Home

  • Program

    The Goldschmidt2020 program

  • Venue

    All about the venue and city

  • Registration

    Details of how to register to attend the conference and/or submit an abstract

  • Exhibition

    Information for and about exhibitors and sponsors

  • My Goldschmidt

    My program, purchases, connections, etc.

Home

Program

Events

  • Sponsor Seminars

  • Training Events

    These are scheduled events to help delegates test out the tools and platform we will be using for the Q&A and other events at the conference.

  • Workshops

    Our workshop program provides training and teaching in topics across geochemistry and related fields. We are currently liaising with the workshop organisers to ascertain if any workshops can become virtual. Any updates will be added to this page.

Locations

  • Conference Locations

    Location of the convention center and social events

  • Hotels

    The hotels are no longer available to book at the special rates agreed by the conference. Should you wish to cancel or change your hotel reservation please see the details below.

Information

Present your work

Attend

Exhibition

Sponsorships

My Goldschmidt

Role functions

Abstract Details

(2020) The Modern Upper Crust is Altered and the Archean Upper Crust was Andesitic: Results from a Novel Analysis of Major Element Data

Lipp A, Shorttle O, Syvret F, Roberts G & Sediment Geochemistry & Paleoenvironments Project WIWG

https://doi.org/10.46427/gold2020.1575

Sorry, the PDF cannot be displayed on your browser.

Download abstract

The author has not provided any additional details.

03e: Room 1, View in program

Alexander Lipp View all 2 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020
Oliver Shorttle View all 7 abstracts at Goldschmidt2020 View abstracts at 9 conferences in series
Frank Syvret
Gareth Roberts
Weathering Intensity Working Group Sediment Geochemistry & Paleoenvironments Project

Listed below are questions that have been submitted by the community that the author will try and cover in their presentation. To submit a question, ensure you are signed in to the website. Authors or session conveners approve questions before they are displayed here.

Submitted by Kent Condie on
Alex, enjoyed your paper very much. I have one important question: Sediment compositions vary also with tectonic setting (for instance you really can't compare quartz arenites from a passive margin with volcanogenic sediments in and arc). Did you take this into account in your studies? Ross Taylor and colleagues made this mistake many years ago by comparing mature sediments in the post Archean with largely volcanogenic graywackes in the Archean. (kent.condie@nmt.edu)
Hi Kent, I'm very glad to hear you enjoyed the paper! So we didn't explicitly take into account variation in tectonic setting, i.e., our database is a mixture of different tectonic settings through time. In most cases we haven't assigned a setting to it (if its even possible to do that reliably in deep time). However, I think that you're absolutely right that what is interpreted as a secular change in crustal composition could be a secular change in the tectonic settings preserved in the stratigraphic record. As a result, in the manuscript we're preparing we're going to include a substantial discussion about this potential issue however it wasn't possible to delve too much into the nuance of this in the presentation. Ultimately we're always hamstrung with what the stratigraphic record has and has not preserved, and there are certainly scenarios (like the one you indicate) whereby secular changes in preserved tectonic settings give the 'illusion' of changing crustal composition. Given these issues, it might be more accurate to refer to our calculated crustal compositions as 'average preserved protolith' instead of 'crustal composition'. Best, Alex PS Which Taylor paper is this, I'll be sure to give it a read if I haven't already.

Submitted by Alex Lipp on
Hi Kent, I'm very glad to hear you enjoyed the paper! So we didn't explicitly take into account variation in tectonic setting, i.e., our database is a mixture of different tectonic settings through time. In most cases we haven't assigned a setting to it (if its even possible to do that reliably in deep time). However, I think that you're absolutely right that what is interpreted as a secular change in crustal composition could be a secular change in the tectonic settings preserved in the stratigraphic record. As a result, in the manuscript we're preparing we're going to include a substantial discussion about this potential issue however it wasn't possible to delve too much into the nuance of this in the presentation. Ultimately we're always hamstrung with what the stratigraphic record has and has not preserved, and there are certainly scenarios (like the one you indicate) whereby secular changes in preserved tectonic settings give the 'illusion' of changing crustal composition. Given these issues, it might be more accurate to refer to our calculated crustal compositions as 'average preserved protolith' instead of 'crustal composition'. Best, Alex PS Which Taylor paper is this, I'll be sure to give it a read if I haven't already.


Sign in to ask a question.