4.pangea oct2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
1/29
The Great Pangea Controversy
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
2/29
Premiseswe saw earlier that thetime-averaged geomagnetic field
is a geocentric axial dipole (GAD)field.
A GAD implies that:
1) Tan(Inc) = 2*Tan(lat), or
Inc = invTan(2*Tan(lat))i.e., GAD field inclination
depends on latitude.
2) GAD declination = 0
everywhere.
AT ANY POINT ON EARTH,
THERE IS A DEC=0/INC PAIR
THAT DEFINES A SAME
MAGNETIC NORTH POLE
THAT COINCIDES WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC NORTH POLE.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
3/29
Example:
Pleistocene (ie, recent)
Lavas from Japan:
The GAD north magneticpole coincides with the
geographic north pole
(rotation axis).
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
4/29
but plates move with respect to the geographic north pole
(rotation axis) due to plate tectonics.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
5/29
Due to plates motion, GAD north paleomagnetic poles calculated
from the magnetization (dec/inc pairs) ofancient rocks
do not correspondto the geographic north pole (rotation axis)
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
6/29
Exampe from the
mid-Cretaceous ofNorth America.
GAD north magnetic
poles (gray circles) calculated
from the magnetization(dec/inc pair) of
mid-Cretaceous rocks at
different localities (1-4) are
systematically displaced
from the geographicnorth pole (rotation axis)
because of continental
drift of North America
since the mid-Cretaceous
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
7/29
In this example, wealso notice that the different
localities (1-4) yielded
statistically indistinguishable
GAD north magnetic poles,
which implies tectoniccoherence of the investigated
rock units (same rigid plate; no
internal rotation/motion).
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
8/29
By rotating the GAD north magnetic pole of a given plate for a given
time on the geographic north pole (rotation axis), we can reconstruct
the paleogeographic position of that plate at that time by considering
that the plate is attached to its north magnetic pole.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
9/29
By studying the magnetization of rocks of different ages belonging to
the same plate, we can reconstruct the sequence of GAD north magnetic
poles of that plate -> apparent polar wander path (APWP)
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
10/29
and therefore, we can reconstruct the geologic history of motion
of that plate (with respect to the rotation axis).
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
11/29
Application of these
notions to the configuration ofPangea
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
12/29
Incastro geograficoIncastro geografico
dei continentidei continentiuna delleuna delle proveprove
della Deriva deidella Deriva dei
ContinentiContinentidi Wegenerdi Wegener
WegenerWegenerproposeproposecheche ii
continenti erano riuniti nelcontinenti erano riuniti nel
supercontinentesupercontinentePangeaPangeaAA
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
13/29
ma Pangea ebbe sempre una configurazione stabile di tipo
wegeneriano (Pangea A) durante il suo periodo di esistenza dal
Carbonifero al Giurassico (~100 milioni di anni)
oppure Pangea ebbe configurazioni diverse, e non fu un
supercontinente stabile, come ha proposto Irving (1977)?
Ted Irving
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
14/29
Studio paleomagnetico di ignimbriti permiane sudalpine
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
15/29
Studio paleomagnetico di ignimbriti permiane sudalpine
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
16/29
Ignimbriti di et radiometrica nota, ca. 280 Ma.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
17/29
Poli paleomagnetici da ignimbriti sudalpine coincidenti con poli
paleomagnetici coevi da nord Africa.
-> coerenza tettonica tra Adria (proto-Italia) e Africa
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
18/29
Possiamo utilizzare i poli paleomagnetici medi di nord Africa e Adria
per ricostruire la posizione paleogeograficadi Africa (+Sud
America) nel Permiano Inferiore.
Possiamo fare la stessa cosa per Europa usando dati paleomagneticidalla letteratura.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
19/29
ma se posizioniamo i continenti assumendo Pangea A,
otteniamo una sovrapposizione crostale di alcune centinaia di km.
come eliminarla?
assumendo una
configurazione
alternativa di Pangea
che comunque soddisfi
i limiti imposti dai dati
paleomagnetici:
-> Pangea B
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
20/29
In summary, from our paleomagnetic analysis we infer the
existence of Pangea B in the Early Permian (~280 Ma) .
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
21/29
evolving into Wegenerian Pangea A in the Late Permian
(~265 Ma)..
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
22/29
still Pangea A in the Early Jurassic (198176 Ma)
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
23/29
until mid-Jurassic break-up and continents dispersal
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
24/29
that eventually led to the present-day geographic configuration.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
25/29
but could Pangea B be an artifact of the data? For example,
some sediments are affected by paleomagnetic inclination error, that is,
their magnetization may underestimate paleolatitudes, thus artificially
creating the crustal misfit at the basis of the Pangea B model.
NObecause in our analysis we used paleomagnetic data fromigneous rocks, which are typically not affected by (sedimentary)
Inclination shallowing.
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
26/29
Torsvik and Van der Voo claimed in a number of papers that Pangea B
is an artifact produced by an undetected octupole contamination
of the GAD field. In other words: in our reconstructions, weassumed a GAD field, and calculated paleolatitudes accordingly
(tanI=2tanLat); but the field may not have been a simple GAD field
during the Permian. It may have had a more complicated geometry
(80% dipolar+20% octupolar). Therefore, our paleomagnetic estimates
of paleolatitudes (in assumption of a GAD field) are wrong.
(very complicated businessjust believe in what I say---)
BUT NO, WAIT!
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
27/29
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
28/29
-
7/27/2019 4.Pangea Oct2013
29/29
This is a tribute to Edward Irving,
the father of Pangea B (Irving, 1977).
He first recognized the crustal misfit,
and proposed Pangea B.We are just on his side (against all odds)