Jump to content
arc

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

Remind me on which post you offered up a concise abstract of your hypothesis please. My recollection remains that your exposition has been nebulous and disjointed. Consequently any value there may be in your hypothesis is buried beneath a landscape of imprecision. That is offered as encouragement to express yourself with greater clarity, not a criticism to justify rejection of your thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me on which post you offered up a concise abstract of your hypothesis please. My recollection remains that your exposition has been nebulous and disjointed. Consequently any value there may be in your hypothesis is buried beneath a landscape of imprecision. That is offered as encouragement to express yourself with greater clarity, not a criticism to justify rejection of your thesis.

 

!

Moderator Note

I think that is a fine suggestion. If you are yet to post a good resume of your idea - now would be an ideal time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remind me on which post you offered up a concise abstract of your hypothesis please. My recollection remains that your exposition has been nebulous and disjointed. Consequently any value there may be in your hypothesis is buried beneath a landscape of imprecision. That is offered as encouragement to express yourself with greater clarity, not a criticism to justify rejection of your thesis.

 

A Model for the Solar Magnetic Forcing of Earth's Climate History?
Started by arc, May 21, 2013

 

arc

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:48 PM

 

Quote

Abstract

 

 

 

This hypothesis regards the current understanding of atmospheric variability. The best science available has been focused primarily on several different forcing agents. The most recent warming trend that began around 1850 +/- has been attributed to anthropological CO2 emissions. The longer record going back to the beginning of the Holocene is highly varied in temperature with ice core records showing both gradual and sudden temperature swings in both directions. Currently there does not seem to be a single model that can account for the warming that categorizes the beginning of the current inter-glacial, the rapid temperature reversals of the Younger Dryes, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and other historic climate phenomena that it can be applied to. Not to mention the controversial warming of the last century and a half.

 

 

There has been difficulty in securing a single forcing agent that can be linked to the variations seen in historic climate records. This has resulted in a complicated climate formula of solar iridescence, fresh water flows that shut down the thermohaline, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and many other theoretical mechanisms to solve the current climate variation puzzle.

 

 

I believe the simplest solution is likely the most accurate. The most obvious straight forward solution with the least number complexities should be the most accurate at predicting the multiple observations seen in the climate record. This model proposes a thermal forcing agent derived from the strain energy of the Earth’s mantle as it is displaced by an outer core's thermal variability. This thesis will show in a practical manner a logical reexamination of previous research to provide a new perspective into this sometimes contentious subject. The thesis will also provide a new level of predictive resolution to historic climate variability

 

 

 

 

Ophiolite

Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:40 AM

Thank you. I now feel encouraged to read at least some of your detail.

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OK, here you go.

 

 

Planetary Thermal Mechanism

Abstract

 

The Earth’s surface tells the story of its past. Austrian Edward Suess (1831-1914) and American James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) both independently observed mountain structures as the result of contraction. Other observers could clearly see the surface of the Earth had also been stretched out, breaking the crust into series of fractures that would weather through millennia into Basin and Range topography.

 

The mechanics to create such structures if given over to a “simplest is most likely” philosophy would be to simply slowly and minutely inflate and deflate the mantle, the crust would then break at its weakest points and separate, allowing the magma underneath to slowly fill the gap as the plates separated.

 

The Basin and Range Area of the southwest U.S. looks to have been caused by this scenario due to the fact that the area had been for millions of years overrunning and subducting the eastern edge of the Pacific Oceanic Plate. The Pacific’s western edge was held by the Marianna Trench and would impart the needed traction to pull the Basin and Range into existence during a period of outward mantle displacement.

 

To allow this very simple idea to work a viable mechanism needs to be defined. The simplest I can imagine is thermal expansion. Because the magnetic field generator is an electro-mechanical driven mechanism it would already seem likely it could have such an effect on the overlaying planetary structures.

