| Hello, we here at Speculative Evolution have noticed a recent increase in the number of guests visiting our community. While being a guest does allow you to browse the forum at a basic level, it does not give you access to everything. There are many things that guests cannot see, and therefore we urge you to join our us so that you may contribute to our community and the projects we are undertaking. If you would like to register, please click the link below. If you are already a member, please ignore this message and log in. Thank you for your cooperation. Join our community! |
| Pangea Ultima; Climate, weather and biomes | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 03:24 PM (740 Views) | |
| battleferrets | Jun 8 2012, 03:24 PM Post #1 |
|
Zygote
|
I know C.R. Scotese's prediction for the formation of Pangea Ultima is unlikely to occur, but I'm pressing onward regardless. I've emailed him personally, and while he's been very helpful with providing maps and explaining how Pangea Ultima could form, he hasn't been as helpful in helping me figure out how the landmass affects the climate, weather, and thus the biomes of the continent. I'm no expert in these things, and rather than continue to frustrate myself with trying to understand scientific jargon, I've come here hoping someone can help dumb it down for me. Any help would be appreciated. Feel free to move this to the correct board if I've put it in the wrong place. |
 |
 
|
| T.Neo | Jun 8 2012, 04:38 PM Post #2 |
Translunar injection: TLI
|
It's understandable that Dr. Scotese hasn't been able to help you much with climatology; his fields are geology and paleogeography, and while he must have put considerably work into the tectonic science of his reconstructions and postulations, climatological modelling (or just plain speculation on the matter) is a different issue entirely. I am not sure if it can be dumbed-down at all (I find even the most simplistic reductions of the ideas quite confusing at times), but the basics can probably be described as; 1. Temperature decreases with latitude and altitude, but can vary depending on ocean currents (why Europe is at the same latitude as Canada, but much warmer). 2. Wet at the equator, dry at 30 degrees latitude, wet again at 60 degrees latitude, and dry again at the poles. 3. Deserts tend to form to the west of mountain ranges due to the rainshadow effect. Edited by T.Neo, Jun 8 2012, 04:40 PM.
|
|
|
| battleferrets | Jun 8 2012, 05:13 PM Post #3 |
|
Zygote
|
1. How would the inland sea affect the temperatures? 2. I was under the impression that the middle of the continent would be dry and the poles wet*; at least, that's what I got from researching Pangea 300 million years ago. 3. Well this is one thing I'd gotten right, at least. So it'd just be a matter of finding out where the mountains would form/what altitude they'd be, and I could figure out the deserts. *From my research on Pangea (the only model I've got to compare Pangea Ultima to), it was hot and dry with no glaciation at the poles, the poles instead being moist and temperate. It had a highly seasonal continental climate with very hot summers and cold winters, and cross-continental monsoons. However, with the inland sea of Pangea Ultima, I'm not sure how relevant this data is. |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jun 9 2012, 01:47 PM Post #4 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
I think in this case latitude and altitude would be the major defining factor, though would imagine that any temperature variations would depend on the ocean currents within the sea itself.
This is a point of confusion for me as well. atmospheric circulation suggests that the poles will be drier zones, and Antarctica has quite low precipitation in the interior;  (figures are in mm liquid equivalent) Comparing this to a global map; Spoiler: click to toggle It may not include snowfall, though. It seems that the highest rainfall occuring in Antarctica is pretty similar to that occuring in parts of Russia, the US and South Africa that aren't exactly what one would call desert. There are, however, areas that are bone-dry (in the worldwide map, which omits Antarctica, northern parts of Greenland and Canada are also shown as pretty dry). Perhaps this condition is caused in part by the cold climate of Antarctica, and the cold katabatic winds flowing off the south polar cap. Perhaps, due to the colder conditions, we can assume that evaporation at the poles will be lower than in 30-degree desert regions, and thus things will be somewhat moister despite the low precipitation. But it makes sense that as a planet warms, it is not as if the temperate zones as we know them would simply migrate northward. That said, most reconstructions or constructions of Earth deglaciated show the poles as being relatively forested. Of course, Pangea Ultima doesn't have land directly at the poles- Antarctica and New Zealand are close, but not directly centered on the pole like Antarctica is today. The north pole is even more distant from land. Pangea wasn't always free of glaciation; in the early Permian there were still considerable glaciers in Gondwanaland. I would imagine the temperature overall would depend on how ocean currents, mountain ranges, and CO2 levels interact. How they would do so though, I have no idea. 
