At 23:20 - How the Paleogeographic Maps Are Made. Dr. Ron Blakey distilling thousands of land surveys, into an accessible easy to use tool. Amazing effort.
Awesome! I used to work for the Forest Service north of the Grand Canyon in the late 1970's and would fly to Williams for meetings and fly both north and south of the canyon for fire patrol in the summers. I wish I would have seen this first!
This was highly educational. We have the book on display for people to look at in the Museum of the San Rafael in Castle Dale. Really wonderful! Thank you!
This is fantastic - but posted in 240P ? It sure deserves higher resolution. Is there any possibility you could re-post someday in 720 or such ? Thank you. J.G.
Very interesting. I hope to visit the US and Canada one day. The landscapes, are breathtaking, awesome, inspiring. I wish this could be done for the 2 billion years old Magaliesburg Mountains. That would be amazing.
I am a big fan of the geology of Frenchman Mt. Wish there were more details as to the age of the various layors of rocks. There are so many layers of sediment, I wonder if there are any graphs or articles about it. Have found partial descriptions.
Great video! But it was not just rivers, it was water erosion through bedrock from hardstone to soft stone to collapse of hardstone above it, such as the Coconino above the Hermit, that created so many of the deep amphitheaters of the Grand Canyon.
There are rocks 1.8 billion years old in the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Mojave Desert similar to some found in the Grand Canyon.
Was there an ancient river that flowed thru el paso Texas? I've seen rounded rock deposits that are in the hills below the Franklin mountains.... always been curious about how they got here
---"Was there an ancient river that flowed thru el paso Texas? I've seen rounded rock deposits that are in the hills below the Franklin mountains.... always been curious about how they got here." Except the "millions of years" of uniformitarian geology models will never be able to explain how they got there. Not and remain coherent with the facts and evidence. But if you really do want to know how every geological feature on the planet is fluidly explained using simple cause to effect physics-based mechanisms, including the Grand canyon, glaciers, Niagra falls, Dry falls, continental plantation fields, wind and water gaps, etc, then please do check out hydroplate theory.
At 22:20 the screen shows 272 million years ago and he says we had an ocean come in from the west and flood part of the Grand Canyon…weird thing is that the Grand Canyon is said to have started forming around 5-6 million years ago, so what came first, the Colorado river or the ocean?
The rocks of the Grand Canyon were laid down long long time ago (from 1700 Ma to 270Ma). That means that area was lowland back then, not a canyon at all. And since the last 10 Ma ago, that area was uplifted for some reason. And anything goes up should be cut down by river. And the river (what we call Colorado river) cuts off the very old rocks layer by layer and made a huge canyon. That's what we see at the Grand Canyon now... And yes, the ocean came first. The river is a newcomer.
“The history of our planet is contained in that strata “ “Every one of those layers used to be the surface of the earth“ One major problem with that hypothesis: we have one deep gouge cut into those layers but no evidence of erosion or similar gouges or canyons or the Cliffs Inside of those layers oh indicating erosion in the past before this last most recent massive excavation called the Grand Canyon!
There are rivers there and most of the eroded sandstone went to the ocean. Part of the sediments are there where the river meets the sea. Barely now. The sediments in the Colorado are a mix of whatever was washed into it along its length, from millions of years old to recent. Which is usual for deltas. San Andreas fault line running through there adds a problem. Core samples might be able to date them. But date the ages of each grain of sand in a delta layer? Go for it if you can. I assume you have never looked at a map of the region. There is more than one deep gouge. I suggest you look at one showing the tributaries that did or do feed it. Fifteen thousand years ago there would have been a lot more water rushing from it’s source and the rivers that fed it. The Colorado today is likely what the tributaries were like way back then, or smaller.
yes in the various canyons throghout the world they DO cut through previous river valleys and such that filled with sediment. so its not just like layers of a book that if you walk along those layers there are many cases of canyons or hilltops whathave you. Its just that in making the graphs unless a feature was truly massive its impossible to draw them in but they are there. also in a canyon you just have one cut but if you could lift off an entire layer or slice you WOULD see the details of the former landscape
As a geologist, do your calculations consider the massive amount of metric tonnes on space dust that are constantly being assimilated by earth ? If not, what would be the geological impact of an ever-expanding earth ?
Everyone can test for himself how much the Earth expands by space dust. Just look at the table in your garden or on your balcony how many centimeters/inches of space dust it collects per day. Oh, it doesn't? And the dust that can be found on it is of earthly origins? Well, maybe your claim of that "ever-expanding Earth" is just crackpot BS.
