Jump to content
Jntg4

Geologic Data Scale

Recommended Posts

Auspex

How far we've come since William Smith! You have obviously put a great deal of research, time, and effort into your synthesis, and I salute you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

How far we've come since William Smith! You have obviously put a great deal of research, time, and effort into your synthesis, and I salute you :)

Thanks :)

The site is a month old tomorrow, still have a LOT of work to do though haha. I made this site since much of Palaeos.com is crashed and after I found the article on the Chaotian Eon and revision of the Hadean by Goldblatt et al. I got to work. Hard part was trying to determine dates for the Chaotian periods and deciding what to do with the Anthropocene.

Hoping Goldblatt does another report on the Chaotian and can't wait for Gradstein's GTS2012 to come out.

Had no name eons and make eras for the periods of the time scales for other planets so that something would be coming after the Chaotian Eon.

Hope the Eoarchean, Paleoarchean, Mesoarchean, and Neoarchean are subdivided into periods soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Made some big revisions today. I split the Paleoproterozoic into two eras, as ICS Annual Reports and the IUGS have been calling for. I also subdivided the Prenephelean with my own scheme, and am making preparations to split the Paleozoic into two sub-eras and resurrect the Tertiary as a sub-era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Made an updated version that reflects the GTS2012's proposal for a radically refined Precambrian, kept Goldstein's Hadean and Chaotian periods except the Promethean, and made a few other personal adjustments. Up until the Ordovician are new articles, after that it is mostly the same articles from before since all that changed was dates.

https://sites.google.com/site/geologicdatascale2/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Interesting project... One suggestion: arrange the timescale with the oldest at bottom and recent at top as per convention. I get used to reading it this way and reading it upside down becomes more difficult than it might otherwise be!
I have been toying with adding to the current timescale to fill in those gaps you speak of but I'm cautious as they are always pushing back 'first' dates (eg. first life, crust, minerals, etc).. But I did imagine a Zirconian or Zirconiferous period.. There would also have to be a Prelunar period and a Lunar or Pre-zirconian period between the creation of moon and first zircons. If I could figure out the Greek word for 'cooling' or 'coalescing' (for assembly of moon and cooling of earth's crust after the impact) I would have a good name for that one.
I don't know why they made so many small eras in the Archean when there is so little basis to subdivide them into periods, but maybe the Paleoarchean (for one) could be divided into the Prebiotic and Eobiotic, or something like that - that is if everyone can agree on the origin of life and it doesn't get pushed back before the start of that era.... This is the kind of uncertainty that keeps me from being more ambitious as you are!
post-4372-0-87350900-1356929749_thumb.jpg

BTW you may have seen my timescale page here on the Forum:
http://www.thefossil...gic-time-scale/

EDIT: newer version of Precambrian timescale above with mistakes corrected and tentative period names added (my ideas only)

Edited by Wrangellian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Interesting project... One suggestion: arrange the timescale with the oldest at bottom and recent at top as per convention. I get used to reading it this way and reading it upside down becomes more difficult than it might otherwise be!

I have been toying with adding to the current timescale to fill in those gaps you speak of but I'm cautious as they are always pushing back 'first' dates (eg. first life, crust, minerals, etc).. But I did imagine a Zirconian or Zirconiferous period.. There would also have to be a Prelunar period and a Lunar or Pre-zirconian period between the creation of moon and first zircons. If I could figure out the Greek word for 'cooling' or 'coalescing' (for assembly of moon and cooling of earth's crust after the impact) I would have a good name for that one.

I don't know why they made so many small eras in the Archean when there is so little basis to subdivide them into periods, but maybe the Paleoarchean (for one) could be divided into the Prebiotic and Eobiotic, or something like that - that is if everyone can agree on the origin of life and it doesn't get pushed back before the start of that era.... This is the kind of uncertainty that keeps me from being more ambitious as you are!

BTW you may have seen my timescale page here on the Forum:

http://www.thefossil...gic-time-scale/

Ah, that is a great project you have there! Tons of info and I like how you also use a few different timescales combined.

As for your comments on this:

Present to Past: I could do that, but it honestly does not suit the purpose of the website and would require article rewrites as I reference things already mentioned on a previous page that the ready more likely would have read or seen previously differently than something that has yet to happen by the time of the period.

Archean Subdivisions: You are right that the dates of many of these will likely change, though the base events are pretty significant and it is still better that a pure chronometric system IMO. I can definitely understand why you would wish to be cautious here too, if mine wasn't dedicated specifically towards getting the newest proposals out there, I would be the same way. After the GTS2012 proposal for a revised Precambrian, I had little choice but to re-do the site, which I realized shortly after beginning to update it, and ended up having to re-write all the Precambrian articles completely new as well. It is a lot of work for a proposal that you know will likely be replaced by something else in a matter of years. It is definitely more scientifically correct to play cautiously in these scenarios. I did take the opportunity of the re-write to make my subdivisions to the time between universe and solar system creation, and added a Preuniversal Eon as well, because I decided on following the Big Bounce theory on the new version. As for your Paleoarchean subdivision proposal, it is a pretty good idea, though I tend to follow the Hadean Life Theory.

