Skip to content

A million years worth of deposition: where and how much?

February 1, 2009

The theme for this month’s geoscience blog carnival, The Accretionary Wedge, was to speculate in some way about the geological future of the Earth. I was the host for this month — you can read my summary and find links to the other contributions here.

I was originally inspired to propose this theme after reading the book Year Million, which is a collection of essays from scientists, technologists, futurists, etc. speculating a million years into the future (most of the essays, not surprisingly, are about the fate of the human species and our civilization).

So, I decided to stick with the million year time frame for my own post. A million years seems to be the basic unit of temporal measurement that many geologists use (unless you focus solely on the Quaternary or solely on the Archean). Finally, since I’m a sedimentary geologist, I decided to explore where deposition of sediment might occur over the next million years. Or put another way — if I were transported a million years in the future, where would I go to find an archive of sediments (or sedimentary rocks) recording that interval of time?

What is fun about pondering this question is that it requires an attempt to grasp the depth of geologic time. I’ve grown accustomed to writing about and discussing with colleagues intervals of time that range from thousands of years to 100s of millions of years in duration.

Think about the surface of the Earth right now — in our current snapshot in time. Sediment is being deposited in many places … in rivers, floodplains, desert valleys, coastal areas, and in the ocean. But remember, this question is about where sediment is deposited over the scale of a million years. Some sediment might be deposited in a mountain stream after a flood, but would it remain there for a million years? Probably not. Similarly, a field of sand dunes might be accumulating near a mountain front in a desert right now. Would this pile of sand remain for a million years? Depends on the setting … but probably not.

So what this question is really asking is where would deposited sediment be preserved? Sedimentation is temporary across a huge range of time scales — a deposit might last only a year or so, only to be wiped out by the next hurricane — or, it might get buried, buried some more, and be preserved for 10s to 100s of millions of years.

At the scale of a million years, the places on the Earth where sediment accumulates, is buried, and preserved are called sedimentary basins*. Put very simply — we need to find a location that has a long-lived supply of sediment combined with a place to put it (e.g., subsiding basin). Continental margins where major river systems meet the ocean (e.g., Mississippi, Amazon, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra, Indus, etc.) are the best candidates for finding thick sedimentary successions recording the next million years. Continental margins with large delta systems continually subside under the weight of the sediment, which provides space for more sediment to accumulate, creating more subsidence, and so on — this is how deltaic sediment several miles thick can be found in one location.

Continental margins are certainly not the only place where sediment might accumulate over a million years. Rift basins (e.g., East African Rift Valley), “pull-apart” basins (e.g., related to transform fault zones like the San Andreas), foreland basins (e.g., Himalayan foreland, Andean foreland, etc.) among others are all possible locations where subsidence and sediment supply combine to create a stratigraphic succession.

How much sediment will accumulate over a million years?

My main point in posing this question is to point out that there is no simple answer. Obviously it depends on which basin one would look — it depends on where exactly within that basin as well. Sedimentary basins are not necessarily tectonically “quiet” places — there can be episodes of nondeposition and removal of accumulated sediment (i.e., unconformity development). Sediment accumulation rates can range several orders of magnitude (from essentially nothing to a lot) even within a single sedimentary basin. Certain locations on the Bengal submarine fan, which is the single largest pile of clastic detritus on Earth, has some of the highest short-term rates known (several to 10s of meters per 1,000 years). But, if you remember this post, it is dangerous to extrapolate short-term rates to longer time intervals (and vice versa). When looking at rates determined at a million-year measured interval, the highest rates in the Bengal fan are on the order of 100 meters per million years^.

My guess is that 100 meters of sediment accumulated over a million years is likely the maximum value. I didn’t take the time to look up rates in basins around the world (or look up a paper that has already done that) but I’d guess that somewhere on the order of several to a few tens of meters per million years is reasonable.

The caveat in all of this is that the processes and associated rates over the next million years will be generally similar to the past million years. Even if catastrophic events that occur on timescales of 10s to 100s of millions of years (e.g., large impacts) were to happen, a million years is enough time for the Earth surface system to respond and adjust.

So … to make a long story short. A million years worth of deposition could be as much several 10s of meters, but only in a few select and localized places.

