FOURTH YEAR GEOLOGY and GPG

THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES


FOURTH YEAR GEOLOGY and GPG

HONOURS COURSE


EVOLUTION OF THE MODERN

EARTH


EASC10090


2013
-

2014




(September 2013)


p
2








p
2

EME COURSE COORDINATOR

Prof. Alastair Robertson

Room 331, Grant Institute of Earth Science,

School of GeoSciences, King’s Buildings,

The University of Edinburgh,

West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW

Phone: 0131 650 8521

Fax 0131 668 3184

e.mail:
Alastair.Robertson@ed.ac.uk

EME COURSE TEAM

Professors:
Godfrey Fitton

(JGF)
,

Ian Main

(IM)
, Kathy Whaler

(KAW)
,
Hugh Sinclair (HDS),
Dick Kroon (DK)

Alastair Robertson

(AHFR)
; Drs
Jenny Tait

(JT)

and Andrew Bell
(AFB)

p
3








p
3

COURSE STRUCTURE

The EME course forms a key part of the Geology, and Geology & Physical
Geography (GPG) Honours degree programmes.
Details of the marks
applicable are given in the 4
th

year Honours booklets for Geology and
GPG.

The style of teaching and lecture content diff
ers somewhat from previous
years and you should be prepared for this. During 1
st
, 2
nd

and 3rd years the
lectures commonly convey information that you are expected to know for
the exam. In contrast, the 4th year teaching (in preparation for the 'real
world'
) is generally an introduction to a selected topic, and you are then
expected to put in extra time into your own reading and thinking about the
topics covered. The course will draw extensively on material covered by
everyone in previous years and will brea
k new ground, as indicated below.

EME teaching consists of thematic lectures coupled with a small number
of integrated case histories. These are intended as supporting material.
Questions will not be set in the degree exam uniquely on these topics but
they

will provide geological examples which you will be expected to
incorporate onto your answers on the questions set, as appropriate.

The subjects covered in the lectures and integrated case histories are
principally related to the evolution of the Earth fro
m Late Precambrian to
Recent time. The course is loosely divided into 4 related components:
Framework topics (Earth & Mars), lectured by Profs. Ian Main and Kathy
Whaler; Modern and Ancient processes: Profs. Hugh Sinclair and Dick
Kroon; Continent
-
ocean in
teraction: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Jenny
Tait; Integrated case histories: Prof. Alastair Robertson and Dr Andy Bell.

Reference list. You will be issues with a consolidated list references,
generally 2 key references per topic (session). These are
designed to
complement and extend the lecture content. For each lecture you are
expected to spend about 7 hours of reading and supplementary study. Be
sure to obtain your copies of these key papers. You may be given
add
itional references on a lecture
-
by
-
le
cture basis but the consolidated
reference list should be your priority for independent study.

p
4








p
4


The classes are normally held in the Main Lecture Theatre 201 Grant
Institute, but may on occasion be in room 304B in the Grant Institute (as
advised). The lectures will usually be held on
Monday at 10
-
12pm and
Tuesday
at 9
-
11am
.


ASSESSMENT AND COMPOSITIO
N OF THE EME THEORY
PAPERS


The EME course is examined by
one 3
-
hour
-
long theory paper

sat in the
Examination diet after Semester 1 teaching end. You will be asked to
answer three questions, one from Part A and two from Part B, with ample
choice.


Part A

is generally testing knowledge and understanding of EME topics as
they were presented, with the additional expectation that relevant material
covered in earlier years that has been developed and applied in fourth year
will also be incorporated in your ans
wer.


Part B will be interdisciplinary and reach across the structure of EME, and
could include topical issues of current Earth Science. It will again expect
inclusion of earlier relevant material, but in contrast to Part A questions,
may ask you to app
ly your knowledge in ways that have not been directly
addressed during the course. You might be asked, for example, to propose
a programme of field and laboratory investigation to elucidate the nature
of a particular kind of terrain in an orogenic belt, o
r to review possible
mechanisms of regional
-
scale uplift. A question such as that last one may
never have been addressed in any single lecture and will require you to go
back to first principles
–

what are the physical mechanisms which could
cause uplift,

and then what geological processes that you may have
encountered at some time in your courses over the years, or in literature
that you have read, could meet the requirements? You could also be asked
to interpret some data or a diagram.


