Ultrafast eclogitisation through overpressure

Posted on 4 October, 2017 by Metageologist

My blogging torpor has been ended by a super-interesting new paper that links together many of my favourite topics. It includes eclogites, metamorphic petrology, ultra-fast metamorphism, determining timescales via diffusion profiles, tectonic overpressure and even the Grampian-Taconic orogeny and opens up new avenues of research. What more could I ask for from a scientific paper?

The Rocks

The paper, “Ultrafast eclogite formation via melting-induced overpressure” by Chu et al. has just been published. It’s based on a very close study of a set of rocks from Connecticut in the USA. They are part of the Taconic orogeny, (also seen in Connemara, Ireland, my old field area) which was caused by an Arc colliding with a continent.

The particular location is within a tectonic slice and consists of felsic paragneisses (metamorphosed muds and sandstones) containing lenses of mafic and ultramafic rock (metamorphosed gabbro). The gneisses are migmatitic – they were partially melted. The whole area of high-grade rocks is bounded by mica schists, within 50m, suggesting the heating of the rocks was localised.

The mafic lenses are eclogitic – they contain an eclogite facies assemblage of minerals that formed under high pressure. As is common in eclogites, some of the peak minerals have retrogressed (changed) back into fine mixtures of lower pressure minerals called symplectites. The phengite and omphacite are now symplectite pseudomorphs but garnet (Twitter’s 5th most popular mineral) remains itself and contains some invaluable information.

The chemical analysis

The paper describes estimates of the conditions of metamorphism, derived from various forms of analysis. The garnets are the key to this, as they show a wide range of different compositions. Since they grow outwards, the change of compositions from the core captures changing metamorphic conditions as the garnet grew. The image below is a map of the amount of particular chemical elements within the garnet. The different colours represent different amounts and since the chemistry of the garnet depends on the pressure and temperature while it grew, this gives us a lot of information.

Part of figure 4 showing sharp and complex chemical zoning in garnet

As marked on the image above, parts A-C record heating at around 8 kbar (typical crustal depths) from 660 to 790°C, then D represents eclogitic conditions of 14 kbar and E a return back to 8 kbar.

Speed

Garnets that have spent a long time at high temperatures lose their chemical zoning due to diffusion. Since we understand the speed at which diffusion works, we can use chemical zoning in minerals to estimate the speed of metamorphic processes. Look at the images above and you’ll notice that the boundaries between the different domains are quite sharp. Using two sets of forward modelling (one of the diffusion profiles and another of the garnet growth) they conclude that the pressure increase (C-D above) took only 500 years. The pressure decrease (D-E above) also took only 500 years. These are not the sort of timescales geologists are used to dealing with. I’ve been to educational establishments that have lasted longer than 500 years – it’s no time at all.

These dates cannot be explained by normal models of eclogite formation, which involve subduction of material and eventual return to shallower depths. Rates of subduction are measured in cm per year, but to explain the rate of pressure increase this way would require rates of 30m per year.

How does pressure change so fast?

The usual assumption in metamorphic petrology is that the pressure recording by the minerals is lithostatic pressure – that caused by the weight of rocks above. This is useful as it allows you to track the rocks passage into and out of a subduction zone or mountain belt and so link metamorphic P-T estimates to tectonic models. A number of recent papers have started to challenge this assumption. Their approach varies, but all suggest that rocks can experience high pressures without being buried to great depth.

What’s so great about Chu et al. is that is provides direct evidence of this happening and offers an explanation as to how it happened.

Burying rocks at 30m a year is not credible, so if we accept their estimates for the speed and amount of pressure increase (it persuades me, but more knowledge people than me may disagree) we must look for ways of generating high pressure without piling up more rocks on top.

Chu et al.’s explanation takes us back to the unusual location of these rocks, within a narrow active shear zone surrounded by colder rocks. They see rocks as being rapidly heated due to strain heating along the shear zone. This one of the mechanisms invoked by those arguing that localised and rapid metamorphism is more common that we thought. The narrow zone of hot rocks is surrounded by colder more rigid walls. As the rocks start to melt, the sudden volume increase causes an ‘autoclave’ effect, a sudden local deviation above lithostatic pressure. This causes the rapid growth of eclogitic minerals with the mafic pods. Soon the melt escapes or crystallises, reducing the pressure back to normal.

Part of figure 9, showing the model of transient overpressure due to partial melting

What does it all mean?

