Question on settings (super continents)

[Darkfantasy]

I'm working on my first Fantasy novel, so creating a planet is all very new to me and I just need some help.

My new planet is very similar to earth (one sun. one moon). Accept instead of smaller continents it just has one large super continent similar to Pangea (and although I did some research I could find enough to answer some questions).
How does having one large continent affect the climate? is it hotter in the center and colder further out? Does it make no difference. Will it affect things like tide? What would be a realistic set-up for a super continent?

Because their is more water/ocean than land how will this affect things. Is it likely to rain more? there maybe more destruction due to that.

Like I said these are not things I know too much about but if you could give me some pointers I'd be grateful

thanks guys

 

[Vaporo]

Well, I know for one thing that hurricanes would be much worse. The storms would have half a planet of unbroken ocean to build up strength before hitting land.

 

[pmmg]

I would think if all the land mass was on one side of the planet, the planet would wobble more when it spins. (okay, that is probably false)

Assuming it is like earth, I think some things are likely. Such as, hurricanes starting near the equator have a much larger ocean to cross while building up strength. You might get more and heavier rainfall for this reason. But I also think many of the same climatic anomalies would occur. Such as hot air from the equator cycling and swirling over the nearby zones would cause dry arid areas, and great bands of rain forest where the rain actually falls.
The moon, having the same relative effect on your Pangia as here on Earth, would likely have a more dramatic tide effect. Since there is only one coast to pull away from, and seep up onto, the mass of water would be greater, so the tides would be more dramatic.
I am thinking also, there would not likely be an oceanic conveyor belt, or it may work in an entirely different way, causing water temperatures not to self regulate, or to regulate in a different way, which again leads to hotter or colder climes, and bigger storms.

In addition to that, greater amounts of rainfall may lead to greater amounts of growth, which would lead to a greater abundance of the food supply, which could lead to much larger creatures (read Dinosaurs) thriving in them.

In fact, I think some of the possibilities here are endless. The question I have is how much of this do you want to affect the story you wish to tell? It could be that a Pangia creates great storms, but if you don't want your story to be about storms, then it just takes places during a period a great and perhaps unusual calm.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

How do you have only one continent? Unless magic is involved, it seems strange that the water would all run to one side of the planet and leave the other side exposed.

 

[Darkfantasy]

Well it's more like a giant island and since they haven't established a good means of travelling great distances over water my characters are only aware of one land mass. There could be more that are undiscovered.

 

[Ban]

How do you have only one continent? Unless magic is involved, it seems strange that the water would all run to one side of the planet and leave the other side exposed.

Why not? Continents aren't shaped by the water surrounding them but by tectonic movement of the earth's plates. If those land-carrying plates happen to be close enough together to form a continuous landmass then there is only one continent. It has happened in the real world, so why not in a fantasy world?

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

How do you have only one continent? Unless magic is involved, it seems strange that the water would all run to one side of the planet and leave the other side exposed.

But...Pangaea?

 

[Darkfantasy]

Exactly it's happened before on this planet so why not on a fantasy one?

Magic is forbidden on my planet (by the dominant race) so no magic would be used to control climate or anything. This planet did not beginning with magic (like some others mentioned in my book are) so the forces of the planet don't work with magic. Magic works against those forces and disrupts things leading to bad consequences.

But it's still early days yet so I'm still working on my ideas.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

The depictions I've seen of Pangaea make no sense to me. If you have a land mass and you add water, the water is going to center itself around the center of gravity of the land mass. It's not like the land mass is floating in the water. The water is hugging the land mass, and it will flow into a spherical shape around the center of gravity. So how can you have the land mass bulging out on one side of the sphere? Okay, maybe your land mass has a spike sticking up that doesn't contribute much to where the center of gravity is located, and that's where your "continent" is. But that's not how Pangaea is depicted. I'm not a geologist, but it feels like the artist renders of Pangaea are ignoring some basic science.

And thus I asked the question, how can you have a world with a single continent? If the official geological definition is based on tectonic movements of Earth's plates, I have to accept that without a full understanding of it, and so be it. But the depictions of the so-called single continent with one side of Earth being water and the other side having this land mass sticking out of the water still seems bizarre to my logical mind.

 

[elemtilas]

The depictions I've seen of Pangaea make no sense to me. If you have a land mass and you add water, the water is going to center itself around the center of gravity of the land mass. It's not like the land mass is floating in the water. The water is hugging the land mass, and it will flow into a spherical shape around the center of gravity. So how can you have the land mass bulging out on one side of the sphere? Okay, maybe your land mass has a spike sticking up that doesn't contribute much to where the center of gravity is located, and that's where your "continent" is. But that's not how Pangaea is depicted. I'm not a geologist, but it feels like the artist renders of Pangaea are ignoring some basic science.

Not quite how geology works... What you have is more land being pushed up from below, rather than water being added to a dry planet.

And thus I asked the question, how can you have a world with a single continent? If the official geological definition is based on tectonic movements of Earth's plates, I have to accept that without a full understanding of it, and so be it. But the depictions of the so-called single continent with one side of Earth being water and the other side having this land mass sticking out of the water still seems bizarre to my logical mind.

