Skip navigation

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

Here is a preliminary list of links to sites and resources that where mentioned during the Digital Innovations in Geoscience sessions at GSA:

Declan DePaor's geology kml projects:

http://www.lions.odu.edu/~ddepaor/Site/Google_Earth_Science.html

A simple, free, and effective program for geotagging your digital photos:

Google's free, geospatially aware photo-managing software, Picasa:

The amazing digital pen that you should really use:

The nearly as amazing digital pen you should consider using in the field:

One of many resources from SERC, this one is about using Google Earth to understand geologic maps. File this under uncanny obviousness. Shame on you if you don't incorporate this approach into your teaching.

Virtual Field work:

The mighty Gigapan Robot:

More to come.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

If so, breakdown and join the 21st Century. Besides, this rock is heavy.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

Check out the lineup for our Innovative (we hope) and Ambitious (for sure) session on Sunday:

P6: Pardee Keynote Symposium–Google Earth to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in the Geosciences
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Portland Ballrooms 251/258

1:30 PM – Talks

1:30 PM
DIGITAL GEOLOGY IN THE 21st CENTURY: IT’S HERE, DON’T FEAR, GET INTO IT
P. Kyle House, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology & University of Nevada

1:45 PM
ONEGEOLOGY – MAKING GEOLOGY ACCESSIBLE
Ian Jackson, British Geological Survey

2:00 PM
I TWEET, THEREFORE I AM: SOCIAL NETWORKS IN THE GEOSCIENCES
M. Lee Allison, Arizona Geological Survey

2:15 PM
ONE MAP – MANY MAPPERS: IMPLICATIONS OF INNOVATIVE MAPPING, MODELING, AND NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES FOR GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION
Declan G. De Paor, Old Dominion University

2:30 PM – Demonstration

GIGAGEOLOGY: VIRTUAL FIELD TRIPS IN A Web2.0 WORLD
Ronald C. Schott, Fort Hays State University

3:00 PM – Interactive Display Booths

EXPLORING WITH GOOGLE’S GEOSPATIAL TOOLS
Mano Marks, Josie Wernecke & Tina Ornduff, Google Inc.
John E. Bailey, University of Alaska Fairbanks

EMERGING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Peter A. Selkin, University of Washington
Declan G. De Paor, Old Dominion University
Janice Gobert, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Karin B. Kirk, Carleton College
Steve Kluge, Resources for GeoScience Education
Glenn A. Richard, Stony Brook University
Steven J. Whitmeyer, James Madison University

USING DIGITAL TOOLS FOR GEOLOGY
Kyle House, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology & University of Nevada
Ian Jackson, British Geological Survey
M. Lee Allison, Arizona Geological Survey

MONITORING ROCK FALLS IN YOSEMITE VALLEY WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL, HIGH-RESOLUTION PANORAMIC IMAGERY
Greg M. Stock, National Park Service
Eric Hanson & Greg Downing, xRez Studio

4:30 PM – Discussion

Even more on Monday:

T160: From Virtual Globes to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in Geoscience Research, Education, and Outreach (talks) schedule and abstracts

T160: From Virtual Globes to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in Geoscience Research, Education, and Outreach (posters) schedule and abstracts

Stay tuned to Outcrop.org for subsequent developments and post-meeting extravaganza.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

Sure, I have gone on and on about the amazing visualizations you can get with some tweaking of LiDAR data; however, it turns out that a pretty basic representation is also quite useful…contours. Yes, contours. Sometimes smaller scale features remain somewhat ambiguous in hillshades or slopeshades, but high-res, short interval contours from the LiDAR data can eliminate most of the ambiguity. In this case, it is a tiny area that I have struggled with on the Owyhee River. Here, a large landslide entered from the north, shoved the river channel to the south, and the river eventually worked its way back to the north to some extent. The array of surficial deposits in the void that comprises the right hand side of the image south of the river record this sequence of events as well as subsequent sedimentation by tributary fans. The contours really highlight the fans, and in conjunction with discernible drainage patterns evident in the LiDAR, it is clear what is fan and what is river, right?

2-m Contours were generated in GlobalMapper and exported as shapefile to view in Arc.
Note, Ian Madin (at DOGAMI) gave me the tip on contours especially as they relate to resolving fan features. He was right…it works!

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

I created this lake by generating a contour from the LiDAR dataset at an elevation of 1046 m. GlobalMapper does this in about 1.5 minutes. Then, exported the vector as a shapefile, cut out the parts of the line that occur downstream from the dam, stitch the remaining loose ends, build a poly from the line and there it is.

This lake has an interesting topographic correspondence with the old landslides on the south side of the Hole in the Ground as well as the ancient fan remnants that come in from the north side. Don't forget that much of the topography you can see through the lake didn't exist at the time of the lava dam. The valley floor was probably formed on the Bogus Rim lava which forms the flat-topped features that flank the left and right banks of the river near the eastern end of the lake. The top of the Bogus Rim lava is only about 25 m below the surface of this lake. Thus, the link between this lake and the landslides is dubious as there was nowhere for the landslides to slide.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

I have developed polygons showing likely extents of lakes related to both lobes of the Doublespring Landslide Complex on the Owyhee River. Using a combination of LiDAR data, ArcGIS, and GlobalMapper in conjunction with the highest plausible geomorphic evidence of fluvial overtopping the following lakes result:

East Spring Landslide: 878 m lake elevation.
West Spring Landslide: 868 m lake elevation.

The correspondence / lack of correspondence of these lakes with various upstream landforms and deposits is surprising.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

<div style=”width:425px;text-align:left” id=”__ss_2063781″>Bridging the Analog-Digital Gap in Geology </object><div style=”font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;”>View more presentations from Kyle House.</div></div>

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

Including today’s.

Made with Garmin 60 csx, Google Earth, and Snagit. Mailed from Picasa.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth

I’ve said it before, and I am sure I will say it again. But this time Google Earth is really making a major difference in my approach to making a geologic map.

My mapping project on the Lower Walker River and the piedmont of the Wassuk Range, NV is taxing my skills as a geologist and as a mapper. It is an extremely complicated setting with active tectonics, catastrophic debris flows, rock avalanches, a wildly fluctuating terminal lake, and a river madly scrambling to keep up with the lake’s rapid, historical decline (50 m in ~100 years). Documenting the ancient, historical, and recent shorelines along the lake is a key component of developing a fairly tight chronology of alluvial fans, abandoned delta lobes, and Quaternary fault activity. However, efficiently digesting all of this information is a far more laborious task with the 24k USGS base maps because the relief in the area is too extreme to accommodate small contour intervals. Air photos are certainly nice, and I do have access to some marginally good LiDAR data and scattered high-precision GPS points, but nothing brings the area into full focus as easily and as efficiently as Google Earth. On this project I have explicitly incorporated GE into my mapping and it has worked extremely well.

GE allows me to quickly and repeatedly pan and zoom my map area and evaluate all of these features of interest. With particular reference to the logistics of making a geologic map, I have used GE extensively to quickly trace mappable shorelines, tag key elevations, and decide how (or whether) to group them for mapping purposes. I have also marked some of the more flagrant fault traces to improve the frame of reference for the map. Of course, I have also linked my geotagged set of field photos so that I can get some clear reminders about key areas I am mapping. The map is being compiled in ArcGIS with good imagery (NAIP) and I can simply transfer my interpretations by visual inspection. Of course, I keep turning to GE to check things out in detail because, somehow, the clarity of the imagery far exceeds what I can force out of the NAIP. Likely I will turn the map of this intriguing area into a kml project. Best area yet for that.

Posted via email from Fresh Geologic Froth