This paper adds a fascinating petrological argument supporting the theoretical studies suggest that overpressure within metamorphic rocks is possible. No longer can the mere presence of high-pressure minerals necessarily indicate the rocks was buried to great depths.

As the authors say, it does not invalidate most of what we know about eclogites. The mechanism described does not apply to the many ultra-high pressure terranes like Western Norway where large volumes of eclogitic rocks exist – these surely did get stuffed deep into a subduction zone.

My first thought was of the Glenelg eclogites in Scotland. This is a small area of eclogite within a high strain zone which makes very little tectonic sense. Perhaps this is a candidate for being formed by local overpressure? As far as I can tell they aren’t associated with migmatites, which makes them not directly analogous. But the point is that there is a new possible interpretation for them, new avenues of research. That’s what makes this paper so interesting to me.

Please read it, and if you think it’s wrong, let me know.

Chu, Xu, et al. “Ultrafast eclogite formation via melting-induced overpressure.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 479 (2017): 1-17.

Update: another possible candidate for this effect in Scottish rocks is within the Central Highlands Migmatite Complex. See brief description and my write-up of a discussion of the significance of these rocks.

A new paradigm for Barrovian metamorphism?

Posted on 7 September, 2014 by Metageologist

George Barrow (image via BGS)

The phrase ‘new paradigm’ is a little shop-worn but it still catches the eye. To see it used in a “discussion and reply” on a dry-looking metamorphic petrology paper is really something unusual. Tracing through these articles really shows how metamorphic petrology can get to the heart of understanding what happens in the core of mountain belts.

The example of “discussion and reply”1 I’m discussing here is truly remarkable. Everyone is terribly polite and there is lots of new data and ideas contained that shed light on a classic area for the understanding of metamorphism. It also illustrates the perils and challenges of interpreting complex rocks that formed in the heart of an ancient mountain.

A paper worth discussing

The original paper, entitled ‘Metamorphic P–T and retrograde path of high-pressure Barrovian metamorphic zones near Cairn Leuchan, Caledonian orogen, Scotland’ is by Kasumaza Aoki of Tokyo, Brian Windley of Leicester and others. It studies metamorphic rocks from the Scottish Highlands. You’ve heard of Barrovian metamorphism, (if not, get thee hence), this is the type locality, where George Barrow first identified zones of rock defined by particular ‘index’ minerals.

Sample of Cairn Leuchan Gneiss, collect by George Barrow himself. Garnet, plagioclase, Hornblende (brown), pyroxene (green).

Sample of Cairn Leuchan Gneiss, collected by George Barrow himself! Garnet, plagioclase, hornblende (brown), pyroxene (green). From BGS, sample S8146

Barrovian metamorphism is typical of mountain belts. It’s thought to be caused by thrusting and stacking of rock slices within a growing mountain belt, that buries and heats up the rocks within it – causing metamorphism. This model is simple, classic and perhaps wrong. Our original paper looks at a slice of high grade rocks from the hottest, sillimanite zone. Detailed metamorphic petrology shows that “the rocks underwent high-pressure granulite facies metamorphism at P = c. 1.2–1.4 GPa and T = c. 770–800 °C followed by amphibolite facies metamorphism at P = c. 0.5–0.8 GPa and T = c. 580–700 °C”.

The later metamorphism is pretty standard for the area, but the earlier high pressure phase is unusual, suggesting these rocks were buried much deeper than previously thought. Our authors conclude that high-grade Barrovian metamorphism is retrograde, the metamorphic minerals formed as the rocks moved back towards the surface, masking an earlier deeper phase. They also suggest that the measured high-pressure metamorphism was also formed *on the way up* and that these rocks (perhaps all rocks in the area, there’s evidence nearby at Tomatin) had previously been down to eclogite or blue-schist depths.

If this paper were science journalism (or course it isn’t) you could accuse it of ‘burying the lede’ – the abstract focuses purely on what they proved. The major implications of their results are made much more explicit in the Discussion by Daniel Viete and others.

BGS sample S98121. Garnet amphibolite from Tomatin. First XPL then PPL. Relict high-pressure eclogitic garnet breaking down to plagioclase and amphibole as it moved towards the surface.

“Interesting, but maybe it’s actually….”