 

 

To start, the model must show a variation in the current and field of the Earth’s magnetic field generator. This would be indicated by a change in field strength.

 

http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/

 

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core.

Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy.

This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

 

Second, I would need to show that a larger magnetic field and generator could induce current and field into a smaller planetary type field.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.pdf

 

Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field.

 

 

With this credible example I will now need to show a direct link between the Sun’s magnetic field and the Earth’s field and its generator.

 

Gerard C. Bond showed a correlation between 14C content in tree rings, which is a proxy measurement of the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, and the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

 

"Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times."

 

This is pretty clear that there is reasonable evidence to suspect a 1,500 year cycle correlation between solar magnetic flux and inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability.

 

Then there are these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence?

 

Image below courtesy of USGS

http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf

 

post-88603-0-47657900-1403062770_thumb.png

 

Image below modified by this author.

 

post-88603-0-46153000-1403063033_thumb.png

 

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (The 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, its content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.

 

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

 

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

 

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

 

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland

3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

 

post-88603-0-57483000-1403063103.jpg

 

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

 

The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. They are so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century"

 

My thesis simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's outer core will vary over multi-million year time periods as the magnetic field changes in strength, and that is verified in the above. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the thermal expansion from the increase in amplitude of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased amplitude the liquid iron will expand.

 

This thermal expansion will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward movement. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension and shear stresses. As the mantle is displaced outwardly the divergent plate boundaries are slowly separated, and as they do magma created from the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary is forced under pressure into the slowly opening gap. This strain energy heat is produced as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area and releasing the thermal energy.

 

This is the variable thermal content we are now observing in our climate. It enters the ocean at the divergent plate boundaries. These boundaries form the largest mountain range on Earth. This system contains the world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the ridge does run in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean it does not do so in all the others. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust.

 

As seawater is forced under pressure into the layers of semi molten rock under the mid-ocean ridge (heat exchanger), it is heated to 300-400°C (572-752 F) and becomes extremely corrosive from volcanic chemicals. This high pressure superheated fluid is capable of dissolving the surrounding basaltic rock and leaching out metals and other elements. This fluid is also very buoyant and begins rising rapidly back to the surface, reentering the ocean at hydrothermal vents. Measurements show that heat flow is 10 times greater near the ridge crests than for ordinary oceanic crust. Heat flow is a measure of the heat escaping per second from a given area and is usually measured in watts/m2. The numerous hot springs at divergent plate boundaries show that significant heat is also carried out of the crust by convecting pore water. This data implies that a large source of magma lies beneath the ridge.

 

This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time. This thermal content is produced at the crust/mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's volume; its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain energy in very small amounts of outer core/mantle boundary displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronous timing.

 

When the field generator's cycle changes after millions of years to lower amplitude the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now slowly loading up compression in the form of a raised mass of gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. If the cycles are widely spaced, the resultant extra infill or a long decrease in outer core temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement of the crust. The resulting increased crustal compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes. This is how mountain ranges are created in such short time periods.

 

The model provides a means to raise and load the entire plate matrix simultaneously.

 

As the outer core's temperature lowers imperceptibly the mantle responds and moves in tandem. The crust would also likely move with the mantle but it can't because of the nice new slice of seafloor in the divergent plate boundaries that now shores its position and is blocking its pathway back to its beginning. The plates begin to preload with compression like a very flat Roman arch. The growing gravitational potential energy forces the plates to begin slowly sliding the opposite direction into the trench. Something else is happening here also; the plates all have different masses, from some of the largest like the Pacific or say Eurasia to the smaller down to the micro plates. The larger plates take the longest amount of time to unload while the smaller may be able to even slip some on the edges to release even faster.

 

Referring to this claim by a plate tectonic opponent;

 

"Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9000 km of "collision zones," the figure is still only half that of the "spreading centers" (Smoot, 1997a)."