Also, if you go to my Ediacaran page, I have the proposed epochs and ages of the period from GTS2012 if you are curious about those. Don't know much about why those dates were chosen, but there they are. Got them from this image from the GTS2012 book: http://ars.els-cdn.c...80444594259.jpg

Next steps for the site are Mars, Moon, and Mercury, and after that down to subperiods and epochs!

EDIT: Copied Mars and Mercury period articles to new site, then decided to completely rewrite Mercury articles, which are now more informative, though still brief. Very likely to rewrite Mars, Moon, and Phanerozoic period articles next.

EDIT2: Actually, probably will only have to rewrite/expand Amazonian article for Mars.

Edited by Jntg4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

OK I guess I haven't gone into your site in depth but it wasn't clear to me that turning your general list-style timescale upside down would require article rewrites etc. I only mention it because it's not just an arbitrary choice conventional to put the oldest at the bottom because younger rocks are deposited on top of older ones... and for me, reading them the other way almost requires a brain-rewiring! If you had it the right way up it would be easy for someone like me to convert it to a timescale like you see in my link.

Anyway, not a big deal.

It looks like the Ediacaran stages are proposed based on the faunal changes that are evident - Stages 2, 3 and 4 seem to correspond to the Avalon, White Sea and Nama assemblages that I read about somewhere and put tentatively in my timescale. I guess they would be called the Avalonian, Belomorean(? = White Sea) and Naman.

I guess there is nothing wrong with moveable dates - they have been adjusting Phanerozoic boundaries constantly since the timescale was devised.. Also, even though the Precambrian division are all chronometrically defined, I understand the names do refer to things that happened roughly during that time (which might be impossible to nail down to an accurate date). So an arbitrary date is better than nothing. Like you say, easier to have blocks with distinct names to refer to than just a pure chronometric system.

The question then becomes, which events are most worthy of marking period boundaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

OK I guess I haven't gone into your site in depth but it wasn't clear to me that turning your general list-style timescale upside down would require article rewrites etc. I only mention it because it's not just an arbitrary choice conventional to put the oldest at the bottom because younger rocks are deposited on top of older ones... and for me, reading them the other way almost requires a brain-rewiring! If you had it the right way up it would be easy for someone like me to convert it to a timescale like you see in my link.

Anyway, not a big deal.

It looks like the Ediacaran stages are proposed based on the faunal changes that are evident - Stages 2, 3 and 4 seem to correspond to the Avalon, White Sea and Nama assemblages that I read about somewhere and put tentatively in my timescale. I guess they would be called the Avalonian, Belomorean(? = White Sea) and Naman.

I guess there is nothing wrong with moveable dates - they have been adjusting Phanerozoic boundaries constantly since the timescale was devised.. Also, even though the Precambrian division are all chronometrically defined, I understand the names do refer to things that happened roughly during that time (which might be impossible to nail down to an accurate date). So an arbitrary date is better than nothing. Like you say, easier to have blocks with distinct names to refer to than just a pure chronometric system.

The question then becomes, which events are most worthy of marking period boundaries?

That last question is a big one, probably one of the I'm sure several reasons Gradstein and Ogg (and the ICS) didn't formally adopt the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Right..

I'd suppose that the collision that formed the moon would be a pretty good period boundary, for one. The first record of life would be another, if there is any consensus on which is the earliest record. The Late Heavy Bombardment is a pretty definite time as well, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Right..

I'd suppose that the collision that formed the moon would be a pretty good period boundary, for one. The first record of life would be another, if there is any consensus on which is the earliest record. The Late Heavy Bombardment is a pretty definite time as well, isn't it?

Yes, it is a pretty definite time.

Here is what was proposed in GTS2012, showing the base events:

http://ars.els-cdn.c...80444594259.jpg

Of course, I still have the Hadean periods of Goldblatt et. al as well (except for the Promethean).

They have the moon-forming impact event mentioned, but not as a base. I have it as 4510 (though I've also heard 4533) as the boundary between Goldblatt's Titanomachean and Hephaesten periods (the Chaotian Eon ones, now part of the Prechaotian in my scheme and the Hadean as proposed by GTS2012 were already based on events, while the Hadean was chronometric before I was able to place an event on all but the Canadian-Procrusten boundary so far, adjusting them by up to 24 million years, so if you can find a big event close to 4200 MYA (but not exact) I can use, I'd certainly consider it).

EDIT: Oh, and on your updated timescale you put up on the 30th, I recommend renaming the Prelunar the Tellurian or something along those lines as it is a geologic time scale of Earth, not the Moon, so it is best to keep it in Earth terms IMO. Tellurian comes from Tellus, or the name Goldblatt et. al proposed for the proto-Earth pre-Moon-forming impact.

