Gempa Sichuan 12 Mei 2008 Menggoyang Tepi Timur Plato Tibet
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaQuestions on Carbonates of Indonesia (was : Workshop on Carbonate…)
May 19, 2008 by geologipenasekarang kita hanya mendapat kebanyakan onggokan hasil rombakannya saja.
Apa yang kita lihat dengan branching coral atau brain coral saat sekarang,
dulu pun nampak jelas jejaknya di batuan. Jadi kalau kita terpapar ke kawasan terumbu koral Miosen, bisa dibayangkan bahwa kita tengah berada di suatu taman laut penuh koral dan ganggang. Pak Sanggam banyak menggunakan core sehingga barangkali gambaran utuh taman koral Miosen itu tak seluas bila kita melihat singkapannya yang luas seperti di Wonosari. Dengan eustacy dan gerak2 tektonik substrat tempat terumbu tumbuh, yang dulunya core reef bisa di periode berikutnya masuk ke backreef yang energinya lebih rendah dan memperlihatkan miliolid ada di situ; jadi bisa saja fasies autokton di core reef diduduki fasies alokton di back reef facies; maka di core bisa saja miliolid seolah tercampur dengan koral di core reef meskipun hubungannya atas-bawah. Saya jelas tak sebanyak Pak Sanggam melihat core karbonat, tetapi beberapa kali mengikuti fieldtrip
karbonat ke umur Miosen-Pliosen yang tersebar di Indonesia cukup menanamkan kesan dalam diri saya bahwa mereka didominasi koral dan ganggang seperti analog moderennya.
Sgm: Saya percaya fenomena ini mungkin sekali tidak lokal (bila asumsi saya ’benar’ bahwa reservoar karbonat di Indonesia didominasi oleh mud-dominated limestones dgn porositas sekundernya, kecuali Manusela yg punya porositas primer)
hasil chalkyfication; itu menandakan bahwa secara regional ia kurang signifikan.
Mud-dominated limestone yang berkembang di banyak backarc basins Indonesia Barat
pun tetap saja porositasnya berkembang melalui leaching, seperti banyak
kasus mudmound Kais di lagoon Salawati.
bagaimanapun lebih dominan dibandingkan porositas jenis lainnya.
Dalam banyak kasus memang tite, apalagi lime mud/mikrit. Dalam perhitungan
reserve pun seringkali matrix porosity ini diabaikan karena pengalaman
poroperm-nya yang minimal. Tetapi, mempelajarinya kembali tak pernah merugikan.
yang akan menyebabkan subaerial exposure dan leaching nantinya sama seringnya
dengan disolusi akibat burial. Sebab dua peristiwa ini sebenarnya berhubungan.
Di satu titik diangkat yang menyebabkan ekspos ke permukaan, di sisi lain akan
tenggelam (karena isostatik) yang penting untuk memeras acidic water dalam
mekanisme kompaksi sedimen yang kemudian akan bermigrasi menuju uplifted
carbonates dan mendisolusinya. Mana yang lebih dominan, saya pikir dua2nya
dominan sebab saling berhubungan. Dating dengan isotop strontium 85/86
telah dicoba untuk mengetahui sekuen diagenesa pada karbonat.
muncul di core di atas zone disolusi akibat surface weathering, sementara
itu disolusi karena burial tak pernah muncul paleosolnya. Barangkali agen
disolusinya berbeda, yang satu porsi meteoric waternya besar (subaeral exposure),
sementara yang burial porsi meteoric waternya kecil dan yang besar acidic
water dari air purba yang terperas oleh kompaksi sediment. Tetapi, bagaimana
kalau meteoric water-nya acid seperti hujan asam. Nah…; sulit membedakannya.
Barangkali dengan bantuan rekonstruksi penampang geologi yang memotong karbonat2
di suatu wilayah bisa didekati, kapan ia terangkat (subaerial exposure), kapan ia
tenggelam (burial dissolution) . Nanti saya akan cek lagi database deskripsi
core karbonat dari blok2 di Indonesia, mencari paleo-solnya.
Manusia Hobbit Homo floresiensis
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaKendali Geologi atas Biogeografi Sumatra
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaSedimentasi Segara Anakan, Cilacap: Saat Ini…
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaKepala Bidang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Dinas Kebersihandan Lingkungan Hidup (DKLH) Cilacap, menguatirkan Segara Anakan (kini tinggal seluas 600 ha) akan hilang lima tahun mendatang akibat sedimentasi oleh sungai-sungai yang bermuara di laguna ini. ( Setiap tahun sekitar 1 juta m3 sedimen diendapkan di Segara Anakan, terutama berasal dari Sungai Citanduy, sungai yang menjadi batas alam antara Jawa Barat dan Jawa Tengah di bagian selatan.
Keraguan Metoda Radiometric
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaDibawah ini opini dari saudara Farid. Masih seputar diskusi tentang keraguan akan umur bumi :
saya ingin nanya ttg radiometric dating yg umum dipakai dalam
penentuan umur batuan. Di dalam website penganut mazhab “creation &
young earth theory” saya menemukan keraguan mereka akan penggunaan
metode radiometric dating. Mereka mengklaim beberapa kekurangan dari
penggunaan metode ini yg dapat menyebabkan eror yg sangat besar
dalam penentuan umur. Salah satunya metode ini sangat reaktif
terhadap pengaruh panas (heat contamination) sehingga menyebabkan
hasil umur yg didapat menjadi sangat jauh lebih tua dari yg
seharusnya. (Two well-documented examples of “heat contamination”
are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes.
Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the
radiometric “dates” obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96
billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -
- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was
obtained.)
Berikut ini adalah kelemahan dari metode radiometric dating yg saya
kutip dari website tersebut (maaf karena lumayan panjang):
The only dating methods discussed (over and over again) by evolution-
believing scientists and the mass media are ones that
supposedly “prove” that the earth is billions of years old. One of
the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating. However,
not as well known is the fact that such methods have a number of
serious flaws which are usually glossed over, or ignored when
writing on, or discussing this subject in public.
With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date
either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive
elements such as uranium. And even though various radioactive
elements have been used to “date” these rocks, for the most part,
the methods are basically the same. They consist of measuring the
amount of radioactive (mother) element and comparing it to the
amount of stable (daughter) element. A discussion of the
Uranium/Lead method follows.
Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing
from an unstable element into a stable one. The most common form is
uranium-238. It has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This
means that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead in it, 4.5
billion years later one half of it would have decayed into its
stable daughter product (lead-206). And after 9 billion years there
would be 75% lead and 25% uranium, and so on. Few people realize it
but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three
assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.
Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate
of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained
constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove
whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to
alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that
they are almost immune to change. Most creationists have few qualms
in accepting this first assumption.
Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way
to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was
already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be
made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that
they have solved this problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted
to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was
when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain
meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead
204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that
this ratio is equivalent to the earth’s original lead ratio. They
did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were
all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is
because “common” lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and
208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any
uranium. In fact, about 98% of “common” lead is “radiogenic”
(containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic.
A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed
system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat
and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And
since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions
make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.
For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time,
leaching would take place. For Uranium/Lead dating this means that
some of the uranium that was initially present would be “leached”
out of the rock. Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into
rocks that have little or no uranium in them. Therefore, in
virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original
condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don’t
any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching.
Regards,
Farid
Keraguan pada umur bumi :critics on geochronology
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaHello world!
May 19, 2008 by geologipenaWelcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!