Wind and Water have quite an effect upon sandstone

[RoxnDox]

This is a quote from Jim "RoxnDox" on another thread and I felt it might add to this thread. Thanks and hope you don't mind Jim.
This really adds to the geology of the area and quite interesting.

"The white background rocks are limestone made from deceased microscopic critter/plant skeletons (think chalk). The foreground rocks are sandstone, some deposited by water, some by wind (fossilized sand dunes, in essence), which has been colored red by the iron oxides dissolved in the waters that deposited the sands (or seeped thru the rock over the ages...). Sandstones are porous and allow water to seep thru the entire rock mass, while limestones are much less porous and only let water flow thru cracks and crevices, keeping most of the rock mass unsaturated (and keeping it the original color of its materials)."
Jim

No problemo from me! You're smack in the middle of some great landscapes... The Navaho Sandstone and many of hte other formations down in that part of the country show off the wonders of deposition and erosion and how they can combine to form some gorgeous stuff for us to enjoy today! The fun part (for some of us anyway) is untangling the 4-dimensional jigsaw puzzle to figure out just *how* it got created...

Jim

[GeoJerry]

while limestones are much less porous and only let water flow thru cracks and crevices, keeping most of the rock mass unsaturated

Well.... not exactly. This may be true for some limestones, but it's not a general rule. Somewhere between 30-40% of the world's oil production comes from the highly porous limestones and dolomites in the Middle East and Mexico, and the Edwards Aquifer in Texas, composed of limestone, is one of the most prolific aquifers in the world. OK end of lecture :-)

[tessfully]

This is an other extraordinary shot Bob. Incredible landscape, wonderful photo from a very talented photographer.

[lamented bovine]

Well done Bob.

Cheers
Shane

[RoxnDox]

Well.... not exactly. This may be true for some limestones, but it's not a general rule. Somewhere between 30-40% of the world's oil production comes from the highly porous limestones and dolomites in the Middle East and Mexico, and the Edwards Aquifer in Texas, composed of limestone, is one of the most prolific aquifers in the world. OK end of lecture :-)

True, but I sometimes oversimplify things for the non-geologist audiences for the sake of brevity...

Jim

[charliezap]

A very interesting look there Bob well taken.--charliezap

[paulusje]

Beautiful shot!! The colour definitely adds so much here so I would leave it like this.

[GeoJerry]

True, but I sometimes oversimplify things for the non-geologist audiences for the sake of brevity...

Jim

Fair enough... I don't think anyone wants to hear the gory details. :-)

[VTerlakyPhoto]

Fair enough... I don't think anyone wants to hear the gory details. :-)

True, but I sometimes oversimplify things for the non-geologist audiences for the sake of brevity...

Jim

Hmm, I would have to disagree here. Sorry to derail the tread that was started with a beautiful picture (it really is!), but it irks me each time someone says that science has to be "dumbed down for the masses". If you want to stay brief in your response, by all means, but also be correct in your statements. Limestones are not by any stretch as a rule always more porous, so don't say so. You can be brief and still correct.

I also feel that by saying that things have to be "dumbed down" you patronize everyone else. I think that most people are well capable of understanding most concepts, especially if they are delivered in a fun educational way. rayallen asked the question how these formations are formed, so they are clearly curious - why deny them a correct and full answer?

Anyway, I hope that neither of you take this as a personal attack (it is not), I just get really frustrated when fellow scientists feel the need to be short and over-simplify things to the point of making incorrect statements because they feel the audience won't be able to understand or won't listen to a longer explanation - even when they themselves asked for an explanation in the first place.

Back on topic. Bob: wonderful photo with great colours! The red, green and blue offset each other really well

[GeoJerry]

Limestones are not by any stretch as a rule always more porous, so don't say so.

No one said this!? At least I couldn't find that statement anywhere.

[VTerlakyPhoto]

No one said this!? At least I couldn't find that statement anywhere.

Whoops, less porous was said... my bad.

[GeoJerry]

Whoops, less porous was said... my bad.

Errr... no
I said that, essentially, while some limestones may have very low porosity (as RoxnDox said and as is often the case), some can be very porous and permeable. It's a mixed bag, depending on many different factors.

[VTerlakyPhoto]

Errr... no
I said that, essentially, while some limestones may have very low porosity (as RoxnDox said and as is often the case), some can be very porous and permeable. It's a mixed bag, depending on many different factors.

Don't be difficult GeoJerry, you know exactly what I meant with my post, but if it's not let me explain with a chain of events.

1: a post is quoted from RoxnDox making the statement about limestone porosity
2: you corrected it (rightly so)
3: RoxnDox said he knows, but he dumbed down his answer for "brevity's sake"
4: you agreed with him that that was indeed the good thing to do ... "who wants to hear the gory details anyway"
5: I pointed out that I don't like the attitude implied by saying that things need to be dumbed down, and used a current example where it leads to misinformation (limestone porosity). I never implied that it was you personally who made that incorrect statement, I only pointed out that you seemed to be on board with RoxnDox with his attitude about dumbing things down - and that is what I had an issue with.

I hope that clarifies it and we can move on.

[GeoJerry]

With all due respect, VTerlaky, I don't think the issue is one of dumbing down, but rather an issue of volume and audience. This is a photography blog, and (also speaking for RoxnDox, I hope) I don't think either of us wants to type pages of material for readers who are here to see pictures. I'm sure most viewers here could understand the concepts if they had enough time and inclination, but it would involve a great deal of work to do so. People make careers out of carbonate (limestone+dolomite) reservoirs; some specialize on particular categories of porosity types, or even the chemical reactions that occur in the pore spaces over time. I've spent 6 years studying carbonates and still feel like a novice. There are scores of textbooks on the subject, so some compromise has to be made in discussion of carbonate porosity systems in a forum like this. So please don't interpret this as an insult to readers' intelligence. But you can call us lazy if you wish!

Great shot, Bob!

[RoxnDox]

With all due respect, VTerlaky, I don't think the issue is one of dumbing down, but rather an issue of volume and audience. This is a photography blog, and (also speaking for RoxnDox, I hope) I don't think either of us wants to type pages of material for readers who are here to see pictures. I'm sure most viewers here could understand the concepts if they had enough time and inclination, but it would involve a great deal of work to do so. People make careers out of carbonate (limestone+dolomite) reservoirs; some specialize on particular categories of porosity types, or even the chemical reactions that occur in the pore spaces over time. I've spent 6 years studying carbonates and still feel like a novice. There are scores of textbooks on the subject, so some compromise has to be made in discussion of carbonate porosity systems in a forum like this. So please don't interpret this as an insult to readers' intelligence. But you can call us lazy if you wish!

Great shot, Bob!

Agreed. Simplifying a complex topic does NOT equal "dumbing it down", and does NOT constitute an insult to anyone. Yes, I could have dredged up lots and lots of details from my long-ago coursework, or I could leave it as a general statement about trends, which leaves out the gory details for those who are not likely to want them. You may or may not agree, but you weren't the one making the explanation(s). When you make a comment about your area of knowledge, be as detailed as you wish. Just let others make the same choice.

Jim

And, it's still a great photo!