Edited by T.Neo, Jun 9 2012, 01:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
| battleferrets | Jun 9 2012, 03:35 PM Post #5 |
|
Zygote
|
Well, as with Pangea, Pangea Ultima doesn't truly have landmass on the poles either; not directly, anyway. Though upon researching further, it would seem that while the poles didn't have glaciation, they were tundra. Which might explain the reason it's considered 'moist and temperate', seeing as how there's permafrost and a lot of shrubs and lichens and the like. Then again, there's also a few sources that insist there was glaciation nearly to the equator, so long as the glaciers remained a certain level above sea level, and yet another paper that insists that the either the temperature swings were far greater than previously thought, or that the overall temperature was colder than predicted. I suppose I should specify that I've been researching Pangea as it was during the Triassic, so some of the research could be going earlier than that, which just leads to a whole other level of confusion. |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jun 9 2012, 09:00 PM Post #6 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
They must be refferring to different time periods. I don't believe there was glaciation to the equator at any point in the Phanerozoic...
Edited by T.Neo, Jun 9 2012, 09:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| battleferrets | Jun 9 2012, 10:24 PM Post #7 |
|
Zygote
|
That's just what I read. |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jun 10 2012, 05:13 PM Post #8 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
The evidence for it seems debatable. There were glaciers during that time, but otherwise it seems the evidence (in terms of flora and fauna) points to a fairly warmer time than would be needed for glaciation close to the equator. |
|
|
|
| battleferrets | Jun 11 2012, 01:53 AM Post #9 |
|
Zygote
|
So in other words there would be glaciation at the poles, temperate forests near the oceans, and desert to the west of the mountains, probably with seasonal monsoons across the continent. Does that sound about right? That's leaving out a lot of biomes, but at this point it's better than nothing... Knowing temperatures would help me in figuring out if the deserts are wastelands or if there are grasslands, prairies and steppes. Then there's figuring out the factors that allows for tundra, taiga, rainforests, swamps, etc... I'm going to end up studying each biome individually, aren't I? |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jun 11 2012, 12:43 PM Post #10 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
I would imagine studying each biome individually would help. Whether there would be glaciation at the poles depends on how warm it is. There might be glaciers there, or there might not (just like with a continental arrangement similar to our own). I would imagine aridity is a sliding scale depending on precipitation, so you're probably not going to get wasteland-like deserts bordering jungles and forests. There'll be savannas, prairies, semideserts, etc. But where they are located depends on the factors of latitude, topography, ocean currents, etc. Chris Wayan's Planetocopia is quite an interesting set of speculative planets (more from a speculative planetology/geography/climatology than a speculative biology standpoint). The TILT series are quite interesting because they leave Earth's geography (aside from that caused by climatic factors such glaciation and sea levels) unaltered. Turnovia is the most subtle, as it keeps the poles in their current locations, only flipped (basically, as if Earth's rotation were reversed). The effects are clear; deserts form on the opposite sides of mountain ranges (good for Africa and Australia, worse for China and the Americas) and local temperatures change as ocean currents are deflected (Europe becomes colder, but the coast of the US and Canada become warmer). A must-read for venturing into this kind of stuff, I think. |
|
|
|
| battleferrets | Jun 11 2012, 04:28 PM Post #11 |
|
Zygote
|
You're absolutely right, and I have the feeling that link is going to be very helpful in figuring out what I need to know. Thank you. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic » |
2:26 PM Jun 19