Wayne, you're making my job difficult by calling the Colorado Plateau an arid region. The plateau is primarily a woodland-steppes biome, about 10 to 18 inches of precipitation. I want to make this clear as I create Ecological Systems on the Plateau for agriculture. Don't get me wrong though. I deeply appreciate your work.
The biggest idea I am trying to express is tunneling aqueducts from the coast, in this case the west coast of the USA inland to feed combination geothermal power and sea water desalination plants. The idea seems to be so big that no one has considered it possible but I believe it is not only possible but it is necessary. For over a century the fossil water contained in aquifers has been pumped out to feed agriculture, industry and municipal water needs. The natural water cycle cant refill fossil water deposits that were filled 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Without refilling these aquifers there is not much of a future for the region of the United states. As a result ground levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have subsided by more than 30 feet. Similar fossil water depletion is happening in other regions all around the world. TBM and tunneling technology has matured and further developments in the industry are poised to speed up the tunneling process and it's these tunnels that are the only way to move large volumes of water from the ocean inland. The water is moved inland to areas where it can be desalinated in geothermal plants producing clean water and power. In many cases the water will recharge surface reservoirs where it will be used first to make more hydro power before being released into rivers and canal systems. It's very important however to not stop tunneling at these first stops but to continue several legs until the water has traveled from the ocean under mountain ranges to interior states. Along the way water will flow down grade through tunnels and rise in geothermal loops to fill mountain top pumped hydro batteries several times before eventually recharging several major aquifers. What I am proposing is essentially reversing the flow of the Colorado River Compact. Bringing water from the coast of California first to mountaintop reservoirs then to the deserts of Nevada and Arizona and on to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. This big idea looks past any individual city or states problems and looks at the whole and by using first principles identifies the actual problem and only solution. Thank you for your time, I would like the opportunity to explain in further detail and answer any questions. A better future is possible,
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
Yes, they are. The only reason why millions of years sound absurd to creationists is the fact that Ken Ham and other religious nutjobs are constantly repeating the fairytale of a young Earth. There is not one single natural fact or one natural law making deep time fundamentally impossible. On the contrary - there is evidence upon evidence upon evidence that the Earth has to be a lot older than the 6,000 - 10,000 years Ham and his ilk are fabulating about. Just think about marble and how it forms. Marble once was calcite that was deposited as sediment in a marine environment. It lithified and then took a deep dive down under Earth's surface for 10, 20 or more miles into the lithosphere. Only in those depths - under high temperatures and high pressure - could it metamorphize into marble. And to be able to find it and mine it it had to be uplifted to the surface again by tectonic forces. This whole process is virtually impossible within a few thousand years. We are talking about tens of millions of years here. There are countless other examples which make the assumption of a young Earth outright ridiculous.
The class should be entitled the moderately incompetent science of geological history constructed from non-demonstrable first presuppositions which create a fictional account of geological history. The large rock formations are surmised to have formed over millions of years and then the beach theory is surmised to account for sandstone. Apparently, the sandstone over large areas of several continents means similar beaches occurred all over the world in many and various directions, all surmised to have occurred through slow processes. No available means of verification is available to affirm or prove the theory, for none is required within the science academy. The long ages and the slow processes are not observed and the theory is never subject to the scrutiny of any logical fallacies. The claim of a bay in Mexico forming sediment does not equate to explaining inland, elevated sandstone over hundreds or thousands of square miles. One may easily posit a catastrophe in the distant past or in recent history to account for the inland sandstone without any reference to moving beach fronts and ever expanding land formations into the sea. Geology is always subject to the critical appraisal of alternate theories to explain or provide a fictional account of geological history. As always, the science of geology is really the presupposed worldview of naturalistic pantheism applied with the presumed uniformitarianism with evolutionism. Dont presuppose any other worldview to explain geology - anathema sit!
I do NOT agree with his statement that every horizon you can see in the Grand Canyon (horizontal layers) were once the surface of the Earth. Come on, really? And I wanted to watch this with so much intent excitement! We'll see how the rest of the video goes i guess......
Sheldon Hatch, the key to how this happened was that because of larger plate tectonic dynamics, this particular land mass was subsiding and sinking down into the mantel, because of this the layers kept on piling up. Only way later, did uplift start happening agains, pushing all this way above sea level - that in turn enabled river erosion to cut these deep incisions into those layers. It's majestic, and these days we know more about it than any other humans ever did before, thanks to curious passion people who keep on learning ever more about our planet. Really quite amazing, spectacular even. Cheers, CC
Uh oh. Internet smart guy's arrived. There's always exceptions to the rule and geological anomalies that occur- especially in areas that have seen such dramatic shifts, faults, volcanic activity, climate changes, and tectonic activity. What he said is true for probably 99% of the layers. No need to discredit everything else he said just because he didn't add the one irrelevant detail that you seem to need to hear.