Part A questions

are weighted more towards accurate recall, whereas in
Part B we look more for evidence of a capability to reason from first
p
5








p
5

principles and to demonstrate that you understand the logic behind
particular procedures, for example, the construction of a Rb
-
Sr
isochron
diagram, rather than just a knowledge of the conclusions drawn from it.


FORMATIVE FEEDBACK


You will be set a choice of several essays (similar to those to be set in the
degree exam) at the first meeting of Week 6 (Monday 21st October) and
you have one week later to answer one of the questions.

The essay is limited to 1000 words (not including d
iagrams and
references). Only hand
-
drawn, hand annotated diagrams should be
included of the type you would reproduce in an exam.

The essay will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Clear organization with sub
-
headings;

• Correct facts and
clear explanation;

• Use of geological examples;

• Use of annotated diagrams;

• Citation of references (a few ones)

• Combining information from different lectures as appropriate;

• Analytical, critical and questioning approach

You should draw on the taugh
t material and your own reading in this
course, and also from other courses from Years 1, 2 and 3, as appropriate.
Better results may be gained if you prepare a draft of your essay within 5
days, and ask a fellow student to assess your work on the above cr
iteria.
You can then make any modifications. Submit a hard copy of your essay to
the drop
-
box in the Teaching Organisation in the Grant Institute while also
submitting an electronic copy via LEARN before 4 pm on Wednesday
30th October.









p
6








p
6

Week 1
:Frame
work aspects



10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

NS⁓数

䵌M

䥍⁓瑲畣瑵牥r慮d⁒ 敯汯gy
of⁴桥⁌楴桯獰h敲e
-

th慴⁩a
瑨攠汩瑨e獰h敲e?

䙵ndam敮瑡汳f 瑨o獰h敲攠
牨敯汯gy⁉M




䥍f
p瑲畣瑵牥r慮d⁒ 敯汯gy
瑨攠e楴io獰h敲e
-

th慴⁩猠瑨a
汩瑨o獰h敲e?

-

䙵ndam敮瑡汳f 汩瑨o獰h敲攠
牨敯汯gy
捯n瑤⸩⁉M



㤠
–

9⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

呵敳d慹

NT⁓数

䵌M

䭁h

Planetary geology
and comparative
planetology


History of the solar system
–

o物杩rⰠform慴楯n⁡湤
捯mpo獩瑩sn⁓畲 慣攠
f敡瑵牥猠慮r⁰牯捥獳敳e
牥獰on獩s汥⁉n瑥牮慬t
獴牵捴c牥r䅴mo獰h敲e


䭁h

Planetary geology and
comparative planetology


History of the solar system
–

o物杩rⰠform慴楯n⁡nd
捯mpo獩瑩sn⁓畲 慣攠f敡瑵牥猠
慮d⁰牯捥獳敳⁲敳灯n獩s汥l
䥮瑥牮慬⁳f牵捴r牥 䅴mo獰h敲e



t敥欠e
㨠䵯M敲渠end
慮捩敮琠来t汯gi捡氠灲潣敳獥s



㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

23⁓数

䵌M

䡄匠
–

卯u牣r⁴漠 楮k‱†
-

周攠q牯睴r moun瑡楮
瑯pog牡灨y;


Mountain Building,
Erosion,
critical wedges,
Plateaux, post orogenic
landscapes
.