The discussion (by Daniel Viete, whose research I’ve written about before and others) argues against the original papers conclusions, using two lines of attack. Firstly they focus on how hard it would be to get rocks so hot, so early in the orogeny2. Other high pressure rocks in the Grampian Orogeny are much colder (e.g. blueschists in Clew Bay, Ireland). From dating, we know that the Scottish rocks were metamorphosed relatively quickly (18 million years or less). Indeed Viete has already written about the difficulty of getting rocks in this area hot enough, quick enough. This was for the well known temperatures. The problem is even greater for Aoki’s earlier deeper and hotter phase. Listing all the ways these rocks could have been heated up (mantle melts, radioactive heating, mechanical heating, already hot from rifting) they conclude that the early measured temperatures are not possible.

Secondly they describe the local geology in terms of networks of long-lived shear zones, that interleave Dalradian sediments with older basement rocks. They also provide a date of 1 billion years (much than the Ordovician age of Barrovian metamorphism) from the Cowhythe Gneiss at Portsoy, a nearby patch of high grade rocks. In conclusion, the early high-pressure metamorphism that Aoki and others describes is from an entirely different orogeny and found only in odd slices of older rock.

BGS sample S94156. Garnet amphibolite from Tomatin. Intergrowths of plagioclase and amphibole – formed by decompression of an eclogite?

“With respect, no it’s not. Plus we’ve got a brand new paradigm!”

In their reply, Aoki and others defend their conclusions. Their rocks are not basement and are totally different from the Cowhythe Gneiss. Plus, old ages can often be ‘inherited’ – dated zircons may contain old ages since the crystal was a ‘detrital’ grain within the sediment that was later metamorphosed. They then turn to their explanation for their results. Acknowledging that “a reply to a comment is not the correct place to propose an entirely new paradigm for such a classic orogen” they nevertheless provide a brief overview, promising to “present our model more fully in a future publication“.

They start with the well-known enigma of how to provide the heat for Barrovian metamorphism. Modelling suggests that stacking rocks and waiting for them to heat up (the classic England & Houseman model) actually takes 50 million years. Viete has previously proposed the heat came in via advection via hot fluids. Aoki’s model proposes “the extrusion of a major wedge of hot deep eclogite which was exhumed up a subduction channel several tens of kilometres thick“.

Wow.

What they are proposing is that hot rocks within the subduction zone, perhaps 40 km below the slowly heating orogenic wedge, broke free and was squeezed up into it, heating the wedge and causing rapid Barrovian metamorphism. This would be an extremely dramatic thing and is a radical departure from existing models for this orogeny, which is itself the ‘type locality’ for all instances of Barrovian metamorphism. Aoki refer to one earlier paper by a group from Cambridge that propose a similar mechanism for the Alps. The Alpine eclogite wedge is still clearly eclogite forming a discrete unit within other nappes. It’s not (yet) clear how Aoki’s traces of earlier high pressure minerals in an relatively homogenous Dalradian correspond to this.

What does it all mean?

For what it’s worth, I’m a little sceptical – my headline follows Betteridge’s Law – but we’ll have to wait for the paper that properly presents the new model before we can judge.

One thing that strikes me is how much Wheeler’s paper on the importance of stress throws doubt on this work. Tales of packages of rock squeezing 10s of kilometres up into an orogeny puts a lot of weight on the traces of high pressure metamorphism that are the main evidence. Explaining high pressures in terms of localised stress starts to seem like a much simpler explanation.

This is a fascinating series of papers3. It highlights how vital metamorphic petrology is to understanding mountain building processes. George Barrow first identified his zones over a hundred years ago and the Scottish Highlands have been intensely studied ever since, yet we still don’t fully understand how they formed.

The fact these papers are hidden behind a paywall is in stark contrast to the pictures I’ve used. All come from the British Geological Survey who have made them free to all. The depth of coverage is fabulous – I’ve been able to find images from the key localities mentioned in the papers within minutes. This illustrates the power of open data rather nicely – if only we could all find scientific papers as easily.

