3
$\begingroup$

The register shows several supercontinents have been formed on Earth's History:

"The most recent supercontinent, Pangaea, formed about 300 million years ago (0.3 Ga). There are two different views on the history of earlier supercontinents. The first proposes a series of supercontinents: Vaalbara (c. 3.6 to c. 2.8 billion years ago); Ur (c. 3 billion years ago); Kenorland (c. 2.7 to 2.1 billion years ago); Columbia (c. 1.8 to 1.5 billion years ago); Rodinia (c. 1.25 billion to 750 million years ago); and Pannotia (c. 600 million years ago), whose dispersal produced the fragments that ultimately collided to form Pangaea".

Source: Supercontinent Cycle, Wikipedia

I would expect then a new supercontinent to form in some million years, but this implies Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, both with ocean-ridges and divergent margins, to disappear.

Wich one will be closed and wich one will survive to Supercontinent Cycle?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The pacific has already lost part its spreading center, north america has been pushed over it.. A few tiny non-contiguous plates like the Juan de fuca plate is all that is left of the east pacific plate. in places like the san-andreas the north american plates has complete overridden the spreading center.

In truth there are four possible predictions for the future: Novopangea, Pangea Ultima, Aurica and Amasia. two predict the atlantic disappearing one predicts the arctic and the final predicts the loss of the pacific. I think the latter two are more likely given what we see in the north america/pacific interaction but this is just opinion, the truth is we don't know a lot about how oceanic plates disappear or how spreading centers die because by their very nature they do not leave much evidence behind.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ At my degree they said pacific dorsal was more powerfull than atlantic one, arguing it with tomography images of mantle where pacific area looked a more powerfull heat source $\endgroup$ – Universal_learner Apr 18 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ he truth is we are not entirely sure what controls the strength of a plates movement, more importantly we don't know how it changes they will interact in the long run. So saying one is powerful really doesn't mean much. $\endgroup$ – John Apr 18 at 13:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.