AQA GCE Geography Unit 3- 7th June 2013

Came up Jan 13 so doubt it, if they do you've got:

Batholith - When large amounts of magma cool slowly forming a dome of coarse grained rock

Sill - When magma is squeezed and cools between existing strata parallel to the earth's crust

Dyke - When magma is squeezed and cools between existing strata perpendicular to the earths crust

Latholith - (a bit unsure) but i think it is a smaller form of a batholith

All of these are intrusive features which occur within the lithosphere.
You're kinda correct with sills and dykes, they're either concordant or dis-concordant with the bedding of rocks.

By 'Latholith' I think you meant a Laccolith, which is an igneous intrusion which has been injected between two rock layers to form a dome shape and would be much smaller than a batholith and would not form as deep.

Reply 2381

mattypt

Original post by samallsop123

What do people think will come up for the weather short questions and the essay questions?

I was thinking weather conditions in the UK and possibly anticlyones in the 25 marker and in the 40 marker a global warming / climate change essay.

Reply 2382

MrProff

Original post by liabhimani

Does anyone have a model answer or think they can write an answer to 'Explain the theory of plate tectonics/Evaluate evidence for the theory of plate tectoniccs' as a 10 marker? SO STUCK :frown:

I'll give it a whirl, worth the practice, anyone add onto my answer if they think it has gaps or something:

The theory of plate tectonics is based on the movement of many different plates around the world. These plates are moved by convection currents through the molten magma known as the Asthenosphere. The heated magma rises and cools as it gets closer to the crust, or Lithosphere, at which point it spreads out and begins to sink back down towards the core. This spreading process creates constructive plate boundaries. As magma rises through the gap between 2 plates, it cools and is moved away in a process called sea floor spreading. This process is responsible for the continuous creation of new oceanic crust. Of course, this new crust has to go somewhere, and, at destructive plate boundaries, the more dense oceanic crust sinks below less dense continental crust, and once again is reduced to molten magma. In this way, tectonic theory is akin to a conveyor belt, moving continents attached to huge plate boundaries across the Earths surface, and this is known as continental drift.

There is a large amount of evidence that strongly supports this theory. Firstly, there are similar geographical formations, for example similar rock types found across oceans on separate continents, for example on opposite sides of the Atlantic in Brazil and West Africa, as well as northeast America and western Europe.
As well as this, species endemic to a certain area, sharing identical genes are found in totally different places. Ancient fossils of plants and animals of the same species found in South America and Africa tell us that the two continents must have been connected at some point.
Perhaps the most obvious evidence for the plate tectonic theory is the fact that the shapes of the continents suggest that the might once have been attached.
Overall, this evidence is compelling, but on its own is not quite concrete enough to prove the theory. However, one study concluded without a doubt, that plate movement over time was occurring. This was Paleomagnetism.
Paleomagnetism is the orientation of iron particles in ancient lavas that are fixed in place, and always point in the direction of the earths magnetic field at that period in time. The polarity of the Earth changes every 400,000 years or so, which meant that when bands of lava with alternately aligned iron particles that formed a mirror image on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge, they concluded that there had to be a mechanism moving the plates apart, because there would be no difference in the orientation of the iron in the lava if no new crust was being formed.

If I've missed anything please say, could somebody mark this for me maybe? :smile:

Reply 2383

785695

1

does anyone reckon we'll get a 40marker on sustainibility for Development and Globalisation? it came up in jan12 so i'm not sure :confused:

Reply 2384

midnightice

13

Looking at all my question and answer plans, deciduous woodland does seem like it might come up. In January there was an 'adaptations' question on tropical biomes so the contrasting biome might be used.
I guess you could write about broad but thin leaves as there is much less heavy rainfall yet still the need to photosynthesise as much as possible. Also, deep tree roots due to less energy in the litter part of the nutrient cycle in contrast to the nutrient-poor latosols found in the rainforest resulting in roots spreading out on the floor surface. No drip-tips, no buttress roots, shedding leaves due to less water, thick bark for the winter, nocturnal fauna... A lot you can write about.

Reply 2385

AlexW1995

Original post by V95

does anyone reckon we'll get a 40marker on sustainibility for Development and Globalisation? it came up in jan12 so i'm not sure :confused:

I hope not, I really hope 'trade vs aid' or something to do with aid to come up since it hasn't been asked since June 2010 (and even then it wasn't specifically asking about aid).