HDS
Source to Sink 2
–

䍯n瑲潬t

獥sim敮琠t楥汤
f牯m moun瑡楮⁢敬瑳K

䝥dmo牰r楣⽴散瑯n楣⁣潮瑲潬f
獥sim敮琠摩t捨慲来⁴漠瑨攠
o捥慮㨠瑨攠empo牴rn捥c⁳m慬氠
moun瑡楮ou猠物癥s猻⁓敤im敮琠
f汵x⁦牯r⁡ moun瑡楮⁢敬琠
p
7








p
7

derived by landslide mapping;
Bedrock incision, rock uplift
and threshold hi
llslopes in the
northwestern Himalayas


9
–

9.50 am

10
–

10.50 am

Tuesday

24 Sept

MLT

HDS
-

Source to Sink
3
-

Sediment flux by mountain
rivers

River catchment shape,
d
istorted drainage basins as
markers of crustal strain east
of the Himalaya;

Contrasting
sediment delivery to
foreland basins

HDS
Source to Sink
4
-

Sediment trapping in foreland
basins

Thrust Loads and Foreland
Basin Evolution;

Foreland basin subsidence
driven by topographic growth
versus plate subduction.


Week 3
: Modern and a
ncient geological processes

and start of Continent
-
ocean interaction




10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

30⁓数

䵌M


䑋a
健m慧楣⁳敤im敮瑡瑩tn
p物湣楰汥献‱l

偡污敯捥慮cg牡灨yK

卥pim敮琠typ敳⁡ed
d楳瑲楢u瑩tn猻⁤数o獩瑩sn慬a
p牯捥獳敳e



䑋⁐敬慧楣i
獥sim敮瑡瑩tn
p物湣楰汥献′

偡污敯捥慮cg牡r
y

䅳瑲A捨牯ro汯gy⁡湤
慣楤楦楣慴楯n ⁴桥

佣敡湳




㤠
–

9
⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

㄰
⸵K⁡m

呵敳d慹

N⁏捴

䵌M


䅈䙒⁆慵汴⁧敯m整物敳⁡湤
瑨敩爠敶o汵瑩tn

䵯M敬猠ef⁦慵汴⁧牯睴w⸠丠
佢獥牶慴楯n猠楮⁥硴敮獩sn慬a
p牯r楮捥猠⡥⹧⸠te獴敲s
䅈䙒†卥pim敮瑡t楯n‱⸠

䕡bly⁒楦琠灨慳攮†

卥pim敮瑡ty⁰牯捥獳敳e

䵯M敲渠慮e⁡湣楥n琠數tmp汥猻

䍬慳瑩挠慮t⁣慲bon慴攠獥瑴楮g猻

p
8








p
8

USA and Greece).
Development and linkage of
fault segments. Relay ramps.
Ancient rifts (e.g. Gulf of
Suez and the North Sea)

Alpine case history


Failed rifts (aulacogens)

W USA case history



Week 4
: Continent
-
ocean interaction



10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

T⁏捴

䵌q

䅈䙒†剩A琠慮t
pa獳楶攠
ma牧楮⁳敤im敮瑡t楯n′

呲慮獩瑩sn⁴漠 慳a楶攠m慲杩aK

䍬慳瑩t
-

慮d⁣ 牢rn慴a
-
dom楮慴敤 物r瑥t m慲杩a献†
䅮捩敮琠數tmp汥献⁁䡆删

䅬A楮攠捡獥⁨楳瑯ry


剩o琠慮t⁰慳獩s攠m慲杩a
獥sim敮瑡瑩tn″

卥pim敮瑡瑩tn a瑵牥
p慳a楶攠m慲杩a猻⁅⁕十
數ampl攻e

剥捥o琠獥tim敮瑡ry⁰牯捥獳敳e

䔠啓䄠m慲杩a⁤敥p⁳敡⁤物汬楮g

捡獥⁨楳瑯特



㤠
–

9⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

呵敳d慹

U

佣l

䵌q

䅈䙒A

䅲A
-
t牥湣r⁳敤imen瑡瑩tn

慮d⁨楧h
-
汥l敬⁳瑲畣瑵牥r

䙯rmI⁳瑲畣瑵牥r慮d⁦楬氠潦
瑲敮捨敳⁡ed⁡捣r整楯n慲a

p物rm献s䅣捲整楯n:

g敯phy獩捡氬⁢慴syme瑲t挠c
慮d⁨敡
-
f汯眻

卵bdu捴楯n⁥ o獩sn;

䙲慮捩c捡渠m敬慮g攠捡獥s
h楳瑯特

䅈䙒A
䉡捫
-
慲a⁢慳楮s

䵯M敲渠慮e⁡湣楥n琠扡捫
-
慲挠
b慳楮献


e.g. Mariana, Lau, Japan.