References

The original paper.
AOKI K., S. MARUYAMA & S. OMORI (2013). Metamorphic P–T conditions and retrograde path of high-pressure Barrovian metamorphic zones near Cairn Leuchan, Caledonian orogen, Scotland, Geological Magazine, 151 (03) 559-571. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0016756813000514

The discussion and reply.
Viete D.R. & S. A. Wilde (2014). Discussion of ‘Metamorphic P–T and retrograde path of high-pressure Barrovian metamorphic zones near Cairn Leuchan, Caledonian orogen, Scotland’, Geological Magazine, 151 (04) 755-758. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s001675681300099x

The Alpine paper
Smye A.J., Tim J.B. Holland, Randall R. Parrish & Dan J. Condon (2011). Rapid formation and exhumation of the youngest Alpine eclogites: A thermal conundrum to Barrovian metamorphism, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 306 (3-4) 193-204. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.03.037

An old paper on the Tomatin ‘eclogites’

Metamorphic petrology: under pressure and getting stressed?

Posted on 2 August, 2014 by Metageologist

High pressure (HP) terranes are areas containing eclogites and other eclogite-facies rocks found within many mountains belts, including the Himalaya and the Alps. HP rocks were metamorphosed at extreme pressures, up to 3 or even 4 billion Pascals (or GPa. Atmospheric pressure is 0.0001 GPa). Based on the assumption that metamorphic pressure relates to depth of burial, these rocks have been to depths below the base of the crust. Explaining how to bury rocks so deeply, and then bring them back again, is a tricky problem.

Two parallel threads of research are challenging the assumption that high metamorphic pressures relate simply to depth of burial. Both seek to show that metamorphic reactions, and the patterns of minerals that they form, are also influenced by the squeezing and squashing rocks receive as they flow deep within the earth.

High pressure rocks looking moody and gorgeous. Photo of the Internal zones of the Alps from John Wheeler.

A little theory (please, don’t get stressed)

Metamorphic petrology is the art and Science of calculating the conditions under which metamorphic minerals form – I’ve written extensively about it already 1. It has its basis in an understanding of the thermodynamics of the reactions that form minerals, which depend (among other things) on the temperature and pressure at the time. The lithostatic pressure that affected the rock is assumed to be caused by the weight of the column of rock overhead, following Pascal’s law2. With some assumptions as to the density of that rock, pressure can be converted into depth.

Earth scientists who study the structure of deeply buried rocks look instead at the patterns that the minerals form: fabrics, lineations, folds and the like. They have a different way of looking at the way rocks are squashed. Theories of rock deformation talk about stress, often visualised as arrows in 3 dimensions. If the stress is isotropic – equal in all three dimensions – then it is conceptually the same as lithostatic pressure. In contrast, differential stress is where the arrows are different sizes. Differential stress drives deformation – the rocks change shape.

Time for an analogy. Lithostatic pressure is like water pressure. Deep hot rocks flow like a fluid (slowly) and so the stress is equal in all directions. Rocks keep the same shape, but are put under tremendous pressure. It’s the same as putting a styrofoam cup into deep water.

Sytrofoam cup crushed at 600m ocean depth. Image from Gina Trapani under Creative Commons.

Differential stress is like putting the cup between the grabbers of the submersible. Squeezing in only one direction will change the shape of the cup.

Now we’re ready to look at the two challenges to the depth-pressure connection.

Challenge 1 – High levels of differential stress exist in the crust

Metamorphic petrologists who argue that high pressures are caused by deep burial believe that the effects of differential stress are unimportant. These rocks are usually extremely deformed, but they were hot and soft – by flowing easily they prevented high differential stresses from building up. In a similar way, as every toddler learns, you can’t squeeze jelly hard with your hands, because it just flows out of your fist.

Some scientists, with an interest in the European Alps, disagree. Neil Mancktelow argues that the effects of differential stress (he uses the ~~basically equivalent~~ similar term ‘tectonic overpressure’3 ) can be dramatic. Mathematical modelling of conditions within a confined channel (like a subduction zone) gives ‘overpressure’ of “perhaps even a few GPa”. Rocks that formed under these conditions would yield high pressure minerals but may not have been buried very deep.

At this years EGU meeting Stefan Markus Schmalholz, Yuri Podladchikov, and Sergei Medvedev used computer modelling of the Alpine orogeny, and other arguments to suggest that Alpine high-pressure eclogites need not have been deeply buried, but instead their distinctive minerals formed under conditions of tectonic overpressure.

Folded layers from eclogite facies rocks in Norway. Photo from John Wheeler

Challenge 2 – John Wheeler’s recent paper in Geology

Computer models are extremely useful, but only as good as the assumptions made in them. Alone they will always have their critics. John Wheeler, a professor at Liverpool University has fingers in many pies: metamorphism; structural geology; field-based studies; laboratory work… He takes a different approach to also puts the assumption that we can apply Pascal’s law under intense pressure 4.

In a recent open source paper in Geology he combines 2 pieces of theory. The first is from thermodynamics as used in metamorphic petrology. The second is an equation relating stress to the phenomena of pressure solution (that can form cleavage in slaty rocks). Both are concerned with the movement of atoms to grow new minerals and neither is controversial. He converts both into terms of chemical potential and combines them to link differential stress to standard metamorphic reactions.

Applying uncontroversial values for differential stress (e.g. 50 MPa, or 1/40th of the levels Mancktelow proposes) to a standard metamorphic reaction he shows that they shift by up to 500MPa – equivalent to 15km of lithostatic pressure.

This is an extremely dramatic result from a provocative paper, as John Wheeler himself acknowledges. Metamorphic rocks are almost always deformed, sometimes dramatically so. If both approaches are correct, then putting differential stresses of Manckletow levels into John Wheeler’s equations suggests any estimates of depth of metamorphism are open to challenge. Maybe eclogites never left the crust after all?

metagabbro deformed and recrystallizing to new minerals at the same time (from Alps).

Metagabbro deformed and recrystallizing to new minerals at the same time (sample from Alps image from John Wheeler).

Where are we now?

John Wheeler expects some “turbulent interactions in the next few years”. I’m sure there are metamorphic petrologists writing their replies to his paper right now. But assuming they can’t find some fundamental flaw he hasn’t spotted (extremely unlikely, I’d say), metamorphic petrology is facing a very big challenge.

This seems like bad news. Much work on metamorphic petrology is put to work refining tectonic models by building P-T-t paths that track metamorphic rocks as they are buried and return to the surface. The error bars on these estimates were big enough already – now a entire literature of estimates that ignore differential stress are thrown into question.

But let’s think positively. Might there be ways to disentangle the effects of lithostatic pressure and differential stress? Might there be ways to get even more information out of deformed metamorphic rocks? John Wheeler certainly thinks so and he aims to get there by integrating detailed studies of rock samples with laboratory experiments.

Big advances in Science often give us new ways to understand evidence that previously didn’t make sense. Studies of metamorphism from the classic locality of the Scottish Highlands (e.g. Viete et al 2011) have noted that the highest grades of metamorphism occur within shear zones. They tried to explain this in terms of the flow of hot fluids, but maybe the answer is simpler: stressing rocks really does cause them to grow different suites of metamorphic minerals.

References:

Mancktelow N.S. (2008). Tectonic pressure: Theoretical concepts and modelled examples, Lithos, 103 (1-2) 149-177. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2007.09.013

Wheeler J. (2014). Dramatic effects of stress on metamorphic reactions, Geology, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/g35718.1

Viete D.R., G. S. Lister & I. R. Stenhouse (2011). The nature and origin of the Barrovian metamorphism, Scotland: diffusion length scales in garnet and inferred thermal time scales, Journal of the Geological Society, 168 (1) 115-132. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492009-087

A world without subduction

Posted on 6 May, 2014 by Metageologist

The greatest achievement of the generation of Earth Scientists now retiring is the concept of plate tectonics. The insight that the earth’s surface is made up of rigid plates that move has shed light on all aspects of Earth Science, from palaeontology to geophysics to the study of ancient climates. What’s less well known is that the way the plates interact has changed over time. Key plate tectonic features such as subduction, didn’t happen for large periods of earth history.

Cut-away diagram showing modern convection from computer modelling by Fabio Crameri. White is hot rising plumes, black cold sinking plates.

Cut-away diagram showing modern convection from computer modelling. White is hot rising plumes, black cold sinking plates . Image used with permission of Fabio Crameri.

Earth scientists have a pretty good idea of the details of how modern plate tectonics works. This has required the integration of indirect observation of modern subduction zones (using geophysical techniques) with direct study of rocks that have been inside subduction zones (such as eclogites) plus the creation of subduction zones ‘in silico’ (with computer modelling).

Of these 3 methods of study, only the first (direct observation) cannot be used on the ancient earth. So what do the rocks and computer models tell us?

Old rocks are odd

We’ve known for a while that ancient rocks (Eoarchean–Mesoarchean, older than 2.5 Ga1) are very different from modern ones. Often they consist of greenstone belts – containing an unusual lava called komatiite – surrounded by large areas of granitic gneiss. The pattern of metamorphism in these rocks shows high temperatures, even at shallow depths.