* I highly recommend a resource I’ve mentioned before — the 1995 Busby & Ingersoll text Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins, which puts many aspects of sedimentary basins (e.g., depositional systems, stratigraphic organization, subsidence mechanisms, provenance, etc.) within the context of plate tectonic processes and plate boundary types.

^ Einsele et al., 1996, The Himalaya-Bengal denudation-accumulation system during the past 20 Ma: The Journal of Geology, v. 104, p. 163-184.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

200,000 visitors

January 30, 2009

At some point in the past hour or so, the 200,000th visitor spent some time on this little ol’ blog. Chances are it was someone searching for some geological image (I see a lot of that in the stats). Hopefully those that find what they were looking for that way, like the blog enough to come back again.

But I’d mostly like to thank all those who do read Clastic Detritus regularly and comment from time to time. And I do like getting e-mails and questions from readers (I do apologize for not responding quickly).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Friday Field Foto #76: Thin-bedded turbidites (special repost)

January 30, 2009

If you’ve been following this blog since mid-2007 you may remember this particular Friday Field Foto.

This is one of my very favorites. This is a photograph from Salt Point State Park along the northern California coast (just south of the town of Gualala*).

fff28.jpg

These are some beautiful Paleocene (65-56 Ma) turbidite deposits exposed along the beach cliffs. That ultra-high-tech piece of field equipment at right is a wooden stick with 10 cm increments marked on it.

restless-surfaceThe reason I’m reposting this is because I received a copy of a book in the mail the other day called Earth’s Restless Surface that has this photo in it.

I had forgotten about this … several months ago, the folks who put this book together contacted me about using the above photo. Now that the book is published, they went ahead and sent me a copy, which was very nice.

I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but it looks quite nice. It is on the topic of Earth surface processes and written for the general reader.

Check it out if you get a chance.

UPDATE: See Ron’s GigaPan image of this exact same outcrop … it is amazing.

* say that out loud … it’s fun, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Where on (Google)Earth dead?

January 29, 2009

Where on (Google)Earth #155 has been stalled on Peter’s SmugMug site for almost two months now.

I’ve looked around and can’t find the location … is it that difficult? Or, are people bored of WoGE? Or, did they simply not know where it was being hosted?

At this point, someone just needs to find the dang place and revive this game … I fear that the longer it sits in a potentially lonely corner of the web, the greater the chance of it fading away … forever. Nobody wants that.

So, get over there and find it! If you win, you get to host the next one.

UPDATE: Ron got it … check the link above for info about #156.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abstracts are supposed to be technical

January 29, 2009

I was browsing through the comments on this post at RealClimate and came across this comment:

One aspect I think you missed in determining what gets coverage – the abstract. If the abstract is too technical or describes results that a journalist cannot understand, they will not read the details. Only if the abstract has something stated in a way that the non-technical reader can understand and sees as newsworthy, will they pursue it further.

Absolutely. Positively. Wrong.

That is not what an abstract is for. Although I’ve complained about some press releases in the past (e.g., here and here), I read them essentially everyday and am more often than not satisfied with the information they provide. Press releases or other media releases are written without jargon and non-technical language — they are designed specifically for those without specific training (I put journalists in that category).

If scientists were to write abstracts like media releases, they would become useless to those in the field that want to know what the paper is about. Not the general topic of the paper … but what it is really about.

Just sayin’.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REMINDER: Accretionary Wedge posts due this Friday

January 27, 2009

For this installment of The Accretionary Wedge I am asking for posts that speculate about the future of the Earth within the context of geological processes/events.

I’m not necessarily looking for well-constrained predictions … this is mostly meant to be fun speculation. Be creative!! Although if you do want to project the configuration of plates and long-term climate cycles in a rigorous fashion — go for it.

Please put a link to your post below or e-mail me the link by this Friday, January 30th and I will put them together before the end of the weekend.

Note: The December ‘08 installment will now be in March ‘09; see this page on the archive site for the schedule and feel free to volunteer to host (and come up with a fun topic)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sea-Floor Sunday #40: Puyallup Delta, Puget Sound

January 25, 2009

I apologize for the lack of posts lately … I have been incredibly busy the last month or so. On top of my day job and trying to finish manuscripts, I’m also heading back down to Patagonia in a few weeks to co-convene and lead a research conference. We are really excited about the mix of researchers that are coming to the conference. I will certainly post about the conference and share photographs when I return.