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
He was talking to people in Salt Lake City. The geological images showed ALL of that area. The red dot showing where Salt Lake is was not the center point of the images. I am assuming that if he was giving the presentation in Colorado or Arizona the red dot would indicate where a major city was in that state.
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
@@MongooseofMayhem YES The title states University of Utah April 13, 2010. I don't see what difference that makes. Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does not come close to describing the history of the Colorado Plateau
@@tooligan113 Presentation lasted about one hour. How long would you have to talk in one presentation to nearly cover all they currently know? If you read at an average speed can you read a comprehensive book on the subject in one hour? I have been following a Geology professor in Washington who teaches level 100 courses just on the Geology of Washington, Nick Zentner. He is a blast. He also gives presentations on newer theories and findings. Average for each presentation is one hour. He has a lot of presentations on UA-cam now mainly because of Covid. You are being totally unrealistic to think the Geology of a specific region can be covered in depth in an hour.
Fascinating information! Feeling fortunate to have been born and raised in the southwest, it's beauty never ceases to amaze me! Thanks for sharing!
I live in North Eastern Arizona. It's so amazing to know that I live in a area of rich history underneath my feet. This is really cool.
Excellent educational presentation. Thank you, and all who have contributed to the understanding I now enjoy!
At 23:20 - How the Paleogeographic Maps Are Made.
Dr. Ron Blakey distilling thousands of land surveys, into an accessible easy to use tool.
Amazing effort.
Awesome! I used to work for the Forest Service north of the Grand Canyon in the late 1970's and would fly to Williams for meetings and fly both north and south of the canyon for fire patrol in the summers. I wish I would have seen this first!
Asd
This was highly educational. We have the book on display for people to look at in the Museum of the San Rafael in Castle Dale. Really wonderful! Thank you!
loved to hear this lecture after visiting most of the Colorado Plateau region.
There is a similar book for the western U.S. coast as it was created over time. Also extremely fascinating.
Excellent discussion of basic Colorado Plateau stratigraphy
The bird is the word.
Sandy rocks.
Love from Michigan
This is fantastic - but posted in 240P ?
It sure deserves higher resolution. Is there any possibility you could re-post someday in 720 or such ?
Thank you. J.G.
Super video. I have the book you mention. I will reread it and watch this video again. Just love it!
I wish you would use a pointer to illustrate what areas and directions you are talking about. Thanks for video.
Very interesting. I hope to visit the US and Canada one day. The landscapes, are breathtaking, awesome, inspiring.
I wish this could be done for the 2 billion years old Magaliesburg Mountains. That would be amazing.
Awesome Presentation !!! I’m getting the book !
Just awesome!!!!!
Great lecture! Thanks.
I have Ancient Landscapes, and I'd really like a version with the formation names on the map.
Incredible!!
So fascinating 👏
A good presentation. Any chance of a higher quality / resolution upload?
I am a big fan of the geology of Frenchman Mt. Wish there were more details as to the age of the various layors of rocks. There are so many layers of sediment, I wonder if there are any graphs or articles about it. Have found partial descriptions.
Great video! But it was not just rivers, it was water erosion through bedrock from hardstone to soft stone to collapse of hardstone above it, such as the Coconino above the Hermit, that created so many of the deep amphitheaters of the Grand Canyon.
Unreal!
There are rocks 1.8 billion years old in the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Mojave Desert similar to some found in the Grand Canyon.
Was there an ancient river that flowed thru el paso Texas? I've seen rounded rock deposits that are in the hills below the Franklin mountains.... always been curious about how they got here
---"Was there an ancient river that flowed thru el paso Texas? I've seen rounded rock deposits that are in the hills below the Franklin mountains.... always been curious about how they got here."
Except the "millions of years" of uniformitarian geology models will never be able to explain how they got there. Not and remain coherent with the facts and evidence.
But if you really do want to know how every geological feature on the planet is fluidly explained using simple cause to effect physics-based mechanisms, including the Grand canyon, glaciers, Niagra falls, Dry falls, continental plantation fields, wind and water gaps, etc, then please do check out hydroplate theory.
@@lederereddy I've noticed a few things that don't add up. Lol. Thre are rounded rock deposits on top of the mountains.
At 22:20 the screen shows 272 million years ago and he says we had an ocean come in from the west and flood part of the Grand Canyon…weird thing is that the Grand Canyon is said to have started forming around 5-6 million years ago, so what came first, the Colorado river or the ocean?