I'm not sure why this would be any more bizarre than the present situation. We know that the continents move around. Sometimes they squish together --- India and Asia are being squished together, and so are Northern Africa and Europe. Sometimes they pull apart --- America and Eur-Africa are pulling apart. Sometimes they squish together and later pull apart --- this is why we have the Appalachian Mountains. There was a time when Ameria, Europe and Africa were cosy neighbours. They squished together forming the Appalachians and the Atlas mountains, and now they've been drifting apart again.

We know that land can be uplifted at plate boundaries, heavy ice sheets can push land down (and later melting of that ice will cause land to rise up again).

Pangea simply reflects a time in history when all the continental masses were concentrated into one giant land mass. And it's not the first time this has happened: before Pangea were Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland and Vaalbara.

 

[pmmg]

A super continent is just the result of things moving about on a heated core. If stuff moves about enough, its bound to bunch up and break apart. But, even if it was not, it is fantasy world. Heck, how could disc world possibly be, and yet, there is a whole series.

 

[Ban]

The depictions I've seen of Pangaea make no sense to me. If you have a land mass and you add water, the water is going to center itself around the center of gravity of the land mass. It's not like the land mass is floating in the water. The water is hugging the land mass, and it will flow into a spherical shape around the center of gravity. So how can you have the land mass bulging out on one side of the sphere? Okay, maybe your land mass has a spike sticking up that doesn't contribute much to where the center of gravity is located, and that's where your "continent" is. But that's not how Pangaea is depicted. I'm not a geologist, but it feels like the artist renders of Pangaea are ignoring some basic science.

I don't think I quite understand your logic. But as far as I understand physics there has been water on earth ever since our planet cooled down to around our current life-sustaining temperature, so it isn't a matter of having a landmass and adding water to it. I also don't know what you mean with your point on the center of gravity. Water is not pulled by landmasses, a continent in itself cannot exert significant pull over the ocean. The minor pull of the sun and the moon cause tides and the major pull of the earth keeps all the water on earth. The pull of the earth is about equal everywhere on earth. Perhaps you are confusing center of gravity with the ocean currents, but those are caused by differences in water temperature and have nothing to do with gravity.

 

[Vaporo]

The depictions I've seen of Pangaea make no sense to me. If you have a land mass and you add water, the water is going to center itself around the center of gravity of the land mass. It's not like the land mass is floating in the water. The water is hugging the land mass, and it will flow into a spherical shape around the center of gravity. So how can you have the land mass bulging out on one side of the sphere? Okay, maybe your land mass has a spike sticking up that doesn't contribute much to where the center of gravity is located, and that's where your "continent" is. But that's not how Pangaea is depicted. I'm not a geologist, but it feels like the artist renders of Pangaea are ignoring some basic science.

And thus I asked the question, how can you have a world with a single continent? If the official geological definition is based on tectonic movements of Earth's plates, I have to accept that without a full understanding of it, and so be it. But the depictions of the so-called single continent with one side of Earth being water and the other side having this land mass sticking out of the water still seems bizarre to my logical mind.

Well, the water itself has mass, which partially shifts the center of mass back away from the continent. Plus, there could be other factors with mass distribution that could shove the water to one side. For example, if the entirety of the opposite side of the earth were a relatively shallow ocean and the seabed ringing the continent was much deeper (which, from my very limited understanding of plate tectonics, may not be all that outlandish), the result would be a single large continent.

Also, the depictions of Pangea you've seen are meant to be approximations. Much of the continent may very well have been covered in ocean. We don't really know. Even if it were mostly submerged, it would still technically qualify as a continent. There are even some scientists who believe that New Zealand should be considered a continent because of the surrounding submerged plateau.

Also, try going to google maps, going into earth mode, and looking down at the center of the Pacific ocean from space. You shouldn't be able to see much land.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Well, the water itself has mass, which partially shifts the center of mass back away from the continent. Plus, there could be other factors with mass distribution that could shove the water to one side. For example, if the entirety of the opposite side of the earth were a relatively shallow ocean and the seabed ringing the continent was much deeper (which, from my very limited understanding of plate tectonics, may not be all that outlandish), the result would be a single large continent.

Also, the depictions of Pangea you've seen are meant to be approximations. Much of the continent may very well have been covered in ocean. We don't really know. Even if it were mostly submerged, it would still technically qualify as a continent. There are even some scientists who believe that New Zealand should be considered a continent because of the surrounding submerged plateau.

Also, try going to google maps, going into earth mode, and looking down at the center of the Pacific ocean from space. You shouldn't be able to see much land.

This response makes the most sense to me.

Since the Earth's crust is such a miniscule part of the Earth, how it is shaped may have a minimal effect on the center of gravity of the planet. Looking at it in that regard, I suppose I can understand a planet having only one continent. I keep thinking that mountains are big, but in relation to the Earth as a whole, they really aren't. They're more like scabs on the surface of the planet. Where you have a scab or two or three isn't going to affect your sense of balance (e.g., center of gravity) much. Okay, Vaporo, you have convinced me. Thanks!