 

​In my model this would indicate that the subduction lags behind the expansion portion of the cycle. It takes longer for the plates to melt into the asthenosphere than it does to create the infill that leverages the ocean plates into the trenches. A full cycle would appear as a multi-million year period of thermal increase and expansion of the core, slowly displacing the mantle and in turn the crust. The resulting infill at divergent plate boundaries during this period will provide, during the following contraction, the leverage to slowly push the ocean plates into the trenches. These shorter periods of outer core expansion contrast to the much longer periods of thermal contraction of the outer core that provide the mantle's subsidence and subsequent oceanic plate subduction.

 

The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout its cycle, even from one maximum to the next in both timing and duration. Now let’s say we have an extra-long thermal expansion cycle and the divergent plate boundaries build up a very large infill, one of those that only occurs every 20 or 30 million years. When the outer core begins to cool and initiates the plate’s subduction the trenches will be, like before, slower to receive the plate material than the mantles withdraw.

 

The compression begins building on the plates which are only able to overcome the trenches rates of resistances to a point. As the mantle continues down the plates are subjected to loads that require vertical movement of rock strata to relieve the massive compression building on the plates, this compression is in proportion to the length of time and degree of expansion in the previous cycle in relation to the degree of cooling in this cycle.

 

So to summarize, the largest plates do not unload their gravitational potential energy completely before the next increase. The divergent plate boundaries quantitative dominance over the convergent trenches would suggest a vastly longer period of subduction is required over the preceding divergence boundary movement to process the entire raised mass inventory. The gravitational potential energy now unloading into the trenches was created at the end of the last thermal increase period. We are now observing the crustal compression from the previous thermal increase/decrease cycle.

 

The models ability to raise the global tectonic plate matrix while shoring the retreating divergent plate boundaries with new magma provides a means where the initial thermal expansion energy ( the magnetic field generator's molten iron's thermal expansion) can be stored in the raised mass as (short term) gravitational potential energy, then slowly released as kinetic energy as the plates melt into the asthenosphere. Periods of excessive gravitational potential energy, the periods that exceed the trenches rates of resistance, will produce (long term) storage of the kinetic energy as mass in mountain complexes.

 

"Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

 

The divergent boundary activity that is now currently seen is due to this current thermal increase period. This is currently seen at the margins of the largest plates. The current rate of expansion is gradually removing much of that gravitational potential energy of the crust, energy that is currently in the form of raised mass. As the mantle continues to displace outward much of this crustal compression from the last cooling will be decreased before it can subduct into the trenches. There is much overlap in this process, there is not as one might think a clear change from divergent and subduction modes. They are overlapped with each other and with each ones outcome quite dependent on the other.

 

These great mountain ranges like the Himalayas and the Andes required a very long period of divergent movement to put in place a very large section of new sea floor, sea floor that in turn would supply a very large raised mass during the following contraction cycle. This mass, displaced during the planetary cooling, then exceeds the trenches rates of resistance and diverts its gravitational potential energy into the creation of those mountain complexes. If either mode was of a reduce duration the mountain building period would not have occurred. There would have been instead a shorter period of lower or even higher thermal content, slowly going up and then slowly going down, with a simpler and common divergence/subduction cycle as a result. Similar to what we are observing right now.

 

This is a partial list of the phenomena that this model can accurately predict.

 

The planation that occurs before mountain ranges form

The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand until now continental interior

The formation of divergent plate boundaries

The formation of convergent plate boundaries

The variation in ridge infill among the world’s divergent plate boundaries

The basin and range area in the Southwestern North America

Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world

Continental break-up

Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting.

Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor Seamounts

Formation of island arcs

Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant

Increased ocean thermal content

Acidification of the ocean

Carbon transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere.

And the cause of the currently unaccounted 50% increase in the ocean’s thermal expansion rate.