The rocks of the Grand Canyon were laid down long long time ago (from 1700 Ma to 270Ma). That means that area was lowland back then, not a canyon at all. And since the last 10 Ma ago, that area was uplifted for some reason. And anything goes up should be cut down by river. And the river (what we call Colorado river) cuts off the very old rocks layer by layer and made a huge canyon. That's what we see at the Grand Canyon now... And yes, the ocean came first. The river is a newcomer.
mexico it's been always beautiful, whether occupied or not
These layers of history can be found on planet mars
“The history of our planet is contained in that strata “ “Every one of those layers used to be the surface of the earth“ One major problem with that hypothesis: we have one deep gouge cut into those layers but no evidence of erosion or similar gouges or canyons or the Cliffs Inside of those layers oh indicating erosion in the past before this last most recent massive excavation called the Grand Canyon!
There are rivers there and most of the eroded sandstone went to the ocean. Part of the sediments are there where the river meets the sea. Barely now. The sediments in the Colorado are a mix of whatever was washed into it along its length, from millions of years old to recent. Which is usual for deltas. San Andreas fault line running through there adds a problem. Core samples might be able to date them. But date the ages of each grain of sand in a delta layer? Go for it if you can.
I assume you have never looked at a map of the region. There is more than one deep gouge. I suggest you look at one showing the tributaries that did or do feed it. Fifteen thousand years ago there would have been a lot more water rushing from it’s source and the rivers that fed it. The Colorado today is likely what the tributaries were like way back then, or smaller.
yes in the various canyons throghout the world they DO cut through previous river valleys and such that filled with sediment. so its not just like layers of a book that if you walk along those layers there are many cases of canyons or hilltops whathave you. Its just that in making the graphs unless a feature was truly massive its impossible to draw them in but they are there. also in a canyon you just have one cut but if you could lift off an entire layer or slice you WOULD see the details of the former landscape
Does anybody know the location of the Navajo Sandstone outcroppings near Tucson?
it's just outside the town of Bedrock. i highly recommend you go. i was there last year and had yabba-dabba-do-time.
Bravo on making Erosion cool.
I just subscribe!..
As a geologist, do your calculations consider the massive amount of metric tonnes on space dust that are constantly being assimilated by earth ?
If not, what would be the geological impact of an ever-expanding earth ?
Everyone can test for himself how much the Earth expands by space dust. Just look at the table in your garden or on your balcony how many centimeters/inches of space dust it collects per day.
Oh, it doesn't? And the dust that can be found on it is of earthly origins? Well, maybe your claim of that "ever-expanding Earth" is just crackpot BS.
Wayne, you're making my job difficult by calling the Colorado Plateau an arid region. The plateau is primarily a woodland-steppes biome, about 10 to 18 inches of precipitation. I want to make this clear as I create Ecological Systems on the Plateau for agriculture. Don't get me wrong though. I deeply appreciate your work.
The biggest idea I am trying to express is tunneling aqueducts from the coast, in this case the west coast of the USA inland to feed combination geothermal power and sea water desalination plants. The idea seems to be so big that no one has considered it possible but I believe it is not only possible but it is necessary. For over a century the fossil water contained in aquifers has been pumped out to feed agriculture, industry and municipal water needs. The natural water cycle cant refill fossil water deposits that were filled 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Without refilling these aquifers there is not much of a future for the region of the United states. As a result ground levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have subsided by more than 30 feet. Similar fossil water depletion is happening in other regions all around the world. TBM and tunneling technology has matured and further developments in the industry are poised to speed up the tunneling process and it's these tunnels that are the only way to move large volumes of water from the ocean inland. The water is moved inland to areas where it can be desalinated in geothermal plants producing clean water and power. In many cases the water will recharge surface reservoirs where it will be used first to make more hydro power before being released into rivers and canal systems. It's very important however to not stop tunneling at these first stops but to continue several legs until the water has traveled from the ocean under mountain ranges to interior states. Along the way water will flow down grade through tunnels and rise in geothermal loops to fill mountain top pumped hydro batteries several times before eventually recharging several major aquifers. What I am proposing is essentially reversing the flow of the Colorado River Compact. Bringing water from the coast of California first to mountaintop reservoirs then to the deserts of Nevada and Arizona and on to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. This big idea looks past any individual city or states problems and looks at the whole and by using first principles identifies the actual problem and only solution.
Thank you for your time, I would like the opportunity to explain in further detail and answer any questions.
A better future is possible,
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
The flood recorded in Genesis did it all
just damn, air quality isn't going to impact "landscapes".
All of this being said,
Where would concentrations of gold be found?