Anyway … here’s a real quick Sea-Floor Sunday image. The USGS Seafloor Mapping program is a great source for sea-floor topographic (bathymetric) images and data. The image below is from the Puyallup river delta in Puget Sound, Washington (click on the images or here to go to the page on USGS’ site).

USGS)

Color shaded-relief bathymetry of Puyallup Delta, offshore Tacoma Washington (credit: USGS)

As a sedimentary geologist, what I find most interesting are the features coming right off the delta and down onto the delta front in deeper water. This perspective image below is about a kilometer across and shows a couple interesting features.

USGS)

Perspective view of Puyallup delta front, Puget Sound (credit: USGS)

The area marked with the ‘A’ is a channel feature coming directly from the river mouth (note the bedforms) and ‘B’ is showing some failure scarps on an oversteepened part of the delta slope.

If you go to the USGS site they also show a comparison of this newer, higher-resolution data with the legacy data of the ’70s/’80s — the difference is amazing.

To learn even more about the sedimentary features and processes of the Puyallup delta, check out this paper:

Mitchell, N., 2005, Channelized erosion through a marine dump site of dredge spoils at the mouth of the Puyallup River, Washington State, USA: Marine Geology, v. 220, p. 131-151.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That pesky manuscript is off my desk

January 20, 2009

What a great feeling it is to submit a manuscript! It is out of my hands for a little bit — hopefully the reviewers think it is worthy of publication (or, more correctly, worthy of being revised to ultimately be published).

This particular paper was the last chapter from my Ph.D. research and, although it was perfectly fine for the dissertation, it needed some refining and tweaking to get ready for a journal. The dissertation version was rather long because I was being as comprehensive as I could with the study — presenting all the results, all the data in tables and figures, and so on.

To get it ready for a journal I needed to significantly shorten many of the sections. This particular study involved some analytical work and in the dissertation version I write at length about all the mundane (yet important) sample collection and preparation aspects. But for a paper, unless the point of the paper is to present new and different methods, I can simply refer to previous work.

Those kinds of revisions weren’t that difficult or time-consuming. The revisions that have consumed way more time had to do with the implications of the results and our interpretations of those results. Everybody enjoys (i.e., cites) papers that have interesting insights tucked away in the discussion sections … something to take away and perhaps apply elsewhere or cause you to look at other rocks differently. These sections of a paper are the most difficult to write … it requires you to separate yourself from all the detail. I think we have some interesting aspects for people to consider — we’ll see what the reviewers think.

What is this paper about?

Well … you’ll have to wait with me as my peers comb through the paper. Reviewing papers correctly and diligently requires significant effort and time. In the meantime, here’s the Wordle cloud for what was submitted:

brcloud4

Same rocks as these — but different scale, different methods, different questions. Geology is awesome.


Oh, look what else happened today — what a day!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sea-Floor Sunday #39: Improved bathymetry data in Google Earth!

January 18, 2009

A reader* tipped me to the release of higher-resolution bathymetry coverage now in Google Earth.

This is pretty cool … although you can’t explore in 3D like on land just yet, this is a great step forward towards the Google Earth I dream about. Check out this post on the Google Earth Blog and below are some snapshots of the new data.

The resolution is certainly higher than the previous data but still not quite as good as what you can find with other tools (e.g., GeoMapApp). But what it lacks in resolution it makes up for in beauty. The rendering of the complex texture of the sea floor at large scales (10s-100s of km) is gorgeous. Check it out.

GoogleEarth

credit: GoogleEarth

GoogleEarth

credit: GoogleEarth

GoogleEarth

credit: GoogleEarth

GoogleEarth

credit: GoogleEarth

GoogleEarth

credit: GoogleEarth

One of the image sources listed at the bottom of the images is GEBCO, which I’ve blogged about before.

My guess is that they’ll start adding high-resolution bathy surveys over time resulting in a similar patchwork that we now see for the onshore areas. There are ways to do this now by doing overlays, but it’ll be nice if it is as seamless as possible.

Yay!

* none other than the guy with his finger on the pulse of web-based and photographic technology available to geologists

Check out all Sea-Floor Sunday images here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wednesday potpourri

January 14, 2009

I have no time right now to finish one of the many draft posts I have on various topics … too busy!! … so instead, here’s a random smattering of stuff on the internets that I don’t have time to read but looks interesting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~