When the hell are we?

Whenever you’re trying to talk about science to a broader audience, one of the major challenges is cutting out the jargon. Sometimes, though, the real difficulty is not so much in translating the jargon, as identifying it in the first place. This problem his highlighted by BAllenJ’s comment on my last post:

…when you write these geology posts that the non-geologist can enjoy, could you please use the age instead of the geological name, or even better…along with? I need a secret decoder ring (OK, answers.com) to decode stuff like “During the Cretaceous and early Cenozoic…”

He’s absolutely right, of course. I’ve discussed in previous posts the whys and wherefores of the geological timescale – how it attempts to divide geological history up into distinct chunks, each with its own unique tectonic, climatic and biological character. For geologists, it’s a useful shorthand, because we’re familiar with the geological timescale and know more or less where all of the different periods slot in*. I suspect that talking about named periods rather than absolute age ranges also helps geologists to handle the disconnect between the lengths of time we’re discussing when talking about Earth history (tens, hundreds, and even thousands of millions of years), and the lengths of time that our little primate brains can actually get our heads around (ranging from a handful of years down to seconds, depending on how cynical you’re feeling). Regardless, we’re so used to bandying about ‘Cretaceous’ and ‘Cenozoic’ that we forget that they can be, to the layman, words just as impenetrable as ‘diagenesis’ or ‘turbidite’ (or, indeed, ‘allochthonous‘).
I’m not unaware of this problem, of course, and at a number of places in that post I did provide numerical ages as well as period names. But I didn’t everywhere, partly because I simply forgot to, but also because it’s sometimes difficult to do so without destroying the flow of the text. Also, I’m not entirely convinced that simply inserting the numbers always helps people to really get to grips with where (or when) the hell I’m talking about. Perhaps it would just be easier to show visually when I’m talking about:

timescale.jpg

This is actually an idea I’ve been toying with for some time, but just hadn’t got around to implementing: place this compressed timescale at the bottom of the post, with the red bar showing the time period I’m talking about, and every time I mention a geological period name, internally link down to it. I’ve just given ‘Tectonics shown to drive changes in biodiversity’ this treatment. Take a look, and let me know whether you think this is a useful addition, or whether I should just stick to adding more numbers. I am a little worried that the text is a little too small, or the logarithmic-esque timescale required to fit everything on nicely might be a little bit confusing. But it’s fun to play…
*Of course, even we geologists usually have some shaky areas; as Christie has commented in the past, coming to South Africa gives you a whole new perspective on a period of Earth history which was previously generically filed away under ‘really old stuff’, or ‘that time before multicellular life kicked off’.

Categories: deep time, general science, geology

Tectonics shown to drive changes in biodiversity

ResearchBlogging.orgIn my contribution to the recent debate over the relative evilness of volcanoes, I argued:

…life may sometimes be threatened by geology, but it is also intimately shaped by it.

At the time, I did wonder if what is – at least to us geologists – a fairly obvious point was not as fully appreciated by our biologist brethen as it should be. Since making it can apparently get you published in Science, it seems that this is indeed the case. Snark aside, however, Renema et al. have provided a very nice demonstration of how the creation and destruction of habitats by tectonic processes drive changes in biodiversity.

Continue reading

Categories: Cenozoic, fossils, geology, paper reviews, tectonics

One Geology is very cool indeed

Just like Kim, Alessia, and Hypocentre, I’ve been having fun with the One Geology portal, which presents the first incarnation of the project to create the world’s first online, global, geological map. You can even download geological overlays for Google Earth, which is so cool that I’ll forgive the fact that the portal doesn’t yet work with Firefox 3, which has forced me to dust the electronic cobwebs off Internet Explorer*
Anyway, here’s the geology beneath my feet right now:

