B. Guo, L. A. M. Fitzgerald, J. M. Hewitt, O. Pampaloni, J. A. M. Green
{"title":"Testing geological proxies for deep-time tidal model simulations","authors":"B. Guo, L. A. M. Fitzgerald, J. M. Hewitt, O. Pampaloni, J. A. M. Green","doi":"10.1002/dep2.256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Tides are a key driver of a range of Earth system processes, and we now have the capacity to simulate tidal dynamics on a range of temporal and spatial scales. Deep-time tidal model simulations have been used to provide insight into past ocean circulation patterns, evolution of life and the developments of the Earth-Moon system's orbital configuration. However, these tidal model simulations are relatively poorly constrained and validated because of a lack of readily available proxies. The feasibility of using two types of proxy is explored here; (1) sedimentary deposits which can directly estimate palaeotidal ranges, and (2) black shale, to constrain three palaeotidal model simulations for different time slices. Specifically, three palaeotidal range proxies were used for the early Devonian (400 Ma), three palaeotidal range proxies and five black shales for the lower Jurassic (185 Ma), and eight black shales for the early Cretaceous (95 Ma). Both tidal proxies confirm the tidal model results in most locations. The model results for 400 Ma and 185 Ma matched 2/3 of the palaeotidal range proxies for each of these periods. The locations of black shale were compared with tidal front locations predicted by the model outputs based on the Simpson–Hunter parameter and the model results from 95 to 185 Ma agree with the black shale proxies in 10/13 of the locations. In the cases where there is a disagreement, the model resolution is probably too low to fully resolve the details of the coastal topography, or—in one case—the palaeobathymetry is incorrect. Consequently, it is argued that it is worth expanding this type of work, and that such data can be used to validate both models and reconstructions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54144,"journal":{"name":"Depositional Record","volume":"10 5","pages":"515-526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/dep2.256","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Depositional Record","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dep2.256","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Tides are a key driver of a range of Earth system processes, and we now have the capacity to simulate tidal dynamics on a range of temporal and spatial scales. Deep-time tidal model simulations have been used to provide insight into past ocean circulation patterns, evolution of life and the developments of the Earth-Moon system's orbital configuration. However, these tidal model simulations are relatively poorly constrained and validated because of a lack of readily available proxies. The feasibility of using two types of proxy is explored here; (1) sedimentary deposits which can directly estimate palaeotidal ranges, and (2) black shale, to constrain three palaeotidal model simulations for different time slices. Specifically, three palaeotidal range proxies were used for the early Devonian (400 Ma), three palaeotidal range proxies and five black shales for the lower Jurassic (185 Ma), and eight black shales for the early Cretaceous (95 Ma). Both tidal proxies confirm the tidal model results in most locations. The model results for 400 Ma and 185 Ma matched 2/3 of the palaeotidal range proxies for each of these periods. The locations of black shale were compared with tidal front locations predicted by the model outputs based on the Simpson–Hunter parameter and the model results from 95 to 185 Ma agree with the black shale proxies in 10/13 of the locations. In the cases where there is a disagreement, the model resolution is probably too low to fully resolve the details of the coastal topography, or—in one case—the palaeobathymetry is incorrect. Consequently, it is argued that it is worth expanding this type of work, and that such data can be used to validate both models and reconstructions.
潮汐是一系列地球系统过程的关键驱动力,我们现在有能力模拟各种时空尺度的潮汐动态。深时潮汐模型模拟已被用于洞察过去的海洋环流模式、生命进化和地月系统轨道配置的发展。然而,由于缺乏现成的代用指标,这些潮汐模型模拟的约束和验证相对较差。本文探讨了使用两种代用资料的可行性:(1)可直接估算古潮汐范围的沉积物;(2)黑页岩,以约束不同时间片的三种古潮汐模型模拟。具体来说,泥盆纪早期(400Ma)使用了三种古潮汐范围代用资料,侏罗纪晚期(185Ma)使用了三种古潮汐范围代用资料和五种黑色页岩,白垩纪早期(95Ma)使用了八种黑色页岩。两种潮汐代用资料在大多数地点都证实了潮汐模型的结果。400 Ma 和 185 Ma 的模型结果与这两个时期古潮汐范围代用资料的 2/3 相吻合。根据辛普森-亨特(Simpson-Hunter)参数,将黑页岩的位置与模型输出结果预测的潮汐前沿位置进行了比较,95-185 Ma 的模型结果与 10/13 个地点的黑页岩代用资料相吻合。在出现分歧的情况下,可能是模型的分辨率太低,无法完全解析沿岸地形的细节,或者是古测 量不正确。因此,有理由认为值得扩大这类工作的范围,这些数据可用来验证模式和重建。