Tyrrhennian sea case history.




p
9








p
9

Week 5
: Continent
-
ocean interaction



10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

N4⁏捴

䵌M

䩇䘠䱡牧攠䥧r敯us

偲潶楮捥猻捣畲牥n捥㬠
impo牴慮捥㬠慧r⁲ang攻

副汥l⁰汵m敳e

䱉倠潣m慮⁩湴敲慣瑩on;

䝥d汯g楣慬⁥硡mpl敳




Integrated case history

AHFR

BRIDGE (Mid
-
Ocean Ridge
project)

Key features of
Mid
-
Ocean
Ridges as seen in recent
submersible studies and land
-
based work in Iceland;

ancient land
-
based examples

Tuesday

15 Oct

MLT

9
–

9⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m


䅈䙒⁏Ah楯汩瑥⁧敯汯gyK

佰h楯汩瑥⁳瑲慴楧牡phy⁡湤
獴牵捴c牥r牥癩r睥wK†卥m慩氬
呲oodo猬s
乥睦ound污ldⰠt⸠
䵥摩瑥M牡湥慮Ⱐ捩r捵m
-
偡捩m楣⸠佰h楯汩瑥猠慳l
獰牥慤楮g⁰ 敮om敮愠a
o捥慮楣cma牫敲献 䍯mpa物獯n
睩瑨 rm慬a䵏刧s

㄰
-
N0⸵K

䅈䙒⁐敬慧楣⁳敤im敮瑳

fmpo牴慮捥⁦o爠慮c楥i琠t散潲e;

䕸bmp汥猠楮牯gen楣⁢敬瑳;

偲潣敳獥s ⁦orma瑩tn;

印散楦楣⁥i
amp汥猠f牯m⁴桥

䅬A楮e
-
䵥摩瑥M
r
慮敡渠呥瑨祳
ma楮汹





t敥欠e㨠

䍯n瑩t敮t
-
o捥慮⁩c瑥牡tt楯n



㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

2N⁏捴

䵌M

䅈䙒⁔散瑯n楣⁥io汵瑩tnf
䵥獯穯楣⁔整ey猠sn⁴桥
䵥摩瑥M牡湥慮⁲敧ion;

偡污敯瑥瑨y猠s猠seo瑥瑨y猻

呥捴潮楣⁳整瑩ig猠snd
䅈䙒A
k敯瑥捴tn楣⁥癯汵瑩tn
瑨攠e慳瑥牮a䵥摩瑥牲慮敡渮

呥捴潮楣⁡湤⁳敤業en瑡ty
敦f散瑳f⁣畲牥n琠灬慴攠mo瑩tn献

䉡捫
-
慲挠數瑥t獩sn㬠獬慢
p
10








p
10

processes;

Palaeotectonic developmnt

SW Turkey case history

AHFR


rollback effects;

Extension
al basins

W Turkey extensional basin
case history


9
–

9.50 am

10
–

10.50 am




Week 7
: Continent
-
ocean interaction and

Integrated case
histories



10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

2U⁏捴

䵌q

䩔⁔散瑯n楣⁥癯汵瑩tn⁡湤
p慬慥潧敯g牡灨y㨠
qu慮瑩ty楮g
牥捯rs瑲畣瑩tn猠
u獩sg⁰慬慥 m慧n整楳mK

䕸bmp汥猠l牯m 瑨e⁐慣楦楣i
⡗⸠啓䄩A䅴污A瑩t
呥瑨y慮
牥杩rn⤠慮d⁴桥⁓tb䅔A
䡹po瑨敳楳


䅈䙒⁉慰整e猠s捥慮

剥o楯n慬⁤楳瑲楢t瑩on⁡ ound

丠䅴污湴楣km慩aly;

