocolate milk and fell in the crack of your easy chair. ;D

I figured at first that it was rusted metal, but, how does that have anything to do with a fossilized forest?

Is it fossilized leaves from the forest floor?

There was some plate movement , but I'm sure they didn't move that far north. Here's an excerpt from the document. ;D

'Such a forest is therefore evidence that the Eocene polar climate was much warmer than today and that the trees were able to tolerate a polar sunlight regime of continuous summer sunlight followed by months of winter darkness.'

It wasn't tropical, it was a temperate rain forest, like the Pacific NW.

From the document:

'Wide growth rings in the fossil wood, in addition to evidence from associated sediments and vertebrate faunas, indicate favourable growing conditions in a mild, cool/warm temperate climate with high rainfall.'

;)

Ever hear of Pangaea?
Link (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geology.com/pangea-continental-drift.gif&imgrefurl=http://geology.com/pangea.htm&h=686&w=550&sz=100&tbnid=n2ot6toZphLNiM:&tbnh=139&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpangea&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1)

Combination of both I'd suggest.
They find fossils like that in Antarctica that were laid down when it was around it's current location. Apparantly it was kept warmer by different ocean currents even though it had no sun for part of the year. The Earth has been a lot warmer AND a lot colder in the past. Where those fossilised forest where found has probably been temperate rain forest AND a glacier, several times over.
We can find fosillised shells like Marcels picture in many places here, some are 1,000 ft above sea level now, but they were on the beach or an estury some time in the past. You can still see the sand dune patterns in the river banks out at my old farm.

Cheers

Ian

I believe the greatest shift was east <-> west Furby, not so much north ^ south during the period of the fossils. ;)  Those trees occurred after the Cretaceous period, which was closer to the present day situation. The major shift at Cretaceous to present day was the breaking apart of NA from Europe and Antarctica from Australia according to your maps. ;)

 Tom .
  It has every thing to do with a fossilized forest , it is a part of it .  ;) This peice is 42million years old ( carbon tested dated )

  It is on Ellessmere Island in the arctic , I dont know much about Global Warming ... but if there was a tropical forest there once .....  Who are we to think there could not be another .  ???

Actually Donk, look again.
There was a rotation going on.
The area may not have been to the equator, but was much further South.

Yes there was some movement, but not that significant. And your talking about a period of millions of years in between the Cretaceous and Now. And it's a lot of conjecture as to when it moved and how much since it's been millions of years. But, one thing is for sure, those fossils are real concrete evidence that trees grew there and they have been carbon dated for age. We also know that a tree's life is just a drop in the bucket compared to the movement of the plates on the earth. ;D

Yes we do.
Most of us know the flaws in carbon dating as well, so...........

Furby

    What are the flaws .. I am one of um that dont know  :P :P

Carbon dating only works out to about 50,000 years.

The way it works is that a certain % of the carbon floating around is a radioactive isotope of carbon. I think it's formed natually by radiation in the upper atmosphere. So when something that contains carbon, like a piece of wood, gets buried the radiactive part of the carbon slowly decays away from the time it was locked up. By comparing the ratio of normal carbon and carbon isotope, you can make an educated guess how old something is.

The main flaws are

After 50,000 years most of the carbon13 has decayed away, so there is nothing left to measure.

You have to assume that the amount of carbon13 in the atmosphere has allways been the same, but you cant prove that. So it's not 100% accurate, but it does give a good guide as to wether something is 100 years, 1,000 years or 10,000 years old.

With the really old fossils and rocks I believe they can look at other radioactive isotopes and use them to judge age. Also they can look at fossils in rocks above and below the sample and see what is present. The types of fossils give and indication of the age as well.

It's not an exact science though, but it does let them put a timeline together.

Cheers

Ian

Marcel, my post was sort of in a way a smart butt remark.
It really all comes down to what you belive as "facts" are "found" to support both sides.

 Furby , I did not take it to be a smart butt remark .. I did not know there was issues with carbon dating ... I learned another thing here today .  :P :)

  That peice of wood is still old . Really old .  :D :D :D

   

We may not know how truely old it is but I sure think that piece of wood would ruin a saw blade in a hurry. :o ;D

Farmerdoug

Now in all this confusion, I still didn't get the story on this fossilized tree. You can't just plunk this thing down and simply ask whazit, can ya?  It came a long way from Chelsea Quebec, we know that much. ::) :D