Spectacular Fossil Forests Found In US Coalmine

Smivs passes along a report up on the BBC about the fossil forests found in coal mines in Illinois. "The [US-UK] group reported one discovery last year, but has since identified a further five examples. The ancient vegetation — now turned to rock — is visible in the ceilings of mines covering thousands of hectares. These were among the first forests to evolve on the planet, [according to] Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang... 'These are the largest fossil forests found anywhere in the world at any point in geological time. It is quite extraordinary to find a fossil landscape preserved over such a vast area; and we are talking about an area the size of [the British city of] Bristol.' The forests grew just a few million years apart some 300 million years ago; and are now stacked one on top of another."

Comments

What I find more interesting

[EmbeddedJanitor]

are the places where there is both coal and limestone. The same place that was once a forest that got fossilized then got covered by the sea. Scratch through the limestone and you find fossilized sea shells etc. Go deeper and you find fossilized twigs and leaves.

Re:What I find more interesting

[Anne_Nonymous]

The top of Mount Everest is partially limestone.

why looking at the ceiling?

[nietsch]

What I don't understand from the article (yes I RTFA) is why this fossil forrest needs to be viewed from below? Was all the commercially interesting coal beneath the tree fossils, or is there a scientific reason to approach it bottom up?

Re:why looking at the ceiling?

[kesuki]

well, finding that in a very short period of time, of natural global warming, that rainforests are replaced with giant ferns is a little disheartening. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

this is a wonderful find, oh and BTW the area where the coal was mined was actually a peat bog, that turned into a forest in the carboniferous period, then turned into sea several times and then back into a forest, and was also a ferny weedy place. most likely earthquakes from changes in plate tectonics played a huge role in how the land mass changed, from being above land, below land, and the erosion of nearby mountains provided the silt to cover the land when it was above ground.

so no the coal was not the result of the forest, although it may have added slightly to the coal, when it was submersed, most coal is formed from wetlands where vastly more biomass concentrates and is preserved from decaying due to water covering it thus preventing microbes from getting the oxygen to decay the plant matter. if you want coal you look for places where the water was stagnant like prehistoric wetlands, or former continental shelf areas.

Re:why looking at the ceiling?

[Paltin]

Think about a peat bog forming--- thick layer of plant material that will later be turned to coal.

As the oceans begin to transgress (the 50-cent geologist term for sea level rise), the existing forest is quickly buried and you end up with a snapshot of the forest remaining. After removing all the coal, you end up with a cave where you look up to the interesting part. Well, interesting for me, since I'm a paleontologist. :)

Interestingly, this work is only done because the coal mining company is really, really, nice. They don't have any real incentive to let paleontologists in after they're done with operations. Kudos to them!

I've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad and grandfather used to work in the coal mines in the southwest Virginia and eastern Kentucky area. They used to find bits of fossilized plants all the time.

Though I doubt they found anything as largescale as what is presented in the article, my grandfather did bring out of a mine a fossil tree trunk/root system that he placed in his front yard. I very distinctly remember playing on it as a child, it was quite large.

Re:Note on Units

[CaptainCarrot]

I'm sorry, but these units don't properly convert. The Library of Congress isn't a measure of area, but of data storage. 1 Library of Congress = about 10 terabytes. (Oddly, this is easy to discover by googling "1 Library of Congress in megabytes". Google itself doesn't do the conversion, but the equivalence is in the top search results.)

Re:Great!

[GayBliss]

This one has been burning since 1962 and could continue to burn for another 1000 years.

Re:Some better images

[couchslug]

"The funny thing about atheists is that most of them will never understand the irony of their faith."

Atheism is merely the absence of theism.

Anything else a person may attribute to their non-theism or use to explain it is their problem/baggage, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is a "faith" like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Re:Note on Units

[Trogre]

I hope this guy's address isn't anywhere near Switzerland...

Re:Atheism requires faith

[Copid]

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

Person A: "I believe that 499,999 of the 500,000 religions out there are false. I reject their evidence. I accept one of the 500,000 religions, mainly because {I accept their evidence, I had a religious experience, My parents raised me that way, It makes me feel good, etc.}."

Person B: "I agree with person A about the first 499,999 religions. I also think that because the evidence for the 500,000th one looks a whole lot like the other 499,999 {It makes claims that are hard to reconcile with observed fact, Provides no real hard evidence to distinguish it from other ridiculous sounding stories, etc.}, I don't believe in that one either."

Person B is, by your definition, exercising more faith than person A? As I see it, all of those religions offer insufficient "proof" that they are true in the face of the incredibility of their claims, so I reject them.

If I claim that God exists and created us three days ago with memories intact, and the evidence that I offer is what appears to be the face of Barry Bonds on a piece of toast, does it take more faith to reject that claim or to accept it? Or is the only rational option to reserve judgment?