 

So, this is the simple connection between solar magnetic flux, the observable surface geology of Earth and the historically varying climate which results. There is even more evidence to consider than what was shown here, this is just the start.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, I really wish you could attend one of my technical writing seminars. You might learn how to right a proper abstract. Thank you for providing the material, but seriously, would you like to write a summary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that, all that extra stuff at the beginning of that post shouldn't have been there. Came along somehow from copy and pasting that old posting. I thought I checked it before going off to bed. Hmmm . . . I've had little sleep these last couple of days . . . . .There all gone now, well gotta go to work.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is not an established mechanism. It is speculation and lacking the math to boot. How many joules of energy are being transferred by the speculated magnetic connection?

+1

 

And furthermore the picture looks bleaker when we consider it is the difference in energy that is important. A qualitative consideration should be sufficient to highlight the concern:

 

Question: How much energy would it take to raise the temperature of the core by 1 degree?

Answer: a hell of a lot.

 

Question: How much temperature change do you need to expand liquid iron by 1% at high pressure?

Answer: a hell of a lot. (estimate of thermal expansivity of iron at these P-T conditions are available in the literature, so we could check this)

 

Question: How much do we even need to expand the core for the mechanism to work?

Answer: a hell of a lot (I think I worked out it was at least 30%)

 

Question: So how much energy required just to heat the core enough?

Answer: A hell of a lot times a hell of a lot.

 

Question: How much energy is available?

Answer: Not that much. At best all the energy from the Sun (as Unity famously assumed) -- and then yes we can do some crazy things! However that is clearly a wild over estimate. The strength of the external magnetic field is about 1% the strength of the internal magnetic field at Earth's surface (as can be seen by Gauss's method of decomposing the fields). From this we should be able to work it out, but it will not be much. Then it will get smaller when we consider that it is the change from minimum to maximum that is important.

 

 

What are some crazy implications of the hypothesis?

1) Paradoxically: The death of the Earth's magnetic field!

Because of the basic physical phenomenon that magnetic fields can't penetrate into conductive materials, the influence of the external field will only affect the surface of the core -- and if the "hot stuff" remains at the top because it is buoyantly stable there, core convection shuts down and the geodynamo switches off. So arc's theory actually predicts the death of the Earth's magnetic field.

 

2) Complete melting of the mantle.

If arc's hypothesis is that these changes are important over the 1000s of year timescales in which climate variations have been observed, then this heating must happen very quickly, and indeed, the cooling must also happen very quickly. But the mantle is a very poor conductor of heat. So arc's theory cannot be right unless a mechanism for very rapid cooling is invoked. No such mechanism exists. Even if the core could lose this heat somehow, the mantle would still be burdened with it, and inevitably it would get so hot it would eventually completely melt. This is not the case as clearly observed by the propagation of shear waves through the mantle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Billiards, long time no see. Hey, I was kind of hoping you would have used that time away to see if you could come up with even one prediction of observation that would even remotely resemble the observable natural world.

 

You know, like;

"This mantle plume did this and it made this oceanic plate do that" . . . . . or . . . "This decapitated plume head is causing this to move because we can see right here in this data it is increasing and going to do this because there's no other explanation" . . . . . .

 

But we both know you can't make any predictions of observations with YOUR MODEL because . . . . .Drum roll please! . . . . . . . . .

 

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics."

Damn, I bet you love reading that!

So its kinda funny you have such an interest in knocking someone else's model. Hmm . . . . . . This isn't hypothesis envy is it?

 

You and I and anyone who reads that link up there knows your model can't do crap, you have no predictions of observations to show for how many years you been doing whatever it is you do. So it kind of looks like you came over here to kick someone else's work out of spite.

 

+1

And furthermore the picture looks bleaker when we consider it is the difference in energy that is important. A qualitative consideration should be sufficient to highlight the concern:

Question: How much energy would it take to raise the temperature of the core by 1 degree?

 

Did I say 1 degree? I don't recall ever saying 1 degree.