They are not millions and millions of years old.
Yes, they are.
The only reason why millions of years sound absurd to creationists is the fact that Ken Ham and other religious nutjobs are constantly repeating the fairytale of a young Earth. There is not one single natural fact or one natural law making deep time fundamentally impossible. On the contrary - there is evidence upon evidence upon evidence that the Earth has to be a lot older than the 6,000 - 10,000 years Ham and his ilk are fabulating about.
Just think about marble and how it forms. Marble once was calcite that was deposited as sediment in a marine environment. It lithified and then took a deep dive down under Earth's surface for 10, 20 or more miles into the lithosphere. Only in those depths - under high temperatures and high pressure - could it metamorphize into marble. And to be able to find it and mine it it had to be uplifted to the surface again by tectonic forces. This whole process is virtually impossible within a few thousand years. We are talking about tens of millions of years here.
There are countless other examples which make the assumption of a young Earth outright ridiculous.
The class should be entitled the moderately incompetent science of geological history constructed from non-demonstrable first presuppositions which create a fictional account of geological history. The large rock formations are surmised to have formed over millions of years and then the beach theory is surmised to account for sandstone.
Apparently, the sandstone over large areas of several continents means similar beaches occurred all over the world in many and various directions, all surmised to have occurred through slow processes. No available means of verification is available to affirm or prove the theory, for none is required within the science academy.
The long ages and the slow processes are not observed and the theory is never subject to the scrutiny of any logical fallacies. The claim of a bay in Mexico forming sediment does not equate to explaining inland, elevated sandstone over hundreds or thousands of square miles. One may easily posit a catastrophe in the distant past or in recent history to account for the inland sandstone without any reference to moving beach fronts and ever expanding land formations into the sea. Geology is always subject to the critical appraisal of alternate theories to explain or provide a fictional account of geological history.
As always, the science of geology is really the presupposed worldview of naturalistic pantheism applied with the presumed uniformitarianism with evolutionism. Dont presuppose any other worldview to explain geology - anathema sit!
you certainly have an unusual way of looking at things.
Most geologists are uniforitarianists.
I do NOT agree with his statement that every horizon you can see in the Grand Canyon (horizontal layers) were once the surface of the Earth. Come on, really? And I wanted to watch this with so much intent excitement! We'll see how the rest of the video goes i guess......
How do you deposit layers underneath the surface?
commenter needs to do some reading to gain a basic understanding of geology
Heck, he could just be still and listen to the lecture, bet he'd learn a lot.
Sheldon Hatch, the key to how this happened was that because of larger plate tectonic dynamics, this particular land mass was subsiding and sinking down into the mantel, because of this the layers kept on piling up.
Only way later, did uplift start happening agains, pushing all this way above sea level - that in turn enabled river erosion to cut these deep incisions into those layers.
It's majestic, and these days we know more about it than any other humans ever did before, thanks to curious passion people who keep on learning ever more about our planet.
Really quite amazing, spectacular even.
Cheers, CC
Uh oh. Internet smart guy's arrived. There's always exceptions to the rule and geological anomalies that occur- especially in areas that have seen such dramatic shifts, faults, volcanic activity, climate changes, and tectonic activity. What he said is true for probably 99% of the layers. No need to discredit everything else he said just because he didn't add the one irrelevant detail that you seem to need to hear.
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
He was talking to people in Salt Lake City. The geological images showed ALL of that area. The red dot showing where Salt Lake is was not the center point of the images. I am assuming that if he was giving the presentation in Colorado or Arizona the red dot would indicate where a major city was in that state.
To bad Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does NOT talk about the Colorado or Arizona part of Colorado Plateau instead he only focuses on Utah. The very top of the Grand Canyon is the Colorado National Monument/Grand Valley landscape comprised of the confluence of the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The Colorado National Monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West.
You do realize this lecture was given at a Utah University, right? In Salt Lake City...
@@MongooseofMayhem YES The title states University of Utah April 13, 2010. I don't see what difference that makes. Dr. Geologist Wayne Ranney does not come close to describing the history of the Colorado Plateau
Get over it man. Relax. It's all good.
@@tooligan113 Presentation lasted about one hour. How long would you have to talk in one presentation to nearly cover all they currently know? If you read at an average speed can you read a comprehensive book on the subject in one hour?
I have been following a Geology professor in Washington who teaches level 100 courses just on the Geology of Washington, Nick Zentner. He is a blast. He also gives presentations on newer theories and findings. Average for each presentation is one hour. He has a lot of presentations on UA-cam now mainly because of Covid. You are being totally unrealistic to think the Geology of a specific region can be covered in depth in an hour.