Insular California and the Mare Vermio
Kedamono
This ATL is based on a wonderful map I found at Rare Map Collection at the
Hargrett Library on the web:
http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/maps.html. This site
has a large collection of maps of early exploration, mostly from the east
coast. But one map in particular, caught my eye: America Septentrionalis.
What caught my eye was the fact that it showed California, from southern
most tip of Baja to just south of Eureka and down along the San Andreas
fault as being separated from the bulk of the American continent by strip
of sea he had called Mare Vermio, the Sea of the Worm. [1]
Obviously, most of that separation was the cartographerąs fancy, but what
if it were real? What if the tectonic plate that western California is
sitting on were to be moving in a more north westerly direction, rather
than its current northerly route? A flooded rift valley would be the
result. And an island that was almost a thousand miles long!
Now the map shows the southern portions of Insular California to have some
cities already sited along itąs pacific coast line, and only a few along
the Mare Vermio coastline, stopping roughly south of the Colorado river.
North of that, there are a few continental rivers flowing into the Vermio,
but none from the east side of Insular California, which makes sense due
the rain shadow effect of the islandąs mountains. In the north portion of
the Vermio, he placed four 50 mile wide islands, one near the narrowest
portion of the Vermio, where the sea is only 60 miles wide. At its widest,
the Vermio is over a hundred miles wide and this is at its northern mouth.
Unfortunately anything north of this point is terra incognita, as there
are several lines of latin script which are beyond me to translate.
Along the this new coast line, the southern portions would be pretty much
dry as they are now, maybe getting a tad bit more rain, but very much like
the climate one sees along the Red Seaąs coastlines. Moving up the
coastline, it becomes more mediterranean in climate, especially along the
east coast line of the Vermio, since it is right under the rain shadow,
and gets to benefit from the mountain rains. The west coast is much hotter
and drier than its easterly neighbor, but this soon changes as we move
farther northward. At the northern most point, some of the California
current flows in, while a northerly, warmer current slides over top of it.
Milder climates abound along this portion, as the łVermio current˛ mixes
with the North Pacific current and sends warmer waters northward up to
Oregon territories.
In this new ATL, California, is more renown for sheltering ships moving
north and south along the western American coast line from the pacific
than anything else. In this timeline I see California being kept in
Mexican or at least not part of United States of America. Spanish is the
predominate language, but trade is not eschewed with the USA. The Spinae
De Vermio islands, (Spines of the Worm), provide handy ports for ships
making the crossing, especially Wormhead island. This volcanic island sits
at the narrowist point of the Mare Vermio. The waters boil around the
islandąs southern banks, making portage dangerous, but the northern shore
is in the lee of the current, and has a small city, San Bernardo situated
there. Spanish place names dot the entire coast line as far north as
Isabella Island at the mouth of the Puget Sound, due to the protection the
Mare Vermio gave Spanish ships as they made their way northward.
The channels that lead up to the entrances to the Mare Vermio are too deep
for man made islands, but this did not prevent Spain, and later Mexico,
from building and manning forts at the either mouth of the Vermio. The
southern approach was especially important to Mexico, as it expanded its
northward claims of the North American continent. The Spinae De Vermio
islands were major centers for these expeditions, with each having a fort
to guard the narrow channels of the Mare. Wormhead has two imposing forts
overlooking the channels that pass around it. Many of the cities along the
Mare were first established as mission, then later became major
agricultural centers, especially along the east coast of the Mare.
The cities along the Pacific coast did not fare as well. Being out of the
loop trade wise, most of these became plantations and agricultural
centers, shipping their goods overland, down to one of the cities that
bordered on the Mare. That is, until the gold rush of 1798, when gold was
found near San Fransico (sic) and gold rush of Spaniards, Indians, and
fortune hunting Americans came streaming in. Most didnąt make any money,
and many found that could not go back due to lack of funds. Because of the
influx of many people to this small town, it grew in size to a small city
of 5,000, from a basic pueblo of only 600. San Fransico has always held a
strong American presence because of the gold rush of Ś98, though most
there view their American heritage as something they donąt want to parade
around too much. (Especially after the disastorous war with Mexico in
1876, where the Mexican army beat back the American encroachment from
Texas and Colorado.) In 1920, California sued for separation from Mexico,
but to remain as part of the Mexican Commonwealth, which included
Carribean islands, Yucatan, and Oregan. Its request was granted by the
Emperor in 1923.
