Your channel is a treasure! Yeah, not all splashy and flashy, just intelligent and incredibly informative if you are truly interested in geology! Thank you so very much.
Very interesting talk, and I do not pretend to understand it all, but it really expanded my thinking about the North American Craton. I will definitely be watching this again and taking notes. Loving this channel!
the world gets struck by meteorites more frequently than folks want to admit hahahahahaha and these time scales are meaningless at the geologic scale, we are not even a going concern
The nucleus of NA (Laurentia) is the Superior craton. Wyoming is merely a southwest add-on. Sir, are you supposed to be a geologist? If it's that so you've got to throw out your ugly biases! I'm really not impressed!
It's a matter of definition, I would say - Wyoming is known to be significantly older, with the superior craton forming much later. The two (and others) fused together in the formation of Laurentia. Now, the Superior craton is much larger today - so does one give precedence to the older formations or the larger formations? (Note the original sizes are much more difficult to say, as I'm reading these oldest cratons have relatively dense rock and thus tend to subduct under younger cratons - quite possibly Wyoming was equally large or larger before the collision) Also, to support your notion, the Slave craton has equally if not older evidence of formation (although both are apparently suspected to have broken off from the same original province). If age takes precedence, maybe that should be equally considered the nucleus? I'm also not convinced by the notion.
Your channel is a treasure! Yeah, not all splashy and flashy, just intelligent and incredibly informative if you are truly interested in geology! Thank you so very much.
Very interesting talk, and I do not pretend to understand it all, but it really expanded my thinking about the North American Craton. I will definitely be watching this again and taking notes. Loving this channel!
Great presentation Ron thank you.
Great talk! Thanks!
Thank you Ron! So informative
nice explanation
I would have thought that the Superior Province was more the nucleus of NA.
Find UA-cam channel "Steven Baumann". He supports your idea.
What's the mitochondria of North America? 🤔
layers and layers of melted rocks, some very recent says lots about the reality of catastrophic meteorite impacts
Could have been rehearsed.
the world gets struck by meteorites more frequently than folks want to admit hahahahahaha and these time scales are meaningless at the geologic scale, we are not even a going concern
Calgary is at 1000 m not feet ( 3500 ft )
Calgary ; 1,045 m (3,428 ft), in USA ft and in CA m
It’s metros in Spanish, Raspberry, so what’s your point? Scroll on…
The nucleus of NA (Laurentia) is the Superior craton. Wyoming is merely a southwest add-on. Sir, are you supposed to be a geologist? If it's that so you've got to throw out your ugly biases! I'm really not impressed!
It's a matter of definition, I would say - Wyoming is known to be significantly older, with the superior craton forming much later. The two (and others) fused together in the formation of Laurentia. Now, the Superior craton is much larger today - so does one give precedence to the older formations or the larger formations? (Note the original sizes are much more difficult to say, as I'm reading these oldest cratons have relatively dense rock and thus tend to subduct under younger cratons - quite possibly Wyoming was equally large or larger before the collision)
Also, to support your notion, the Slave craton has equally if not older evidence of formation (although both are apparently suspected to have broken off from the same original province). If age takes precedence, maybe that should be equally considered the nucleus? I'm also not convinced by the notion.