2
$\begingroup$

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 $\endgroup$ – user12525 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