Since then, it as become a favorite tourist attraction, as well as a major
Pacific port, especially after the California Canal and Locks were
finished in 1943. It didnąt participate in the First and Second Great Wars
of Europe, but it did make its mark in the Great War of the Pacific, as
the staging areas for the Mexican and American fleets, as they took on the
Russo-Japan fleets in 1956-62 in a battle for Pacific Rim resources.
During the Battle for Hawaii, many a Californian died on those black
beaches during the first landing waves.
Now with the reconstruction of Japan and Siberia going on, California
again is proving to be a power of the Pacific.
[1] At least what my fractured latin translates it as.
--
The Kedamono Dragon | The "Anthill Inside" Page is at:
xrqn...@pbapragevp.arg | http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono
xrqn...@nby.pbz |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my Bryce art page: http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono/art.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the Alternate History Travel Guides! | Ook!
http://users.aol.com/kedamono/sliders/alterguides.html | Gleep!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Beer News of the Day! http://www.concentric.net/~Kedamono/beernews/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Address Rot Thirteened for protection.
Chris Williams
Good post, kedamono, but I'm suprised you didn't mention Port Pitt, at the
northern end of California. Since it was 'ceded' (well, who won the battle
of Vittoria after all?) in 1812, it's been the biggest British naval base in
the eastern Pacific. Some speculate that without it, the towns of Victoria
(or even Little Vancouver!) would have grown to prominence on the entrepot
trade of Canada and British Alaska.
Pitt is now an anachronism: especially since we handed back Wei-Hei-Wei to
the Chinese this summer. I think it's scandalous that the 1980 Nationality
Act bars all 300,000 inhabitants from the right to move to Britain. The
trouble, is, that they would be unable to enter the EU if they were given
independence, and the structural adjustment funds from Brussells are a
scarily large proportion of their income (a bit like Newfoundland, really).
They've not been helped by the collapse of the whaling industry over the
last five years. Who'd have thought the minke would ever run out?
Chris
Kedamono
In article <65fg0i$2hp$5...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk
(Chris Williams) wrote:
Fort Pitt? Oh, you mean Fort Santa Rosa, before the British marched their
troops across the continent and captured it during the Oregan(sic) Wars with
Spain. Who knew that there was a pass the size of King George's[1] in the foot
hills of the continental divide. Through the pass, then onto the northern
most reaches of the Columbia River and straight down to the city of Tierra
del Puertos on the Oregan coast at the mouth of the Columbia. The battle
for the city is still taught as one of the more classic battles. Where
armed forces operated way beyond their lines of supply and yet were still
able to capture a heavily defended city such as Terrapuerto, as it is
called now.
Terrapuerto is still a bigger city than Fort Pitt and after it was retaken
in 1845 after the battle of New Toledo farther north in the Puget Sound.
New Toledo is going nowhere now, as the lumber industry that fed it is
slowly dieing off as the stripped hills surrounding the old Duwamish
tribal lands are now washing into the Sound, choking it with silt.
Though I must admit, Fort Pitt is doing well after Minke runs ran dry.
They seem to be happy catching salmon from the Columbia river during the
harvesting season. However the Salmon Wars a few years back, between the
Oregans, Californians, and the Alaskans did raise a few tempers. What was
it? 5 British Alaskan trawlers, 3 Oregan fishing boats, and one
Californian industrial fish harvester all went to the bottom, and the HMS
Dangerfield and the OSS Columbia both limped into their respective ports
afterwards?
From what I heard, there were four Californian fishing trawlers outfitting
themselves with more than fishing nets at Fort Pitt. I heard that at least
one of the boats had mounted a 20mm gun, and all had taken Chinese 4"
rockets, a 30 or so, and are heading into the fishing waters armed to the
teeth. At least this sort of foolishness is limited to just around the
Columbia, the Inside Passage along British Alaska's[2] north bound fishing
fleets would be red with blood.
[1] King George's pass is a feature of this ATL that doesn't exist OTL.
It's a Glacial flood plain that cut right through a section of the
Bitterroot Range of the Rockies. It makes crossing the continent that much
easier, and moves the source of the Missouri about 200 miles westward.
[2] British Alaska stretches from the Columbia river, along "good"
portions of OTL's British Columbia western coastline, right up to Alaska.
About a third of BC is part of BA, the rest belongs to Alberta. Below the
48th parallel, and along the western bank of the Columbia, also belongs to
BA. To the east up to and including King George's pass, belongs to Canada.