 

This is the my opening post for this thread.

arc

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

. . . . So I started with a simple model, just a divergent plate boundary, a plate and a convergent boundary (trench). The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased current due to induction from the strengthening of the Sun's magnetic field.. . . . . .

 

Nope, no 1 degree there.

This is my second post of this thread.

arc

Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:09 PM

Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. A fraction of a degree over millions of years. I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise.

Well look at that! No 1 degree there either!

 

I do say a fraction of a degree though. But its spread out over millions of years.

I'm not a scientist but I know there's a big difference between one degree right now and a undefined fraction of 1/100 or is it 1/1000, or whatever it is when it is finally defined, over millions of years.

 

So, are you just trying to mislead everyone as to what I have said, or is it you have just not taken the time to learn anything about what you are criticizing?

 

You know this is not an easy thing to do, to come up with an original idea that could be a scientific breakthrough. You have to be a little loose to start with and then tighten up the concept as you learn the boundaries of the phenomena you are dealing with.

 

Kind of like convection theory computer simulations;

 

http://www.mantleplumes.org/Convection.html

 

"Materials usually expand when heated. This causes them to rise when embedded in compositionally similar material. Pressure drives atoms closer together and suppresses the ability of high temperatures to create buoyancy. This is unimportant in the laboratory but it also means that laboratory simulations of mantle convection, including the injection experiments used to generate plumes, are not relevant to the mantle. Unfortunately, computer simulations are generally used to confirm the laboratory results and, when applied to the mantle, also ignore the effects of pressure on material properties. In fact, the effects of temperature are also generally ignored except the effect of temperature on density. This is called the Boussinesq approximation. This works fine in the laboratory, but does not apply to the mantle."

 

Hmm. . . Looks like you guys are a little loose with the parameters. Wouldn't you say?

 

 

2) Complete melting of the mantle.
If arc's hypothesis is that these changes are important over the 1000s of year timescales in which climate variations have been observed, then this heating must happen very quickly, and indeed, the cooling must also happen very quickly. But the mantle is a very poor conductor of heat. So arc's theory cannot be right unless a mechanism for very rapid cooling is invoked. No such mechanism exists. Even if the core could lose this heat somehow, the mantle would still be burdened with it, and inevitably it would get so hot it would eventually completely melt. This is not the case as clearly observed by the propagation of shear waves through the mantle.

 

Again, are you being dishonest or criticizing something you don't bother to understand?

 

This is what I have always said:

 

This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time. This thermal content is produced at the crust/mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's volume; its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain energy in very small amounts of outer core/mantle boundary displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronous timing.

Again, are you being dishonest or just criticizing something you don't bother to understand?

 

post-88603-0-98183500-1403246210_thumb.png

The thermal content that is seen in this graph as the Medieval Warm Period and the current warming since the Little Ice Age is made at the crust/mantle boundary by strain energy as the mantle is displaced, it does not migrate or convect from the core.

 

http://solidmechanics.org/text/Chapter4_3/Chapter4_3.htm

 

"A representative spherically symmetric problem is illustrated in the picture. We consider a hollow, spherical solid, which is subjected to spherically symmetric loading (i.e. internal body forces, as well as tractions or displacements applied to the surface, are independent of eq0016MP.gifempty.gifeq0016M.gifempty.gif and eq0017MP.gifempty.gifeq0017M.gifempty.gif, and act in the radial direction only)".

 

Again, it's made under the crust, under the oceanic plate where it can pass into the ocean at divergent plate boundaries and hydrothermal vents.

 

What I think would be fair is you guys, Acme, Billiards, iNow, start coming up with alternate explanations for the very accurate observation that this model makes.

 

Really, it's that simple.