The chemistry of the igneous rocks tells a similar tale. Komatiites only melt at temperatures of around 1600°C – 400 degrees hotter than modern basalt lava. Granitic rocks have tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite compositions and are thought to have formed from direct melting of basaltic rock – unlike granites formed above subduction zones today.

Rocks characteristic of modern subduction – blueschists and eclogites – are not found in rocks this age. There is a pretty good consensus, based on field evidence and model modelling, that subduction did not happen in the early earth. The earth’s mantle was much hotter and more heat was flowing up through the crust. Hot rocks are weak rocks – forcing a slab of rock into the deep mantle requires it to be cold and hard. Hotter rocks act not as rigid slabs but as soft blobs.

Computer modelling confirms the importance of temperature, both of the crust and the underlying mantle. Models are our best hope of understanding what a hot planet without subduction looked like. More like a bubbling pan of porridge perhaps, with tectonics dominated by hot upwelling plumes and lithospheric delamination, with blobs dripping-off down again. Some studies of mantle mixing suggest a ‘stagnant-lid’ model where the earth’s surface layer doesn’t move at all.

Subduction starts

At some point in time between 3.2–2.5 Ga, subduction started. The planet had cooled enough that a lithospheric plate stayed rigid enough to sink down into the mantle. Evidence for this is found in ‘paired metamorphic belts’. Rocks within the subduction zone remain cool at depth (as they are pushed down before they can get as hot as the surrounding rocks) and form eclogites or high-pressure granulite rocks. Rocks nearby in the overriding plate are much hotter and enjoyed granulite–ultrahigh temperature metamorphism.

Mathematical modelling of the earth suggests subduction started because the earth cooled below a particular threshold. As an explanation, this is a little dull. Much more excitingly, coverage of a recent paper suggests massive meteorite impacts about 3.2 Ga could have broken up the surface and somehow kickstarted plate tectonics. Scientists who study impacts are always really keen to use them to explain events or features on earth, whereas other scientists are sceptical, preferring to explain them via things that they study. We’ll need to wait to see who is right about this one (but my money is on the dull explanation).

Cut-away diagram showing modern convection from computer modelling by Fabio Crameri. Red is rising plumes, blue sinking plates.

Cut-away diagram showing modern convection from computer modelling. Red is hot rising plumes, blue cold sinking plates. Image used with permission of Fabio Crameri.

Subduction as a cure for boredom

When subduction first started, mantle temperatures were still 175–250 °C hotter than today. Hotter, softer slabs are more likely to break off, perhaps making subduction something that stopped and started.

Blueschists and low-temperature eclogites, high-pressure & low-temperature rocks that are found in modern subduction zones are not found until the the Neoproterozoic at 600–800 Ma. Mantle temperatures by then were less than 100 °C greater than today – this marks the wide spread development of modern-style (cold) subduction on Earth. Cold slabs of oceanic lithosphere break-off deep, allowing large volumes of dense oceanic crust to pull continental lithosphere down, creating the first ultra-high pressure metamorphic complexes.

The Neoproterozoic is the end of what is known as the ‘boring billion’ – a time of tedious environmental and evolutionary stability. A recent open acess paper in Geology suggests a link between the exciting changes that followed (glaciations! Cambrian explosion!) and the onset of subduction. The boring billion was stable in part because most continental crust was part of a supercontinent called Rodinia. The paper argues that the disruptive effects of the onset of cold subduction broke Rodinia apart, setting off a chain of events that transformed the world.

—–

The early earth was a very different planet. Understanding it better informs the general subject of planetology. As we get more and more data about other planets (both within and beyond our solar system) it’s natural to speculate on their tectonic activity. Why does Venus not have subduction? Does subduction here exist because of life and its role in moderating climate and creating the earth’s oceans? Ancient rocks and computer models may help us answer these questions as much as probes and telescopes.

REFERENCES

Brown M. (2014). The contribution of metamorphic petrology to understanding lithosphere evolution and geodynamics, Geoscience Frontiers, DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2014.02.005
Available here

Cawood P.A. & Hawkesworth C.J. Earth’s middle age, Geology, DOI: 10.1130/G35402.1
Available here

Gerya T. (2014). Precambrian geodynamics: Concepts and models, Gondwana Research, 25 (2) 442-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2012.11.008
Available here