Edited by Jntg4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Well the moon does belong to Earth, I would call the Prelunar the time before Earth had a moon, and the moon was formed by an impact to Earth, so in that sense it's appropriate. On the other hand I guess it doesn't really matter what we call the periods as long as they are based on 'something' and we can all agree to their use! For that matter you wouldn't need any of those Prechaotian/Precelestial etc periods when we're speaking of Earth as it did not exist yet then (If we're talking about a geologic time scale)..

That timescale is much easier to read, thanks! Do you think we can post it to our thread, or is it copyrighted?

That line "accretion of giant moon-forming impact event" doesn't make much sense for a period that encompasses both sides of the event :wacko: I'd say the impact itself is pretty important as a boundary.

Also I see the Acasta is still considered the the oldest rock.. what about Nuvvuagittuq?

My approach with my scale above is to add to what they already had done, not to revamp it completely. I've been trying to find some of the old disused units if there are any of use to fill in the empty pre-Proterozoic. Some of these might be named by the location of the rocks used to define it as has been done with most of the Phanerozoic units and Ediacaran. I see the Hamersley BIFs are mentioned, that is one period I used to have but was never sure when those deposits were thought to have started. I'll put it back in since it makes a nice division of the Neoarchean. (no idea yet what to name the lower part though - maybe it's not such a good idea to name periods after supercontinents either, from what I've seen most of them are pretty tenuous in evidence) I have contacted Dr Ogg for more Precambrian info. This might become an obsession, what have you started??

How serious do you think the revamped version is and how likely is it to be adopted?

Edited by Wrangellian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

BTW I liked the old Azoic/Archeozoic(Archean) system also - still not sure why they changed to the Hadean/Archean and what significant event is supposed to mark the boundary between them if not the start of life.

Edited by Wrangellian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

My use of Prechaotian is inspired by Goldblatt's proposal, I have it set so that the timescale starts with the narrowest scope possible for Earth's history, which is the Universe at the beginning, then the Milky Way is the next one I move too, and then the Solar System with Goldblatt's scheme. The evolution of these bodies is important to Earth and the time before Earth's creation is important too which is why I use it, but point taken.

The description mentioning the accretion simply meant that it happened during the period, not that it was the whole period.

Nuvvuagittuq's actual age is disputed, some think it is much younger while the age calculated had more to do with the magma (or something along those lines). I use it as the base of Goldblatt's Canadian period (originally at 4300 MYA).

All I've done is what is on my two sites above, not much else, I have a few more things to try out, but whenever possible I just go by the most recent major proposal instead of my own stuff (though I did do that for the Preuniversal, Eoprechaotian, and Mesoprechaotian and their subdivisions).

The revamped version is a serious proposal, but I don't see it being adopted. This is significantly closer than any of the previous proposals though, and the first one that essentially eliminates chronometric bases. Huge step forward, but not formal enough to be adopted. When the next GTS book comes out, there will be more changes I'm sure, but who knows when that will be. However, I expect the next one to be similar to this one, rather than the radical change between this one and the previous one. It is better than the current formal system anyway.

I hope you can get some good information from Ogg! I tried to contact Goldblatt before and never got a response.

EDIT: Ahh, it's been a while since I've heard the terms Azoic and Archaeozoic, probably just fell out of favor when someone made a few discoveries and then coined their own term, I didn't follow the time scale back then.

Edited by Jntg4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Oh, and Wrangellian, how do you make your timescales like the one you showed earlier in this thread? Do you just do it in Paint or do you have a program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Updated Permian to new Permian Timescale that was ratified by ICS. Wrote new Ordovician and Silurian articles, leaves 9 periods to do.

Edited by Jntg4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Check the timescale page, I have a more commonplace form of timescale up there now too. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Oh, and Wrangellian, how do you make your timescales like the one you showed earlier in this thread? Do you just do it in Paint or do you have a program?

Paint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

Just adjusted for new data: Moved base of Prechaotian, Eoprechaotian, and Precelestial to 13810 MYA, as the universe is now believed to be even older than previously thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Is it? I hadn't heard that yet.. how old is it supposed to be now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

Is it? I hadn't heard that yet.. how old is it supposed to be now?

The results of the Planck Satellite mission are in: LINK

The age of the universe is now calculated to be 13.82 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

The results of the Planck Satellite mission are in: LINK

The age of the universe is now calculated to be 13.82 billion years.

I've seen 13.81 also, which is what I used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

I've seen 13.81 also, which is what I used.

...give-or-take. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jntg4

...give-or-take. ;)

Yes, of course when that far back, but I'm considering changing it now that I have it on the reliable site you posted, interested to see which becomes more widely reported (besides the 13.8 figure, seems like they just truncated it more).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auspex

I have to wonder what the margin of uncertainty is, and how many orders of assumption are encompassed in the process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×