Reply 2386

razza41

just wanna get it over and done with now, will be such a relief when it is over

Reply 2387

Gary

10

Original post by TeddyEddy

Doubt it would be tropical biome that has come up the last 2 times.

whats your predictions?

Reply 2388

ysiad

how would you answer a question if it were to ask you what British weather is/weather conditions (might sound like a stupid question but I always get confused haha)

Reply 2389

matday95

I need 81 ums on paper to get B. Works out as high C. Gonna be close. Really nervous for this exam as I am struggling to remember all the case studies :frown:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2390

LuLinda95

Original post by liabhimani

Does anyone have a model answer or think they can write an answer to 'Explain the theory of plate tectonics/Evaluate evidence for the theory of plate tectoniccs' as a 10 marker? SO STUCK :frown:

This is what I'd probably write:

The Earth is made up of three sections; the core, the mantle and the crust. The core is made up of an inner core, a solid ball composed mainly of iron and nickel, and an inner core, a semi-molten layer also containing iron and nickel. The mantle surrounds the core and is mostly made of silicate rocks. The nearest part to the core is quite rigid, the layer above is the asthenosphere and is semi molten, and the top part is rigid. The rigid top part of the mantle and the crust together are called the lithosphere and there are two types of crust. These are oceanic, which is thinner at around 6-10km deep and more dense, and continental, which is thicker at around 30-70km deep and less dense. In the 17th century people first began to notice that South America and Africa looked like they could fit together like pieces of a jigsaw. There were suggestions that the continents may have once been joined together before moving apart, but most people believed the continents were stuck in place. In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift, where all continents were once joined as a supercontinent called Pangaea which drifted apart over time. Wegener based his evidence on geological evidence and fossil records but couldn't back it up with a mechanism that explained how the continents moved. In the 1950s, palaeomagnetism provided evidence which supported continental drift. Palaeomagnetism is the study of the Earth's magnetic field, and explains that once every 200,000 years or so, the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity. As magma erupts from mid-ocean ridges, magnetic minerals in the molten rock align themselves with the direction of the Earth's magnetic field. When the crust is solidified, the alignment is fixed. The magnetic minerals in the crust created in periods of normal polarity are aligned in the opposite direction to those in crust created in periods of reversed polarity, creating a series of alternating magnetic stripes along the sea floor. The stripes show the crust is older the further away you get from mid-ocean ridges. Convection currents explained the movements of plates, as they are circular movements of semi-molten rock. They occur when radioactive decay of some elements in the mantle and core e.g. uranium generates a lot of heat. When lower part's of the mantle's asthenosphere heat up, they become less dense and slowly rise. As they move towards the top of the asthenosphere they cool down, become more dense, and sink. This creates drag on the base of tectonic plates and causes them to move. When rising convection currents diverge at the base of the lithosphere, the drag of them causes the plates above them to diverge too. Magma rises to fill the gap created and cools to form new crust. Geological records show evidence for plate tectonics as areas in South America and Africa have rocks of the same age and composition and if you fit these continents together the distribution of rocks matches up. Also, mountains in Scotland, Norway and Sweden are similar to those on the East coast of North America. Fossil records show that there are matching fossils in some continents, and it is unlikely that these animals would have migrated overseas or evolved to be the same in different places so they must have once lived together on one land mass. This is the same for some living organisms today, such as a species of earthworm which is found in New Zealand, parts of Asia and North America. There is also evidence that the past climates of some continents were sililar e.g. similar glacial deposits found in Antarctica, Africa, South America and Australia, and large coal deposits formed in tropical conditions have been found in North America and parts of Europe which suggests they were closer to the equator than they are now.

Holy s**t, just looked back and that might be a bit much for a 10 marker, so you'd probably have to simplify it. As you can tell I'm quite into plate tectonics theory!! There's been a 40 mark essay question purely on plate tectonics theory in June 2012 so it's unlikely we'd get it again, but a girl can dream! I'd probably go on to talk about the different plate margins, examples of where they are and the landforms they produce.

