The preceding few blogs have attempted to
cover some of the apparent weaknesses of the Plate Tectonics (PT) explanation
for how the Earth’s lithosphere has dynamically evolved throughout the eons of
geological time. It has focussed upon the particular problems relating to the
ways in which sediments are laid down and mountains are formed. There appears
to be compelling evidence that mountains are generally the result of erosion of
regionally uplifted crust, which is quite out of line with the mechanism
envisaged by PT. Moreover, the evidence I have been able to gather suggests
that these periods of regional uplift occur over quite short geological
timescales (measured in 10’s Ma), whereas PT regards continents as having been impacted
into one another at timescales measured over 100’s Ma. There also appears to be
good grounds for supposing that the regional uplifts occur synchronously over
very different regions of the Earth’s surface. For this to happen in the PT
model would require some remarkable coincidences.
Sedimentary evidence seems to
provide a picture of crust rising and falling, sometimes above and sometimes
below sea level, severely challenging the PT notion that continents have over
many 100’s Ma had essentially unchanged plan forms, albeit they have broken away from their precursor super-continents, and been
propelled into different spat ial
locations. Some of the important evidence I have been able to gather shows that
the nature of sedimentary deposit also displays a cyclical form, with periods
in which the forms of the sediments and their rates of deposition display
globally synchronous characteristics. Moreover, many cycles of sedimentary deposition, epeirogenic rise, continental erosion, epeirogenic subsidence, appear to have occurred over the time it is believed to have taken for the assembly, breakup and global journeys of the fragmented supercontinents envisaged in the PT hypothesis. PT seems to have very little useful to
say as to why this might be the case.
Based upon my own reading of
the current situation a new hypothesis has been presented that appears to
provide an alternative explanation for what has and continues to help shape the
Earth’s crust. It is based upon observations of how cyclical thermal processes
are at work, albeit at greatly reduced spat ial
and temporal scales, in controlling both natural and man-made surface
morphologies. There is growing evidence that long (10’s to 100’s ka) and very
long (10’s to 100’s Ma) cyclic changes in thermal conditions on the Earth could
be similarly playing an important role in global tectonics. Some of the earlier posts have argued
that a great many features of the dynamic evolution of the lithosphere can be
explained in terms of massive cyclic changes in thermal regime within the
crust, including phase changes of lower lithospheric rock.
These earlier posts have suggested that
the driving forces for these thermal changes are closely related to those
responsible for glacial and interglacial episodes arising within the
geologically recurring ice ages. Waxing and waning of thick ice sheets and the
associated changes in sea levels are suggested to induce major changes in
geothermal heat flux and its associated geothermal gradients. The consequential
changes in lithospheric temperature are shown to provide models capable of
explaining the cyclically developed massive horizontal tension and compression
forces, and their associated kinematic and rheological consequences within the
upper regions of the crust. But over longer geological periods these cyclic
changes in surface ice and water and the thermal insulation they provide, have been argued to cause alternations
in the thermal regimes and possibly associated phase changes at the lower
lithosphere boundary, sufficient to induce substantial changes to the thickness
of the Earth’s crust. Consequential isostatic and eustatic changes then help to
explain the all too evident vertical motions of ocean and continental crust,
including explanations of how ocean crust can be raised to form new continental
crust and vice versa - issues which are left poorly accounted for by PT.
There appears to be some evidence
in support of this new theory. The pulses of mountain building have been compared
with paleoclimate temperature estimates (Post & Illis, 2009) and noted by
Kalander et alia (2011) to coincide rather well with the geological evidence on
the periods ice ages have occurred. Figure 11 reproduces Figure 2 but has had
added the periods when major regional mountain forming episodes have been
recorded. There does appear to be a remarkable coincidence between the ice age
pulses and those of mountain building, including that of the Plieno-Pliestocene
(Ollier, 2006b). And although the precise dating seem a little less clear,
there does appear to be more than circumstantial evidence that the pulses in
different forms and rates of sedimentation may also have strong links with the
ice ages (Sloss, 1964; Wezel, 1992). Over shorter geological periods the
seemingly synchronous and global development of river terraces (Bridgeland,
1988, 2010; Westaway, 2002, 2010) are strongly indicative of the work of the
glacial – inter-glacial cycles being superimposed upon long term epeirogenic
uplift.
All in all there does appear to be a
compelling case that in contrast with the supposed monotonically evolving
processes envisaged by PT, much of the dynamic of Earth lithosphere evolution
has been one of cyclical processes. The preceding blogs have attempted to explain the
close agreement between the phasing of the cycles of geological evolution and
the forcing of climate caused by Earth’s interactions with the sun (whether
directly or indirectly as controlled by variations in cosmic ray flux). They have also proposed a thermal-mechanical models for how this dynamic process might be
working.
Much of the above post has been taken from the paper "On the Causes of Vertical Motions of Lithosphere", James G A Croll, Frontiers meeting, Geological Society of London, November, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment