Talk:Geology of the Grand Canyon area

message: deine mutter kocht ohne salz   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.221.252 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible references 

message: These articles suggest that there may be some controversy in the government's stance on the geological age of the grand canyon.
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisdab (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion at Talk:Grand_Canyon.  The fact that the government may choose to ignore science does not mean that the age of the Grand Canyon is controversial. Geologyguy 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is more then one theory on how the Grand Canyon formed. And this also includes differences in the age of the Grand Canyon. If someone has literature, please show it here. --41.18.46.57 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source about any other geological estimates of the age of the canyon, please mention it. But I'm pretty sure that the ice age is the only valid theory for it's formation. Auntie E (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Canyon formation likely went faster during the ice age due to increased precipitation but I would not say that it caused the canyon's formation. Rather, downcutting of the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose and the Gulf of California opened up is the consensus view. --mav (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A tempest in a young-Earther crackpot does not a scientific controversy make. --mav (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: From what I've read, it is much more an issue of definitions; Did something we know as the "Grand Canyon" exist prior to 5 to 6 million years ago? Well, it depends on whether or not you call one or the other of the (at least) two ancestral canyons that eventually merged, the "Grand Canyon" or not. IMO, the Grand Canyon did not exist until the merger and we have a ballpark figure for when that happened. Unfortunately, much of the downcutting prior to 5 to 6 million years ago occurred in Mesozoic-aged strata that have since been almost completely removed from the Grand Canyon area. Much was also carried away by expansion of the canyon itself. Pitty. I would love to know where the upper canyon emptied and exactly how the merger happened. --mav (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be any talk about the current controvery over the grand canyon's age? 

message: From the article "Galeros Formation is a mainly greenish formation composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone, and shale with some shale. It ranges in color from red to purple". 
*"Shale with some shale" looks like an error.
* What is the color of Galeros Formation?
Avihu (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some wording, the redundant "some shale" bit and took out the "red to purple". The colors and lithology of the formation are variable, don't have the ref used -- but for the brief summary given that may work. Details of the group are available in: Ford, T.D. and Breed, W.J., 1973, Late Precambrian Chuar Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, no. 4, p. 1243-1260. Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galeros Formation  

message: Toroweap Formation is "is a ledge- and cliff-former" and is divided into the following three members: Seligman is a slope-forming, Brady Canyon is a cliff-forming and Wood Ranch is a slope-forming. Two out of three are slope-forming, but the formation as a whole is a ledge- and cliff-former? Avihu (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed per Toroweap Formation and strat column (fig 1). Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toroweap Formation 

message: From the article "Dams that were 150 to 400 feet (46 to 120 m) high were overtopped by their lakes in 2 to 17 days while dams 200 to 1,000 feet (61 to 300 m) high were overtopped in 22 years. 400 feet dams in just up to 17 days, but 200 feet dams in 22 years? Avihu (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem off a bit ... don't have the book (Beus, Stanely S.; Morales, Michael, eds. (2003). Grand Canyon Geology (2nd ed.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ) used as a reference to check. Looks like that was added by User:Mav at 03:40, 14 September 2009. I'll ask him to stretch his memory back 3 years or maybe check the source and add / fix for clarification. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Yep - Page 321 does say "22 years" but now that I think about it, it must be an error in the book since the sentence right before that says that overtopping was very rapid. 22 "days" makes much more sense in that regard. Absent another source confirming that, our only recourse is to comment out that part. I'll do that. --mav (reviews needed) 13:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found source that corroborate the 22 years period. See the description of Prospect Dam on pages 34 and 35 of Jeremy Schmidt, The Grand Canyon National Park: A Natural History Guide. Avihu (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanic activity dams the new canyon 

message: From the article "The Bass Limestone was deposited in a shallow sea near the coast as a mix of limestone, sandstone, and shale. It is 120 to 340 feet (37 to 100 m) thick and grayish in color." According the USGS site it  contains dolomite and not limestone (contrary to the formation name), it's color is "Red-brown and reddish-gray" and it is  "260 to 300 ft" thick. The color and the thickness are just small variations from what is written in the article, but the lithology is not. By the way the elaborate Rock Hounds site also specify dolomite instead of limestone. Avihu (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Vsmith? Mav? Anyone? Avihu (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Harris ref (through Google books p 21) does state that and is in disagreement with the USGS website. Harris has only a brief mention of the Bass - essentially what is in the article and no more. The USGS site switches to Bass Formation and gives a bit more detail, including the dolomite part. I suppose it could be read as the Bass was deposited as a limestone which was later dolomitized... but that's reading more than the refs explicitly state. I'd say, go with the more detailed USGS ref. Vsmith (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I did in my translation of the article into Hebrew. In the Hebrew Wikipedia we have a rule that you can use source only if you read it yourself. Unfortunately almost all the books in the reference section of the English article are unavailable through Google books, so I had no choice but to search for replacements and this how I got to find this discrepancy between the Article and the USGS site. I leave it to you guys to update the English version. Avihu (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bass Limestone 

message: From the article "when thousands of feet of volcanic ash, mud, sand, and silt were laid down in a shallow backarc basin similar to the modern Sea of Japan", this need a bit of clarification. Avihu (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? Avihu (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ???? Avihu (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that deleting the reference to "thousands of feet" is doing justice to the article. In the article GEOLOGY OF GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, NORTH RIM, Annabelle Foos from the Geology Department, University of Akron is very specific "The oldest rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon are the Proterozoic Vishnu schist. Approximately 2 billion years ago, 25,000 feet of sediments and volcanic material were deposited on the sea floor". Avihu (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vishnu Schist  

message: Blocked as a sock of . Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: HerbertHuey a sockpuppet

message: In this section, a part reads, "thickness of 600 to 700 feet (200 to 200 m)."   The metric part needs to be looked up from the original source and updated (I could use conversions to write "(183 to 213 m)", but that doesn't seem like a good change).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.232.216 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The metric part is an automated conversion showing only one significant digit. Normally that is correct given the likely ambiguity in the cited data ("600 to 700 feet"), but a difference of only 100 feet rounds to 200 meters for both cited values in the range when only one sig fig is used. So I got rid of the convert template and just give (around 200 m) for the metric conversion. --mav (reviews needed) 14:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supai Group 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921015023/http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov:80/grandcan/dam.html to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/dam.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512205820/http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/watereffects.html to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/watereffects.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010204750/http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/education/Foos/grand.pdf to http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/education/foos/grand.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geology of the Grand Canyon area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/dam.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411105123/http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/flood.html to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/grandcan/flood.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a new stratigraphic column in jpg, pdf, and ai formats in the National Park Services' Grand Canyon National Park Maps.
*Grand Canyon National Park Rock Column - jpg version
*Grand Canyon National Park Rock Column - PDF version 
On the same web page, there are also a number of Grand Canyon National Park maps and their Illustrator print production files. The latter can be custom modified. The maps and their print production files for other national parks can be found at National Parks with Geospatial Maps Listed A to Z. Paul H. (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stratigraphic Column for Grand Canyon National Park