North Menan Butte

Karen S. | April 30, 2012 1:40 PM | Edit

Wow, just wow!

ksplawn | April 30, 2012 2:58 PM | Edit

Yep, she’s a real beaut alright.

Karen S. | April 30, 2012 5:05 PM | Edit

Big sky, big butte!

Frank J | April 30, 2012 6:37 PM | Edit

Those of us who think the rainbow is more butte-ful when unweaved would like to know what geologic periods/epochs those layers represent. Any takers, or are you going to be like the “creationists” and play “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

Flint replied to a comment from Frank J | April 30, 2012 6:49 PM | Edit

Frank J said:

Those of us who think the rainbow is more butte-ful when unweaved would like to know what geologic periods/epochs those layers represent. Any takers, or are you going to be like the “creationists” and play “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

Tuff is volcanic ash, so there’s at least some chance that it was all chuffed out at the same time, in a single volcanic event.

Gary_Hurd | April 30, 2012 9:53 PM | Edit

Far far too grainy. Too bad as it looks like an interesting rock face.

Rumraket | May 1, 2012 12:47 AM | Edit

Would it be possible to get a higher resolution version of that photograph somewhere? I like it a lot.

alan bates replied to a comment from Flint | May 1, 2012 8:12 AM | Edit

Further to Frank J and Flint:

Google is your friend. Try googling North Menan Butte. On the first page there is an item from Oregon State Uni:

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdo[…]_buttes.html

with more photos and a bit of backgropund. The buttes are on the Snake River Plain. To quote the page:

The Menan Buttes formed when a dike intruded into a shallow aquifer. The water turned to steam and explosively fragmented the basaltic magma. The cones are late Pleistocene in age.

According to Wiki (?!) the North and South buttes are late Pleistocene, 10,000 YBP (IIRC, dated back from 1950). This is supported by:

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/fo/uppe[…]n_butte.html

The mixing of basaltic magma and water would have caused a violent phraetic explosion. The 2 cones, North and South, are amongst the largest in the world.

More info. at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IO[…]php?id=48097

also from the first page in the Google search. Again, this supports the figure of 10,000YBP.

Matt Young | May 1, 2012 8:32 AM | Edit

Far far too grainy.

I think what you call grain is an artifact of the 600-pixel width; nothing we can do about that. Just sit back a little farther. I doubt that the original is grainy.

Would it be possible to get a higher resolution version of that photograph somewhere? I like it a lot.

I will forward your request to the photographer.

alan bates | May 1, 2012 8:44 AM | Edit

Has my comment (around 8:45) got lost or is it in moderation?

alan bates | May 1, 2012 8:45 AM | Edit

Sorry. It has just turned up!

Frank J | May 1, 2012 3:06 PM | Edit

@alan bates.

Thanks. I guess that “proves” YEC. ;-)

Seriously, to my untrained eyes it looked like the layers of the Grand Canyon that sparked my interest in natural history, and soon after, evolution. So “naturally” I was hoping for Paleozoic or Mesozoic.

Henry J | May 1, 2012 3:10 PM | Edit

Jurassic Park?

Ian Derthal | May 4, 2012 11:41 AM | Edit

It’s a wonder John Whitmore isn’t doing research on this in order to prove it was a flood deposit.

Henry J | May 7, 2012 8:49 AM | Edit

Maybe its a flood withdrawal instead of deposit?

Update

Categories:

Tags:

15 Comments

About this Entry

Categories