 

iNow

Posted 14 June 2014 - 05:32 AM

"Just because there were different causes of climate change in the geological past doesn't mean that human activity cannot be the primary cause today. Your basic logic above is inherently flawed."
Really!
How about you explain why this model can predict the solar magnetic increase proportional to the climate warming since The Little Ice Age. And can further predict why and how the Pacific plate's proportionally larger plate movement is causing simultaneous earthquakes, in proportionally increasing numbers, simultaneously with the solar magnetic and climate values.
You're just throwing rocks at something you won't even attempt to understand, and further, ignoring its ability to accurately predict surface geology and climate history.
post-88603-0-98183500-1403246210_thumb.png
Until you can do that you guys are just blowing smoke. Quit babbling and come up with some answers!
Seriously! Put up or shut up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip ...

 

But we both know you can't make any predictions of observations with YOUR MODEL because . . . . .Drum roll please! . . . . . . . . .

 

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

 

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics."

 

Damn, I bet you love reading that!

 

...

I love it because I read the whole paper and as I pointed out before to you the author says we need to know more about how Earth's rotation influences convection in order to account for the apparent discrepancy.

 

I also suggest -for the 3rd time- that you write to that very author and give a summary of your ideas and ask for his input. Given that you cite him as an authority that supports [some aspect of] your hypothesis, contacting him for his affirmation/approval seems only logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Billiards, long time no see. Hey, I was kind of hoping you would have used that time away to see if you could come up with even one prediction of observation that would even remotely resemble the observable natural world.

 

You know, like;

"This mantle plume did this and it made this oceanic plate do that" . . . . . or . . . "This decapitated plume head is causing this to move because we can see right here in this data it is increasing and going to do this because there's no other explanation" . . . . . .

 

But we both know you can't make any predictions of observations with YOUR MODEL because . . . . .Drum roll please! . . . . . . . . .

 

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

 

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics."

 

Damn, I bet you love reading that!

 

So its kinda funny you have such an interest in knocking someone else's model. Hmm . . . . . . This isn't hypothesis envy is it?

LOL. I'll leave this one, tempting as it is to get sucked into another jungle of misunderstanding and over zealous misinterpretation on your part, I have not the time right now.

 

I see Acme has taken up the challenge here so I will leave it to him/her.

 

 

 

You and I and anyone who reads that link up there knows your model can't do crap, you have no predictions of observations to show for how many years you been doing whatever it is you do. So it kind of looks like you came over here to kick someone else's work out of spite.

Wow.

 

 

Did I say 1 degree? I don't recall ever saying 1 degree.

If you think you can expand the core by >30% with less than 1 degree of heating then you are living in "cloud cuckoo land."

 

 

I do say a fraction of a degree though. But its spread out over millions of years.

Well then your whole "climate argument" falls by the wayside -- if you insist on millions of years time scales then you can't explain processes operating over tens of thousands of years. You can't have it both ways.

 

So, are you just trying to mislead everyone as to what I have said, or is it you have just not taken the time to learn anything about what you are criticizing?

 

You know this is not an easy thing to do, to come up with an original idea that could be a scientific breakthrough. You have to be a little loose to start with and then tighten up the concept as you learn the boundaries of the phenomena you are dealing with.

I admire your enthusiasm, but you are not doing science. I'm sorry. But it is true. You are not a scientist as you yourself say, so I do not see this as a weakness in you. It is a great strength that you have the imagination to do this. Your weakness is that you really believe you are doing science. Please, take the time to learn the science from the experts, challenge all you like but listen. Develop your idea, and develop it scientifically. Try to prove yourself wrong, listen to criticisms, build. Who knows, maybe this idea doesn't work, but if you keep challenging yourself, you might find yourself publishing something RELEVANT in a bonafide scientific journal one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it because I read the whole paper and as I pointed out before to you the author says we need to know more about how Earth's rotation influences convection in order to account for the apparent discrepancy.

 

And you do understand that mantle convection and mantle plumes are completely hypothetical inventions with absolutely no verifiable evidence that they exist. So you can modify them anyway you want within reasonable parameters because you are not burdened by the pesky demands of having to have or maintain verifiable observations.