South of that, following the continental divide to about the Snake river,
then west again till it hits the 44th parallel to the Pacific is the
Mexican commonwealth state of Oregan.
David Johnson
Okay, I've done a little thinking about this...and a quick map which
I've sent to Kedamono. To those (i.e.: everyone else in the world)
who haven't seen it, basically, I flooded the Central Valley, the
Salton Sink, and then broke up the mountains inbetween the two into a
bunch of islands/narrow channels.
Some notes on this map:
1) This only shows the northern part of the "Island" of California
(about the upper half of the old map) since I happened to have a scan
of that part to work with. If I can get a scanned topo (with enough
detail) of Alta and Baja, I'll try this again. For the nonce, just
assume Baja looks pretty much as it does OTL.
2) The old map shows the Island going as far north as Cape Mendicino
(I think, it's kinda hard to read). I can't see any geological way to
extend it past San Francisco, however. But we can assume that the
"Cape" on ATL is what OTL would be San Fran or Oakland/Berkeley.
3) This is geologically unlikely. Oh, the Central Valley has been
an arm of the sea before (but several million years ago) as has the
Salton Sea area (much more recently), but to do the Strait, you've got
to basically sink the San Bernadino mountains (the group of four big
islands) and the Tejon Pass area (along with a general lowering of the
Central Valley a couple of hundred feet). A further problem is that
the San Andreas Fault doesn't run through the Central Valley (it's
those parallel mountains to the west on the "Island"). Now, I won't
say it's impossible, understand, just very, very unlikely. And we're
talking unlikely enough that the changes in tectonics are sufficient
to probably keep humans from evolving. So, this classes as "Alternate
Reality" more than "Alternate History".
It's still cool, however...
4) Much of the Strait is going to be very shallow. It's entirely
possible that some modern deep draft ships would not be able to
completely navigate the strait without a lot of dredging (which around
the "Tejon Narrows" might involve "dredging" bedrock...).
>San Andreas fault as being separated from the bulk of the American =
>continent by strip of sea he had called Mare Vermio, the Sea of the =
>Worm. [1]
It's also, IIRC, been referred to as the "Strait of Onan" (or
something like that).
>Obviously, most of that separation was the cartographer=B9s fancy, =
>but what if it was real? What if the tectonic plate that western =
>California is sitting on was to be moving in a more north westerly =
>direction, rather than its current northerly route? A flooded rift =
>valley would be the result. And an island that was almost a thousand =
>miles long!
And impressively narrow!
>Now the map shows the southern portions of Insula California to have =
>some cities already situated along it=B9s pacific coast line, and =
>only a few along the Mare Vermio coastline, stopping roughly south of =
>the Colorado river. North of that, there are a few continental rivers
Basically, it shows sites along the Gulf of California and places the
Colorado's mouth roughly where it should be (L.A. would be opposite of
Santa Catalina on this map, about 32 degrees north). Then it goes off
into Fairy Land...
Early Spanish cartographers tended to give names to any even minor
concentration of Indians along the coast (which is how San Diego, San
Pedro, and Santa Barbara got their names 150 years before any Spanish
settled there).
>flowing into the Vermio, but none from the east side of Insula =
>California, which makes sense due the rain shadow effect of the =
>island=B9s mountains. In the north portion of the Vermio, he placed =
>four 50 mile wide islands, one near the narrowest portion of the =
>Vermio, where the sea is only 60 miles wide. At its widest, the =
>Vermio is over a hundred miles wide and this is at its northern =
>mouth. Unfortunately anything north of this point is terra incognito,
You'll get some streams/rivers flowing down the east coast of the
island -- certainly, there are a few OTL that flow that way into the
Central Valley (and there's the Mojave River flowing north/east from
the San Bernadinos until it vanishes into the desert -- a _big_
surprise to early explorers, who just couldn't conceive of a river
that didn't flow _into_ something). But they'll mostly be
intermittent. I'd expect the "Island" would have between 10% - 30%
more rainfall than OTL, and the continental "West Coast" of this
modified N.A. would have a climate similar to what OTL's west coast
has -- which would be a big improvement to the area from the top of
(what's here) the Gulf to the Tejon pass (here, it's primarily desert
-- a lot of it, very _dry_ desert). The Sierras should see a slight
rain/snowfall increase too, mostly noticeable at the lower elevations.