But yeah I think for theory just talk about The 17th century, Wegener, Palaeomagnetism, convection currents, geology, fossils, living organisms and past climates! You find that if you learn all of those you'll have a lot to talk about haha!! :colondollar:

Reply 2391

SamEastie

2

do we need a case study for a tsunami? or just 2 quakes?

Reply 2392

mattypt

Original post by MrProff

I'll give it a whirl, worth the practice, anyone add onto my answer if they think it has gaps or something:

The theory of plate tectonics is based on the movement of many different plates around the world. These plates are moved by convection currents through the molten magma known as the Asthenosphere. The heated magma rises and cools as it gets closer to the crust, or Lithosphere, at which point it spreads out and begins to sink back down towards the core. This spreading process creates constructive plate boundaries. As magma rises through the gap between 2 plates, it cools and is moved away in a process called sea floor spreading. This process is responsible for the continuous creation of new oceanic crust. Of course, this new crust has to go somewhere, and, at destructive plate boundaries, the more dense oceanic crust sinks below less dense continental crust, and once again is reduced to molten magma. In this way, tectonic theory is akin to a conveyor belt, moving continents attached to huge plate boundaries across the Earths surface, and this is known as continental drift.

There is a large amount of evidence that strongly supports this theory. Firstly, there are similar geographical formations, for example similar rock types found across oceans on separate continents, for example on opposite sides of the Atlantic in Brazil and West Africa, as well as northeast America and western Europe.
As well as this, species endemic to a certain area, sharing identical genes are found in totally different places. Ancient fossils of plants and animals of the same species found in South America and Africa tell us that the two continents must have been connected at some point.
Perhaps the most obvious evidence for the plate tectonic theory is the fact that the shapes of the continents suggest that the might once have been attached.
Overall, this evidence is compelling, but on its own is not quite concrete enough to prove the theory. However, one study concluded without a doubt, that plate movement over time was occurring. This was Paleomagnetism.
Paleomagnetism is the orientation of iron particles in ancient lavas that are fixed in place, and always point in the direction of the earths magnetic field at that period in time. The polarity of the Earth changes every 400,000 years or so, which meant that when bands of lava with alternately aligned iron particles that formed a mirror image on both sides of the mid Atlantic ridge, they concluded that there had to be a mechanism moving the plates apart, because there would be no difference in the orientation of the iron in the lava if no new crust was being formed.

If I've missed anything please say, could somebody mark this for me maybe? :smile:

Not sure about a specific mark seems quite good, possibly for extra detail you could add some of the following:

Fossils of the Mesosaurus have been found East South America and Southern Africa
The rock type of the Appalachians of North America and the Scottish Highlands are both the same. No two granites are the same unless were formed together.
Could also use the example of Hawaii on a hotspot, our theory of hotspots suggest they are stationary while there is a chain of islands ranging in ages which can show us plate movement and it's direction.

Reply 2393

lucyv95

Original post by SamEastie

do we need a case study for a tsunami? or just 2 quakes?

2 case studies of seismic events so it can just be earthquakes

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2394

sophiethesats

Any predictions as to what might come up for the World Cities and Weather+Climate structured and the Tectonics essay??
good luck for tomorrow everybody!

Reply 2395

SamEastie

2

Original post by lucyv95

2 case studies of seismic events so it can just be earthquakes

Posted from TSR Mobile

nice one thanks! saves trying to learn ANOTHER case study at least ;D

Reply 2396

lucyv95

Predictions for world cities structured question or essay?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2397

St. Brynjar

18

Original post by SamEastie

do we need a case study for a tsunami? or just 2 quakes?

2 quakes, but one of those quakes could cause a tsunami! Mine are Haiti and Tohoku.

Reply 2398

bluekipper

Original post by Awilson94

Do you know what mark that is? not in ums?

The June exams have so far had higher grade boundaries than the January exams. For the last 3 years you would have needed around 51-54 out of 90 Raw for 85 UMS.

Reply 2399

TeddyEddy

5

Original post by Gary

whats your predictions?

Urban ecosystems I reckon. It's the only part of ecosystems I have revised. I need 52% ums for an A and 92% ums for an A*. Only need an A to get into uni but I have other exams to revise for so I have decided to just focus on topics I predict that will come up so if they do I have a high chance of an A* and if not i settle for my A.

AQA GCE Geography Unit 3- 7th June 2013

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you