From the link: "The Island of California refers to a long-held European misconception, dating from the 16th century, that California was not part of mainland North America but rather a large island "
What I liked best about this article, besides the link to the site where the maps are displayed by their creator, was the detailed discussion of how we find out what the geography of North America was millions of years ago, and how radically different it was at times. It was also interesting to learn that petroleum exploration is one of the big interests of people who pay for the maps to be produced.
Nice views of the Iapetus Ocean closing leading to mountain building (orogeny) and then the Atlantic opening up along a slightly different line taking parts that used to be attached to the other side of the Iapetus (e.g. Scotland) across to the Eastern side of the Atlantic.
For those interested in learning more about geology, I highly recommend John McPhee's Annals of a Former World [1]. It won a Pulitzer in 1999. Through a series of 5 books written between 1978 and 1998, McPhee weaves together the geological development of North America with highly detailed and beautifully written portraits of the geologists that study various sections of the continent. It touches on both basics of geology and highly detailed accounts of geological events in North America as they were understood at the time.
In the series that shows present day earth going backwards, why when the ice age is shown only the ice sheet at the North pole is enlarged? Shouldn't the ice sheet at the South pole increase in size as well?
It does; you can see ice over the tip of South America. Note that the ice in the southern hemisphere extends about as far from the pole as that in the northern hemisphere. There's just a lot less ice in the southern hemisphere because there's less land at those latitudes.
That[1] was interesting, but apparently, the theory is not widely accepted as fact.
“The scientific community finds that significant evidence contradicts the Expanding Earth theory, and that evidence used in support of it is better explained by plate tectonics” [2]
You may have heard about one big supercontinent - Pangaea. Did you know there were probably earlier supercontinents ? Nuna, Rodinia, Proto-Laurasia, Proto-Gondwana.
15 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 42.6 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_island_Vinckebo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_California
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iapetus_Ocean
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Annals-Former-World-John-McPhee/dp/037...
Then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814... (Look at the part labeled ‘Frisia’)
Now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benelux_location_map.svg
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
(Incidentally, I found out about Doggerland from a genetic test that told me my paternal line probably came from Doggerland).
“The scientific community finds that significant evidence contradicts the Expanding Earth theory, and that evidence used in support of it is better explained by plate tectonics” [2]
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_cons...
The smaller earth -> lighter gravity -> larger insects are able to support their huge body without skeleton, and larger living beings in general
In short it keeps on making more sense the more you think about it.
Plus the speculation of mass being generated in the core of the Earth is just sexy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea#Formation