>At the northern =
>most point, some of the California current flows in, while a =
>northerly, warmer current slides over top of it. Milder climates =
>abound along this portion, as the =B3Vermio current=B2 mixes with the
>North Pacific current and sends warmer waters northward up to Oregon
>territories.
I don't see the warm current getting that far, bucking the trade winds
& the California current. The area around "San Francisco" where a lot
of mixing should occur might, however, be the exception to the "slight
increase" in rainfall. It's already pretty moist north of San
Francisco, and this might result in a vast increase, up near
Washington levels, of rain.
>In this new ATL, California, is more renown for sheltering ships =
>moving north and south along the western American coast line from the
>pacific than anything else. In this timeline I see California being =
>kept in Mexican or at least not part of United States of America.
Not impossible. After all, the Channel Islands were never part of the
settlement during the Mexican/American war (and, if you want to get
really, really picky, might therefore be considered still part of
Mexico), so it's possible that California would be left to Mexico.
Not probably, but possible.
OTL, Spanish/Mexican colonization was a string of missions/towns
within 50, 60 miles of the coast, from Baja to San Francisco. ATL,
you're likely to get such strings on all "3" coasts. This makes it
likely that the Spanish/Mexican's will discover gold in the Sierras
long before it was discovered OTL. This would serve to increase
colonization of the continental coastline along the Sierras, but
probably wouldn't do much (after frantic explorations of the island
for gold that isn't really there) to increase that on the Island. By
the time the Americans start looking westward, I see maybe as many as
50,000-80,000 Mexicans in cities/mining towns along the Sierra
coastline, but the same 5-10,000 Mexicans as OTL on the Island.
Russians will almost certainly do fur-trapping down the length of the
Strait -- it would probably be a good otter territory. This might
lead to a Russian colony on the inner coast of the Island, instead
of/along with the one up by the Russian River (which is still part of
continental N.A. by my map).
>Spanish is the predominate language, but trade is not eschewed with =
>the USA. The Spinae De Vermio islands, (Spines of the Worm), provide
>handy ports for ships making the crossing, especially Wormhead =
>island. This volcanic island sits at the narrowest point of the Mare
>Vermio. The waters boil around the island=B9s southern banks, making
>portage dangerous, but the northern shore is in the lee of the =
>current, and has a small city, San Bernardo situated there.
There might be some very small volcanic islands in the area south &
east of my big four, but major vulcanism isn't too likely, even though
we're forced to muck around with the tectonics a lot to get this
geography. I don't see those islands being used much as harborages,
either. What's the point? Unless the channels around them are too
shallow for ocean-going ships, there's no point to unload -- or stop
-- there when what you really want to do is get to a continental or
"Big Island" port.
Now, my map has them close enough together that someday, someone might
build a _bridge_ across those islands from the mainland to the big
island. Think Japan here.
>Spanish =
>place names dot the entire coast line as far north as Isabella Island
>at the mouth of the Puget Sound, due to the protection the Mare =
>Vermio gave Spanish ships as they made their way northward.
I don't see this. The Spanish really only moved up into California to
keep the Russians from moving _down_ into it, and then, only with
small numbers of people (okay, so they _claimed_ the coastline up to
Canada & beyond, they just didn't see it as worth very much). ATL,
they'd move a lot more people in, but that would be along the Sierra
Coast, where the gold was...
>pueblo of only 600. San Francisco has always held a strong American =
>presence because of the gold rush of =8C98, though most there view =
>their American heritage as something they do not want to parade =
>around too much. (Especially after the disastrous war with Mexico in
San Francisco wasn't called such until quite a few years after the
American takeover. And, ATL, I wouldn't expect it to be at all, as it
has far less protective harborage than OTL. I don't see much reason
for major tonnage to be going through Island ports.
>major Pacific port, especially after the California Canal and Locks =
>were finished in 1943. It did not participate in the First and Second
You might get a canal through the Los Angeles Basin area of the
Island, but I don't see it as worthwhile economically. The savings in
time is too trivial for the enormous cost of 100 miles of canal --
especially, since there's no convenient rivers to fill those locks!
I see the Island as primarily agricultural, with lumbering and (in the
southern half) mining right behind. Total population, two-million,
tops -- maybe less than a million! With the clear-cutting of many of
it's forests, and the increasing population "on the mainland," I see
the last fifty years of the economy slowly turning over towards
tourism. It will probably become the #1 industry of the Island within
the next two decades.