卵mmary 敹 a獰散瑳⁩e
䉲楴慩B⁡湤⁉r敬慮d;

䍯mpa物獯n⁷楴

䅰p慬慣桩慮猠
慮d⁎敷景und污ldK

呥捴潮楣imod敬猠end⁰牯捥獳敳

乥睦ound污ld⁣慳攠桩獴o特



㤠
–

9⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

呵敳d慹

㈹

佣l

䵌q

Integrated case history

AHFR Oman

Regional setting;

Rift history; passive margin

setting; oceanic units;

role of
melanges and

metamorphic sole; ophiolite

stratigraphy; sulphides;

emplacement and younger

setting


Integrated case history

AHFR

& JGF
W USA

Transect from Rocky
Mountains to the Pacific ocean;

Continental interior;

Palaeozoic evolution;

Mesozoic
development;

Cenozoic
magmatism
;

Focus o
n accretionary and
ophiolite se
ttings

p
11








p
11


Week 8
: Continent
-
ocean interaction

and intergrated case histories.



10
–

N0⸵K⁡m

ㄱN
–

NN⸵K⁡m

䵯Md慹

4
th

Nov


AHFR
Himalayas and Tibet

Pre
-
collisional development

Evidence

for rifting and
passive margin development
in India
;

Evidence for northward drift
of India;

Subduction and ophiolite
genesis;

Collision
; foreland basin;

Crustal structure of Tibet

Case history
-
Ladakh

AHFR
Strike
-
slip tectonics and
sedimentation in contin
ental
and oceanic settings

Field observations.

Analogue modelling. Flower
structures.

Sediment architecture and
dispersal in pull
-
apart basins.

Terrane dispersal; indentor
tectonics; example of

Tibetan region

Ecemis Fault Zone, S Turkey
case history





9
–

9⸵K⁡m

㄰N
–

N0⸵K⁡m

呵敳d慹

5瑨⁎潶


呂q

䅆A

Integrated case history
Seismotectonics &
Himalayas. Fault
-

plane
solution exercise.

Crustal structure and

tectonics in an active
convergence zone.


AFB

Integrated case history
contd.
Seismotectonics &
Himalayas. Fault
-

plane
solution exercise.

Crustal structure and

tectonics in an active
convergence zone.










p
12








p
12



Appendix:


GRADE DESCRIPTORS



The Meaning of Grades in the Common Marking Scheme


What follows is a modified version

of the College Grade
-
related Marking
Criteria, here related specifically to the requirements of the EME course,
and intended to be a reasonable description of the criteria actually used by
the EME course teams.


Characteristic features of answers
in the m
iddle

of each class division are
outlined below, for each class division.


First Class

(Corresponding to Class A2 in the new extended Common Marking
Scheme, as detailed in the Grade
-
Related Marking Criteria (GRMC) from
College; see the extract in the Glg4

and GPG4 Assessment Regulations
Booklet.)


The candidate is completely at home discussing the material, having
a considerable depth of knowledge (main criterion in Part
-
A) and an
ability to produce a properly supported argument in a logical, ordered
seque
nce with clear understanding of the underlying principles
involved (main criterion in Part
-
B). There is clear attention to the
question as set, throughout. Signs (i.e. not extensive tracts) of
original thought in the form of arguments, observations or cr
itical
reviews of received wisdom that have not been presented during the
course. Evidence of reading from the recommended literature and
usually beyond, shown by reference to the sources of key ideas and
the location of important examples, but not necess
arily the full
bibliographic details. Clear diagrams are included, directly relevant
to the argument and fully incorporated into the answer, i.e. they are
p
13








p
13

an inherent and essential part of the answer, not just added for gloss
or padding.



