So I am going to start delving back into my favourite topic and prove my nerdiness to the world as I get excited by the Laki eruption of 1783 (and the synoptic links it offers), the Wilson cycle, the possibility of predicting earthquakes etc. I'm like a child before christmas.
The first topic shall be... (drum roll)
THE EVIDENCE FOR CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND IT'S RELATIVE USEFULNESS
So alrighty then, lets get this show on the road. Firstly what is continental drift? Continental drift is the movement of the Earth's tectonic plates in relation to each other, this can be moving towards each other, away from each other or laterally against each.
Geologists (and aristocrats with nothing else to do) often identified the simplest evidence for continental drift. This is the fact that certain coastlines match with each other, for example in 1620 Sir Francis Bacon recognised that the coastlines of East South America and West Africa were closely related (though he failed to note that they can also form the tectonic rex...). This represents the first piece of evidence that can be used to prove continental drift, matching coastlines to each other. This however is very subjective which makes it unreliable and can match coastlines that are completely unrelated for example the UK looks as if it could slot quite snugly into the Gulf of Carpentaria (other people may disagree, illustrating the subjectiveness). What this evidence does allow is for further investigation, it's a cheap method of identifying areas which may be worth looking into.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dcf2a/dcf2a8cb0b351e3409588e43fa855ad3563078e9" alt=""
![]() |
The diagram illustrates sea floor spreading and how it can be measured using palaeomagnetism |
I reckon that's enough to be getting on with at the moment, if anyone has any questions feel free to ask away, we're here to help. I'm off to procrastinate instead of doing revision.