Some possible location names (that I've used above)
1) The "Big Island" -- slangy term for the main strip of the Island
of California itself, as distinguished from the many islands of the
Strait and the Channel Islands.
2) The Inner Coast -- the coastline of the Island facing the
mainland.
3) The Sierra Coast -- the mainland from the Colorado to the
northern end of the California Sea.
4) The Mendicino Peninsula -- The thumb of land north of the Island
and west of the California Sea
5) The California Sea -- the shallow inlet that runs north off the
main Strait. Port Redbluff is at the northern shore of this sea.
6) Three Harbors area -- the Three Harbors, one on the Island, two
on the Mendicino Peninsula, at the mouth of the Strait.
Oh well, enough ruminating for now...
David
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"In some way, anything we do makes history,
because we _are_ history"
James Burke
David Johnson - djohnson...@worldnet.att.net
-or- joh...@www.rh.cc.ca.us
-or- d_w_j...@hotmail.com
Home Page - www.geocities.com/SoHo/2019
Lyle Craver
>Okay, I've done a little thinking about this...and a quick map which
>I've sent to Kedamono. To those (i.e.: everyone else in the world)
>who haven't seen it, basically, I flooded the Central Valley, the
>Salton Sink, and then broke up the mountains inbetween the two into a
>bunch of islands/narrow channels.
That's not really as much of a what-if as you think - the Salton Sea
was historically much larger than today and until around 1909-1910 was
in fact the northern arm of the Gulf of California. (Can't remember
title of source but it was a book purchased in Palm Springs on local
geology by my father when I was a teenager some 30 years ago) This
book showed 5 or 6 maps showing how the whole region had alternately
dried up and joined the ocean over the last 10000 years - I didn't up
to then realize just how much coastlines had changed.
On a more local note (BC, Canada) I recently heard a science show on
the radio where they were claiming that during the last ice age the BC
coastline was about 15 metres lower which would extend the shore about
100 km westwards and make a land bridge to the Queen Charlotte
Islands. Apparently off-shore mini-subs have taken core samples and
found pine needles, etc. in this region which have been dated to that
era. They figure the coastline would have been more flood-plain and
thus MUCH more suitable to migrating tribespeople than the current
fjord-like coast of BC. They postulate that perhaps all the
proto-native Americans did was to follow the fish along the Siberian
and Alaskan coastlines...
------------------------------------
To reply to me remove 1 from address
David Johnson
lcr...@portal1.ca (Lyle Craver) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:20:09 GMT, djohnson...@worldnet.att.net
>(David Johnson) wrote:
>
>>Okay, I've done a little thinking about this...and a quick map which
>>I've sent to Kedamono. To those (i.e.: everyone else in the world)
>>who haven't seen it, basically, I flooded the Central Valley, the
>>Salton Sink, and then broke up the mountains inbetween the two into a
>>bunch of islands/narrow channels.
>
>That's not really as much of a what-if as you think - the Salton Sea
>was historically much larger than today and until around 1909-1910 was
>in fact the northern arm of the Gulf of California.
Ummm, no. Until 1909-1910, the Salton _Sink_ was a dry salt plain.
Then, the Colorado jumped its banks and for a couple of years ran into
the Sink -- filling it -- until the railroad companies (who had to
keep moving the tracks as the sink filled) finally got it to go back
into its normal channel.
Actually, this sort of think happened every few hundred years or so.
The Colorado would flood, fill the sink, then after it went back to
its normal bed, the sea would gradually dry back out. It's stayed
full this time because of all the agricultural run-off from the
Imperial Valley. The Sink hasn't been part of the Gulf for (IIRC) at
least several hundred thousand years, and probably some millions, ever
since the Colorado started flowing west rather than east at the Grand
Canyon.
The big problem remains, however, sinking those mountains _between_
the Central Valley and the Imperial Valley. We're talking several
hundred miles of mountains going up to 10,000 feet, where even the low
spots are at about 4,000...
David Johnson
djohnson...@worldnet.att.net (David Johnson) wrote:
>Ummm, no. Until 1909-1910, the Salton _Sink_ was a dry salt plain.
I want to clarify here that I meant that until 1909, it was _known_ as
the Salton Sink -- it's been the Salton _Sea_ since the flooding. It
didn't want to suggest he was calling it by the wrong name for now...
Kedamono
In article <65lg86$2...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
djohnson...@worldnet.att.net (David Johnson) wrote:
> The big problem remains, however, sinking those mountains _between_
> the Central Valley and the Imperial Valley. We're talking several
> hundred miles of mountains going up to 10,000 feet, where even the low
> spots are at about 4,000...
