The continental drift controversy. / 2, Paleomagnetism and confirmation of drift

Volume II: Paleomagnetism and Confirmation of Drift......Page 3
Contents......Page 5
Introduction......Page 11
Acknowledgments......Page 12
Abbreviations......Page 14
Note......Page 16
1.1 Breaking the impasse: the three main paleomagnetic groups......Page 17
1.2 Blackett and Runcorn begin their years together at the University of Manchester (1946-1949)......Page 18
1.3 Blacketts fundamental or distributed theory of the origin of the geomagnetic field and Runcorns introduction to it......Page 19
1.4 Elsasser develops a self-exciting dynamo in Earths core as the source of the geomagnetic field......Page 21
1.5 Runcorn and colleagues carry out the mine experiment and discriminate between fundamental and core theories......Page 23
1.6 Blackett and Runcorn become interested in paleomagnetism; Runcorn accepts a position at the University of Cambridge......Page 26
1.7 Work at the Carnegie Institution in Washington and the case for a geomagnetic field without gross changes......Page 28
1.8 Graham develops field tests of stability......Page 30
1.9 Graham and others at the Carnegie Institution abandon the fold test......Page 33
1.10 Graham opts for self-reversals rather than field reversals......Page 36
1.11 Igneous baked contact test of stability......Page 39
1.12 Hospers arrives in Cambridge, 1949: his early education and commencement of Iceland surveys......Page 41
1.13 Hospers first results from Iceland, 1950-1951, and genesis of Fishers statistics......Page 45
1.14 Consistency or dispersion as a test of paleomagnetic stability......Page 47
1.15 Runcorn arrives in Cambridge, 1950, decides to work on paleomagnetism, and hires Ted (E.) Irving, 1951......Page 48
1.16 Irvings early education and undergraduate years......Page 50
1.17 Irving and Runcorns first work, July through December 1951: only red beds give coherent results......Page 53
1.18 Irving devises a paleomagnetism test of continental drift, autumn 1951......Page 57
1.19 Realization in 1943 by Sahni that paleomagnetism could be used to test continental drift......Page 59
1.20 Irving initiates his test of motion of India......Page 60
1.21 Why Runcorn and Irving did not immediately redirect all their work to test continental drift......Page 61
1.22 Reaction of Blackett and Runcorn to Irvings work......Page 62
1.23 Summary......Page 64
Notes......Page 66
2.1 Outline......Page 72
2.2 Blackett initiates and Clegg leads the paleomagnetic group at Manchester......Page 73
2.3 Clegg builds a new magnetometer at Manchester......Page 75
2.4 The Manchester group expands and focuses on the Triassic redbeds......Page 76
2.5 Irving investigates the origin of magnetization of the Torridonian and begins magnetostratigraphic survey......Page 78
2.6 Irving completes magnetostratigraphic survey of the Torridonian......Page 83
2.7 Fisher defends mobilism......Page 84
2.8 Hospers returns to Iceland, builds an ``igneous´´ magnetometer, and develops his case for reversals of the geomagnetic field......Page 85
2.9 Hospers develops the geocentric axial dipole hypothesis and tests polar wandering and continental drift......Page 91
2.10 Creer, his education and initiation in research......Page 96
2.11 Creer constructs the Cambridge magnetometer......Page 98
2.12 Creer begins fieldwork......Page 100
2.13 Runcorn and his research......Page 104
2.14 Rationality in deciding to launch a paleomagnetic test for continental drift......Page 105
Notes......Page 106
3.1 Paleomagnetists on the move......Page 110
3.2 Four stages in the paleomagnetic test for continental drift......Page 111
3.3 The January 1954 Birmingham meeting......Page 112
3.4 Irvings thesis, support of continental drift, and plans for Australia......Page 114
3.5 Clegg and colleagues publish the first paleomagnetic support for continental drift: Stage I......Page 120
3.6 Creers 1954 APW path for Britain evolves through three versions: move to Stage II......Page 122
3.7 Creer compares his British APW path with a Silurian pole from North America: move to Stage III......Page 133
3.8 Colorado Plateau, a favored sampling area in 1954......Page 138
3.9 Runcorns attitude to mobilism before his first North American survey......Page 141
3.10 Runcorn continues to favor polar wandering after his first North American survey......Page 145
3.11 Paleomagnetism at Australian National University: Jaegers key role......Page 147
3.12 Irvings initial work at Australian National University: his move to Stage IV......Page 150
3.13 Imperial College moves to Stage III......Page 154
3.14 Blackett expresses strong preference for mobilism......Page 157
3.15 Differing reactions of the British and Carnegie groups to the paleomagnetic results......Page 161
Notes......Page 164
4.1 Runcorn returns to North America then moves to Newcastle......Page 170
4.2 Runcorn hires Opdyke to collect rocks and they formulate a new paleoclimatologic test of the paleomagnetic method......Page 172
