Did Antarctica Migrate South for the Winter?

by mgmirkin | July 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm
453 views | 27 Recommendations | 8 comments

Photos

Did Antarctica Migrate South for the Winter?

Did Antarctica Migrate South for the Winter?

see larger image

uploaded by Maireid Sullivan

How much do we really know about the history of our world and the migrations of its surface? It now seems that scientists have discovered mineralogical similarities between Antarctica and North America, implying that either they were at one point neighbors, or that materials were somehow transported from one region to the other.

The motion of tectonic plates continually rearranges Earth’s continents, sometimes cramming most or all of them into immense groupings called supercontinents.

From the scientists who brought you Pangaea, Gondwana and Pannotia, now comes the latest installment in the supercontinents series: Rodinia.

Millions of years ago, the American Southwest sat next to East Antarctica

What a juxtaposition: About 800 million years ago, East Antarctica, now one of the coldest regions on Earth, abutted what is now California’s Death Valley, one of the hottest.

Both locales were part of an equatorial supercontinent called Rodinia, says John Goodge, a geologist at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

There has, however, been considerable confusion and controversy over the issue of land masses going back that far in time.

Debate has long raged about how today’s landmasses were arranged then, says Goodge. The orientation of magnetic lines locked into rocks that formed at the time — which often can be used to estimate the location and orientation of ancient landmasses — are in many cases contradictory ...

There seems to have been little agreement as to how land masses were arranged that far back.

In previous studies, various teams have argued that Australia, southern China, or even Siberia lay along the southwestern edge of Laurentia, a landmass that held most of what is now North America.

How does the latest finding relate to the relationship between continents? Contrary to prior suggestions that Australia, China or Sibera lay along the southwest of Laurentia, it seems that at some point either the continents of Antarctica and North America were situated near one another, or that somehow materials were transferred from one to the other.

Now, geochemical analyses of rock samples taken from the Transantarctic Mountains hint instead that portions of East Antarctica occupied that spot, Goodge and his colleagues report in the July 11 Science. For one thing, the ratios of neodymium isotopes in the ancient sediments in the Transantarctic Mountains are the same as those in what was then Laurentia, says Goodge. Also, the hafnium isotope ratios in the 1.44-billion-year-old zircons found in East Antarctica match those of the zircons found in the distinctive granites now found primarily in North America.

Finally, the researchers note, the ratios of various isotopes and elements in a basketball-sized chunk of granite found in East Antarctica — a chunk ripped by a glacier from bedrock now smothered by thick ice, the team speculates — match those of granite found only in what was southwestern Laurentia, which today is the American Southwest.

Mineralogical analysis has shown a striking resemblance between materials of Antarctica and North America. Is it really possible that Antarctica has migrated from an equatorward position to the south polar position it now occupies?

If not, what might the material similarities mean? Did the similar materials evolve independently? Were they somehow transported?

More research in undoubtedly required.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
Amy Judd
Amy Judd
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 13:32 on July 15th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

How interesting - I think it will definitely need more research but it seems like a promising start!

0
mgmirkin

Agreed. Lots more research needed!

~Michael


Smile
Smile
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 15:57 on July 15th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I find the proposition highly feasible that Antartica/Nth America as originally one land mass.

But whatever the history, there is a definite correlation between the Earth's geophysical behaviour and the external electromagnetic forces impinging on Earth. Geophysical adjustments such as pole shift, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis are all necessary for the earth to survive these EM forces.

0
mgmirkin

Interesting, but I wonder whether the crustal magnetic fields support or refute the proposition. I wonder if anyone has thought to try to match that up in order to try to figure out what went where, assuming they believe the theory that the magnetic fields can tell us something about pole shifts, continental drift or global expansion, or any of the other various dime-a-dozen theories out there, with or without empirical support.

(Digital magnetic map goes global)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6982485.stm

Just a quick thought anyway,
~Michael Gmirkin


Maireid Sullivan
Maireid Sullivan
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 17:37 on July 15th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I'll have to dig out a composite image we created for the film "Introduction to Antarctica" which we made for the explorer Peter Malcolm (click here to see the youtube video intro. ) showing the huge continent known as "Gondwana land" before the tectonic plates moved away creating the separate continents.

I can upload a wiki. photo.

Pat Garcia
Pat Garcia
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 22:00 on July 15th, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff. I just watched a movie on TV .... I don't know the name of it but it was about this guy's theory about the tectonic plates being under so much pressure that they were "bouncing" back to it's original form rapidly.

0
mgmirkin

Update:

(Single Boulder May Prove Connection Betweeen Antarctica And North America?)
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Single_Boulder_May_Prove_Connection_Betweeen_Antarctica_And_North_America_999.html

A very circumstantial case... How do they know this object was not somehow lofted there via impact, or some other process? Why does the single specimen mean the entire continent must have drifted, as opposed to the single piece of material somehow being "displaced?"

Which is a simpler mechanism: "Impact lofts hunk of rock and redeposits it elsewhere" or "entire continent of Antarctica shifts from equator to pole" or "entire continent of North America shifts from pole to equator?" Just wondering...

julianw
julianw
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 11:20 on July 21st, 2008

mgmirkin, I like this story.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Amy Judd
First Flagged at 1:32 PM, Jul 15, 2008 by Amy Judd
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in Environment

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from