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
-
Dates and Deadlines
Important dates for your diary
-
Site Map
All the web pages on the conference website
-
Mailing List
Add your name to the mailing list
-
Grants
Information about grants
Search
Program
-
Program Day-by-Day
Conference program arranged by day
-
Program by Theme
Conference program arranged by subject
-
Author Index
All authors
-
Program Structure
How the sessions are arranged during the conference
-
Theme 15
Geochemistry and Society
-
Plenaries
The headline talks of the conference
-
Awards
Award talks and ceremonies
-
Keynote talks
All the Keynote talks
-
Committees
Members of the committees organising the conference
Events
-
Early Career Events
Special events for our students and early career scientists
-
Field Trips
Pre and post conference field trips.
-
Meetings
Meetings held at the conference
-
Socials
Events run by the conference
- 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.
-
Social Event Locations
These are locations for the conference social events.
Information
- Onsite info
-
Carbon Footprint
Information about steps the conference is making to reduce its environmental impact
Present your work
-
Submit an abstract
Submit an abstrat to the conference
Attend
-
Registration
Register for the conference
-
Dates & deadlines
Important dates
- Mentoring
Information on the montoring program and how to become a mentor or mentee
Exhibition
-
Current Exhibitors
Our wonderful exhibitors
-
Exhibition
Exhibition Info and List of Exhibitors
Sponsorships
-
Current Sponsors
All our amazing sponsors
-
Sponsorship
Sponsorship Info and Current Sponsors
My Goldschmidt
-
Sign In
Sign in to the website
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
The author has not provided any additional details.
03e: Room 1, View in program
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.
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.
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.