4.3 Runcorn changes his mind and supports continental drift......Page 178
4.4 The Canadian paper......Page 181
4.5 Opinions of others as to why Runcorn changed his mind......Page 184
4.6 False accounts of why Runcorn changed his mind......Page 185
4.7 Westolls influence......Page 188
4.8 Creer shows Bradleys manuscript to Runcorn......Page 191
4.9 Bradley and his paper7......Page 194
4.10 Further implications of Runcorn seeing Bradleys paper......Page 198
4.11 The Dutch paper......Page 203
4.12 Bradley, Runcorn, and Eulers point theorem......Page 207
4.13 Creer and Irving, Runcorn, and Graham: a study in contrasts......Page 208
Notes......Page 210
5.1 Outline......Page 213
5.2 Imperial College and the Tata Institute continue surveys in India......Page 214
5.3 Australian National University obtains apparent polar wander path for Australia......Page 216
5.4 Surveys of Karroo System through 1959......Page 224
5.5 Magnetic cleaning boosts the record......Page 229
5.6 Survey of South America......Page 234
5.7 Surveys of Antarctica......Page 238
5.8 Surveys in Japan and China......Page 242
5.9 Surveys in the USSR......Page 244
5.10 Paleowind studies, previous work......Page 249
5.11 Paleowind studies, work in Britain in the 1950s......Page 254
5.12 Newcastle begins paleowind studies in North America......Page 255
5.13 Paleowinds, the 1957 Royal Astronomical Society meeting......Page 256
5.14 The Newcastle contribution to paleowind work......Page 259
5.15 A spin-off paleowind study......Page 262
5.16 Attempts at paleogeographies by Newcastle and Canberra groups......Page 263
5.17 The increasing necessity for continental drift......Page 274
5.18 Clarification and further support for the GAD model......Page 275
Axial non-dipole fields......Page 276
Dispersion of the geomagnetic field......Page 278
5.19 Alternative approach of Imperial College group......Page 279
Notes......Page 290
6.1 Outline......Page 294
6.2 Laszlo Egyed and his version of Earth expansion......Page 295
6.3 Holmes assesses Egyeds expansion theory......Page 298
6.4 Egyed develops his expansion theory and proposes a paleomagnetic test......Page 301
6.5 Carey, the man and his views......Page 306
6.7 Careys oroclines......Page 313
6.8 Careys solid but flowing mantle......Page 325
6.9 Examples of rheid flow......Page 328
6.10 Mantle convection as rheid flow......Page 330
6.11 Careys fit of Africa and South America......Page 333
6.12 Careys views in the 1950s prior to embracing expansionism: his appeal to mantle convection......Page 336
6.13 Carey switches to expansionism......Page 339
6.14 Careys account of seafloor generation after he embraced Earth expansion......Page 343
6.15 Careys appeal to paleomagnetism......Page 346
6.16 Other contributions to the 1956 Hobart symposium......Page 351
6.17 Jaeger favors mobilism because of its paleomagnetic support......Page 362
Notes......Page 367
7.1 Removing difficulties during the development and enlargement of the paleomagnetic case for mobilism......Page 371
7.2 Maintaining standards: quarrels among paleomagnetists supportive of mobilism......Page 375
7.4 Grahams magnetostriction difficulty4......Page 380
7.5 Removing the magnetostriction difficulty......Page 383
7.6 Coxs troublesome Siletz River Volcanics......Page 387
7.7 Irving explains the aberrant Siletz paleopole......Page 391
7.8 Other rotations......Page 394
7.9 Hibberds rapidly spiraling polar wander paths......Page 396
7.10 Stehli raises a Permian paleobiogeographic difficulty and Runcorn and Irving counter......Page 400
7.11 Munk and MacDonald attack paleomagnetism......Page 405
7.12 Billings attacks paleomagnetic support for mobilism......Page 416
7.13 Jeffreys attacks paleomagnetism and its support for mobilism......Page 418
7.14 Concluding remarks: the prevalence of the three research strategies......Page 420
Notes......Page 423
8.1 Introduction......Page 426
8.2 Doell and Cox and their milieu and their attitude toward mobilism before 1958......Page 428
8.3 Genesis of the GSA and AG reviews4......Page 438
8.4 The GSA review......Page 440
8.5 Doell and Coxs earlier attitude to the paleomagnetic case for continental drift......Page 447
8.6 The AG review......Page 450
8.7 Was the GSA review an unreasonable assessment of the paleomagnetic case for mobilism?......Page 454
8.8 Some later reflections on the GSA review......Page 460
8.9 Runcorns response to the GSA review......Page 463
8.10 Irvings response to the GSA review......Page 465
8.11 Cox-Irving correspondence......Page 466
8.12 Irving becomes critical of the GSA review: further Cox-Irving correspondence......Page 469
8.13 Cox reviews Irvings Paleomagnetism......Page 481
8.14 Cox and Doell on expansion......Page 482
8.15 Initiation of the radiometric reversal timescale at the United States Geological Survey and the Australian National University......Page 485
8.16 Postscript......Page 500
Notes......Page 504
References......Page 507
Index......Page 527