>
Well, what about breaking them, rather than sinking them? If I remeber
correctly, part of California sits on a separate tectonic plate. If that
plate moves in a different direction for whatever reason, a new hot spot
in the underlying mantle for instance, then there would be enough shear
stress to snap the mountians off.
It's going to happen someday anyway in OTL, as that plate moves northward,
bringing LA even with San Francisco. All I'm purposing is that the
movement of this plate is now in a north westerly direction, say for the
past 10 million years. At 2cm a year movement, which is what most
continents move at currently, it would move away from the NA landmass by
about 200 kilometers, give or take a millenium. And that's if it was
moving towards the west. In the NW direction, It could be about 100
kilometers, or approximately 50 miles, more than enough to break away from
the mainland.
David Johnson
xrqn...@pbapragevp.arg (Kedamono) wrote:
>In article <65lg86$2...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
>djohnson...@worldnet.att.net (David Johnson) wrote:
>
>> The big problem remains, however, sinking those mountains _between_
>> the Central Valley and the Imperial Valley. We're talking several
>> hundred miles of mountains going up to 10,000 feet, where even the low
>> spots are at about 4,000...
>>
>
>Well, what about breaking them, rather than sinking them? If I remeber
>correctly, part of California sits on a separate tectonic plate. If that
>plate moves in a different direction for whatever reason, a new hot spot
>in the underlying mantle for instance, then there would be enough shear
>stress to snap the mountians off.
>
>It's going to happen someday anyway in OTL, as that plate moves northward,
>bringing LA even with San Francisco. All I'm purposing is that the
>movement of this plate is now in a north westerly direction, say for the
>past 10 million years.
The "plate" in this case is the entire Pacific Plate. I don't know
that you _can_ just alter its direction that way. Anywho, the San
Andreas is really too close to the coastline for most of it's route
for this to work real well. What you'd end up with is most of coastal
California from L.A. to San Francisco being the bit under water, and
an island of Baja (if for no other reason than the Coastal Range
wouldn't exist). I suggest you go with a set of really _massive_
earthquakes that sink that block of highlands. This may not be really
possible, but it will at least allow you to posit a landform that
matches the old map.
Kedamono
David Johnson wrote in message <65sb8h$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>xrqn...@pbapragevp.arg (Kedamono) wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, what about breaking them, rather than sinking them? If I remeber
>>correctly, part of California sits on a separate tectonic plate. If that
>>plate moves in a different direction for whatever reason, a new hot spot
>>in the underlying mantle for instance, then there would be enough shear
>>stress to snap the mountians off.
>>
>
>The "plate" in this case is the entire Pacific Plate. I don't know
>that you _can_ just alter its direction that way. Anywho, the San
>Andreas is really too close to the coastline for most of it's route
>for this to work real well. What you'd end up with is most of coastal
>California from L.A. to San Francisco being the bit under water, and
>an island of Baja (if for no other reason than the Coastal Range
>wouldn't exist). I suggest you go with a set of really _massive_
>earthquakes that sink that block of highlands. This may not be really
>possible, but it will at least allow you to posit a landform that
>matches the old map.
>
If I remember correctly, California is on a plate other than the Pacific
plate. The Pacific plate is moving more or less westward, evidence for that
can be seen from the trail of seamounts formed by the hot spot that fuels
the Hawaian islands' volcanoes. Part of California is moving northward and
therefore is on a different plate than the Pacific.
If a hotspot did form where the two plates met, volcanism would definitely
be the result, as a well as a deeper ocean bed for this Sea of California or
Mare Vermio. At current plate movement speeds, it would only take about a
million years to get a 50 mile separation of the island of California,
sufficient enough to sink or break the mountains to the north.
--
John Reiher
John M Mullervy
Kedamono (NotM...@Address.net) wrote:
: If I remember correctly, California is on a plate other than the Pacific
: plate. The Pacific plate is moving more or less westward, evidence for that
: can be seen from the trail of seamounts formed by the hot spot that fuels
: the Hawaian islands' volcanoes. Part of California is moving northward and
: therefore is on a different plate than the Pacific.
I just looked it up
California is split, LA is on the Pacific Plate, SF on the North American
Plate. Remember plates aren't totally rigid.
John Mullervy
http://www.columbia.edu/~jmm90