joburggeob.jpg

The circular green and pink area in the bottom right (north-east) corner is granite-greenstone basement which formed 3-3.1 billion (3000-3100 million) years ago. The different-coloured concentric bands surrounding this (starting with yellow, ending with orange) are the various units of the Witwatersrand Supergroup, a cratonic cover sequence which is the same age as the Pongola rocks that I’ve been studying during my time here; both sequences were probably originally deposited in a single basin, which has since been dismembered by later geological happenings. Gold-bearing conglomerates in the Witwatersrand – the source of 40% of all the gold ever mined – are the reason for Johannesburg’s existence. As you can see, the University (and my current abode) are located – appropriately enough – on top of the lowest unit of the Witwatersrand. Younger sequences (by South African standards – virtually every unit in this image is more than 2.3 billion years old) can be seen around the western and southern edges.
Given that these are still the very early days of this project, I’m getting very excited about what geological goodies we’ll see online in the future.
*If that turns your stomach, according to Hypocentre the Flock social browser, which is based on Firefox 2, also works.

Categories: geology

The Earth is flat, you fools!

There’s a curious story on the BBC website which highlights the fact that, despite the ready availability of pictures like this:

apollo08_earthrise.jpg

There are still people out there who think that the world looks more like this*:

Paul_Kidby_Discworld.jpg

To be fair, not everyone agrees about the turtle and elephants. In fact, in the classic conspiracy theorist/maverick manner, the two ‘zeteticists’ interviewed were really only in agreement about the non-sphericity of the Earth – John Davis thinks that it is a 9000 km thick slab of infinite extent, whereas James McIntyre believes it to be a disc 24,900 miles in diameter.
Out of curiosity, I clicked through to the Flat Earth Society forum, which James McIntyre moderates. Here are some highlights from their FAQ.

Q: “Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?”

A: It’s a conspiracy

Q: “What about NASA? Don’t they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?”

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: “What is the motive behind this conspiracy?”

A: The motive is unknown although it is probably money

Q: “If you’re not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?”

A: Well it’s quite simple really; if the earth is in fact flat, then the governments must be lying when they say it isn’t.

Q: “How are the world governments organized enough to carry out this conspiracy?”

A: They only appear to be disorganized to make the conspiracy seem implausible.

Q: Why hasn’t this site been shut down by the government?

A: Doing so would prove that the government is hiding something.

Q: “What’s underneath the Earth?” aka “What’s on the bottom?” aka “What’s on the other side?”

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

Reading that, I find it difficult to quell my nagging parody sense. However, the real reason for my browsing was to see what the flat-earth explanation for ships disappearing over the horizon was. Obviously, any coherent theory would have to explain this easily observable phenomenon, which is commonly ascribed to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. And, indeed, there is at least one thread devoted to this question. Not to answering it, mind; one person points to a book written in 1881 (which, as far as I can understand, tries to write it off as a trick of perspective, although quite why the the bottom of a not-particularly-tall object is being visually compressed so much more than its top is rather obscure) but other than that there is merely lots of hand-waving about how all us ‘globalists’ are only seeing what we’ve been brainwashed to see.
The BBC article concludes with an interesting discussion with Christine Garwood, a historian who has written what could be a rather interesting book:

Perhaps one of the most surprising things in Garwood’s book is her revelation that flat earth theory is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Ms Garwood says it is an “historic fallacy” that everyone from ancient times to the Dark Ages believed the earth to be flat, and were only disabused of this “mad idea” once Christopher Columbus successfully sailed to America without “falling off the edge of the world”…

…Theories about the earth being flat really came to the fore in 19th Century England. With the rise and rise of scientific rationalism, which seemed to undermine Biblical authority, some Christian thinkers decided to launch an attack on established science.

Is it just me, or does this sound rather…familiar?
*One of the inspirations for this article is apparently a new Microsoft advert which compares all of the people who are not buying Windows Vista to flat-earthers. Which just goes to show that there are still uncharted depths of self-delusion to explore, even for the nuttiest of us.

Categories: antiscience, bloggery

Larger than your average mica

So how big was that muscovite from last Friday’s geopuzzle? This big:

P7250243.jpg

Continue reading

Categories: geology, geopuzzling