Back
to top
How do shield volcanoes support/oppose the continental drift theory?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Report
#2
(Original post by abrack)
Any help greatly appreciated.
Any help greatly appreciated.
I believe this is asking the right lines but websites like bbc bitesize should offer a good explanation
0
reply
Report
#3
I have a different take on this:
Though shield volcanoes can form over rift zones where the crust is pulling apart allowing magma to rise between them, many are formed over hotspots, which are fixed areas of high heat flow originating from the core-mantle boundary.
Taking the Hawaiian island chain as an example, the reason that there is a chain of islands and seamounts (rather than one huge shield volcano) which are older and more eroded with increasing distance from the hotspot, is because the Pacific plate is constantly moving, currently towards the north west. As the plate moves, it carries the active volcano above the hotshot away from the source of the magma, causing it to become extinct and allowing a new volcano to grow in its place.
This provides evidence that tectonic plates do move, supporting the continental drift theory
Though shield volcanoes can form over rift zones where the crust is pulling apart allowing magma to rise between them, many are formed over hotspots, which are fixed areas of high heat flow originating from the core-mantle boundary.
Taking the Hawaiian island chain as an example, the reason that there is a chain of islands and seamounts (rather than one huge shield volcano) which are older and more eroded with increasing distance from the hotspot, is because the Pacific plate is constantly moving, currently towards the north west. As the plate moves, it carries the active volcano above the hotshot away from the source of the magma, causing it to become extinct and allowing a new volcano to grow in its place.
This provides evidence that tectonic plates do move, supporting the continental drift theory
1
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Leviathan1741)
I have a different take on this:
Though shield volcanoes can form over rift zones where the crust is pulling apart allowing magma to rise between them, many are formed over hotspots, which are fixed areas of high heat flow originating from the core-mantle boundary.
Taking the Hawaiian island chain as an example, the reason that there is a chain of islands and seamounts (rather than one huge shield volcano) which are older and more eroded with increasing distance from the hotspot, is because the Pacific plate is constantly moving, currently towards the north west. As the plate moves, it carries the active volcano above the hotshot away from the source of the magma, causing it to become extinct and allowing a new volcano to grow in its place.
This provides evidence that tectonic plates do move, supporting the continental drift theory
I have a different take on this:
Though shield volcanoes can form over rift zones where the crust is pulling apart allowing magma to rise between them, many are formed over hotspots, which are fixed areas of high heat flow originating from the core-mantle boundary.
Taking the Hawaiian island chain as an example, the reason that there is a chain of islands and seamounts (rather than one huge shield volcano) which are older and more eroded with increasing distance from the hotspot, is because the Pacific plate is constantly moving, currently towards the north west. As the plate moves, it carries the active volcano above the hotshot away from the source of the magma, causing it to become extinct and allowing a new volcano to grow in its place.
This provides evidence that tectonic plates do move, supporting the continental drift theory
Your brilliant explanation is evidence of plate tectonic theory.
I have not read the original papers that proposed continental drift (Wegener?), but I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that it didn't make the distinction between oceanic and continental crust, and predicted very high plate velocities. The mechanism behind the movement of the plates was incorrect, and was much better explained by plate tectonics.
1
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by hezzlington)
I agree with everything in your post, however, we have to be careful not to confuse continental drift with plate tectonic theory.
Your brilliant explanation is evidence of plate tectonic theory.
I have not read the original papers that proposed continental drift (Wegener?), but I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that it didn't make the distinction between oceanic and continental crust, and predicted very high plate velocities. The mechanism behind the movement of the plates was incorrect, and was much better explained by plate tectonics.
I agree with everything in your post, however, we have to be careful not to confuse continental drift with plate tectonic theory.
Your brilliant explanation is evidence of plate tectonic theory.
I have not read the original papers that proposed continental drift (Wegener?), but I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that it didn't make the distinction between oceanic and continental crust, and predicted very high plate velocities. The mechanism behind the movement of the plates was incorrect, and was much better explained by plate tectonics.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Bigbarlow180)
Yes, Wegener was the first to publish ideas surrounding the Continental Drift theory, but he lacked any sort of explanation of the mechanism behind the movements of the plates. The causal mechanism for the movement was first suggested by Holmes (1929) who gave the first explanation of convection currents.
Yes, Wegener was the first to publish ideas surrounding the Continental Drift theory, but he lacked any sort of explanation of the mechanism behind the movements of the plates. The causal mechanism for the movement was first suggested by Holmes (1929) who gave the first explanation of convection currents.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