Upper Second C
lass (mid 2.1)


The material is essentially correct, is well organised and generally
answers the question without major omissions but is largely drawn
from the lectures. Original arguments and lines of reasoning are
generally absent. Part
-
A answers are c
areful recall but the point of
the question frequently disappears from view under the weight of
worthy detail. Misunderstandings are generally absent but the actual
level of understanding is occasionally ambiguous as the writer
transcribes notes rather th
an presents a careful, well
-
constructed
argument. Part
-
B answers of the interdisciplinary type are
dominated by judicious splicing together of lecture material rather
than much newly constructed argument. There are some flashes of
original thought and de
finite attempts to answer the question and
cross boundaries, but this is not sustained throughout the answer.
First
-
principles
-
type answers are more or less sound but not
comprehensive in coverage. Data interpretation answers are solid,
covering the main

points but missing the subtleties, the alternative
interpretations and the penetrative analysis. Diagrams are sound but
not particularly well integrated or embedded effectively into the
progression of argument or explanation.


Lower Second Class (mid 2.2
)



The answer is incomplete with insufficient relevant information
presented and characteristic additions of irrelevant material by way
of attempted compensation. There are some good points but not
enough to merit an upper 2nd. There are some clear demonstra
tions
of understanding but some errors of fact and usually some clear
instances of misunderstanding. The dominant characteristic is a
patchwork of recalled material with poor links and no clear thread of
directed argument. Part
-
B answers are generally ch
aracterised by
Part
-
A
-
type chunks of recall rather than insight or incisiveness but
p
14








p
14

nevertheless manage to bring out some relevant points. First
-
principles
-
answers have one or two principles correct, others
incorrect and are usually bulked out with exampl
es without the
principles attached at all. Data interpretation answers get only some
of the main points correct and miss others altogether, along with
higher
-
order subtleties. Overall the answer has more reasonably
sound material in it than it has errors
and irrelevancies.


(There are however a number of ways to achieve a 2.2 which do not fit this
template exactly. All induce a feeling of considerable disappointment in
the examiner. Notably, there is the “tantalising fragment answer” that
contains a pa
ge or so of promising material but is simply too thin to merit
a decent mark. Then there is the “wilfully deviant answer”, that starts
well, gains some credit, but then becomes enamoured of its own voice and
sails off into completely foreign territory, of
ten quite accurately, but alas
with no relation to the question.)


Third Class


The answer has a bare minimum of correctly recalled facts and
relevant argument. There is much irrelevant material. Factual errors
and evidence of misconceptions are common.

Material comes
recognisably from the lectures alone, but is often much distorted.
There will be some evidence of understanding of the point of the
question or of the need to present a cogent argument, but not a great
deal. Answers are typically in the f
orm of a hopeful offering of
material, recalled with obvious difficulty. The answer nevertheless
passes the following two tests: does this candidate demonstrate a
level of knowledge and understanding greater than would be found in
a candidate who had not
attended the course but had the same
background? Does the candidate’s level of correct knowledge and
understanding manage to outweigh the evidence of
lack

of
understanding and
incorrectly

recalled factual material? Is this, in
fact, a “Senior Honours
-
lev
el answer”?



p
15








p
15

Fail


Answers do not pass the tests posed in the last section. Positive
features are either outweighed by misconceptions and errors or are so
vague as to be useless. Answers which completely fail to answer the
question set, either by delibe
rate intent as in those that imply: “I
know nothing of this topic so how about this lot?”, or by
misinterpretation of the wording of the question, will also fail.


A Note regarding ‘misreading’ of a question:


Possible ambiguities in A question will almost certainly have been looked
for and eliminated in advance by the examiners. If a catastrophic
misreading of the question occurs, it is likely to be your fault, but the
examiners will give as much credit as pos
sible if a missed ambiguity is
acknowledged by them after due consideration of all the reasonable
interpretations of the question as set.
Note that it is essential to answer the
question as set and that little credit will be given to material, even if
scie
ntifically correct, that strays from the meaning of the question. Never
re
-
interpret a question to be able to supply information that you happen to
know if it is off the question. Short relevant answers to the point will score
more credit than long ones of
f the topic.