 

When convection could not produce the needed answers they invented plumes. Then plumes lead to . . . . . .

 

http://www.mantleplumes.org/Zombie.html

 

"Rationalizations of the observed characteristics of hypothetical plumes have generated continuously changing predictions regarding fixity, hot-spot motion, age progressions of island chains, heatflow, style of mantle convection, uplift prior to magmatism, temperatures of magmas, and geochemistry. These predictions are rarely successful, so the concepts have been modified to allow as many exceptions, and as many kinds of plumes, as there are "hot spots". The guiding principles are non-physical. The products of plumes are whatever is observed where plumes are postulated. Amendments to the fixed "hot spot" hypothesis now include mantle winds, polar wander, mantle roll, lithosphere drift, lateral flow, magma tunnels, group motions of "hot spots", plume head decapitation and superplumes. Mantle winds are used to explain non-fixity of "hot spots". “Fixed hot spots" may be large regions or long "hot lines" within which volcanoes can pop up anywhere and in any sequence. Plumes are postulated to feed volcanoes thousands of kilometers distant, and they no longer need fit Euler geometry or global reference frames. If age progressions are non-uniform, new co-linear plumes are added. Most “plume tracks” are missing a “plume head”, and most “plume heads” are missing a track. The lack of evidence for “plume heads”, “plume tracks”, high heatflow and precursory uplift is ignored or rationalized. Evidence for the uplift predicted to precede the Siberian flood basalt is assumed to be hidden beneath the west Siberian lowlands, whereas that for Hawaii is assumed to have been subducted. Findings that defy such ad hoc adjustments became official paradoxes: the Lead Paradox, the Helium Paradox, and the Heat Flow Paradox. New observations are labeled surprising, unexpected, counter-intuitive or anomalous."

 

It's all hypothetical.

 

 

 

I also suggest -for the 3rd time- that you write to that very author and give a summary of your ideas and ask for his input. Given that you cite him as an authority that supports [some aspect of] your hypothesis, contacting him for his affirmation/approval seems only logical.

 

Adding one more preoccupied Geoscientist who would be unwilling to invest the time to understand this idea would not be any more productive than the current situation.

 

 

 

If you think you can expand the core by >30% with less than 1 degree of heating then you are living in "cloud cuckoo land."

 

I'm sorry but I'm thinking that you're a little too biased to really give fair analysis. You just go in blasting away and as I noted above, it appears you didn't even know enough about the model to evaluate accurately.

 

Take another look at that link above and that quote. That is a mess of fixes to keep convection and plumes viable, and then add to that the Carlo Doglioni critique. Its hard for me to take your criticism with any gravity. You don't seem concerned at all about any of the material showing how much the standard model is and has been in, as you say - "cloud cuckoo land." . You appear to have bought into it pretty deeply and give it a free pass.

 

You still have not dealt with the 14C, climate, and earthquake evidence I have posted. On page 14 post #275 is material that no one has tried to challenge. You and everyone else have avoided it and ignored all my attempts to prompt and even provoke someone to challenge it.

 

iNow challenge;

 

"Can you demonstrate there has been a significant shift in tectonic dynamics since the industrial age, a shift that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?"

 

And I demonstrated exactly that word for word. Any comment? Challenge?

 

I didn't think so.

 

Well then your whole "climate argument" falls by the wayside -- if you insist on millions of years time scales then you can't explain processes operating over tens of thousands of years. You can't have it both ways.

 

So you can't imagine the mantle could sustain the strain energy response's for millions of years as a sawtooth incline, huh. That the fraction of a degree rise over millions of years could contain short periods of reduced or increased energy. The "tooth" containing frequencies or pulse cycles of strain energy releases or reductions of them. The spacing between them controlling the variable content amounts. A Glacial would be widely spaced intervals and an interglacial would be closely spaced having the higher thermal content at the crust/mantle boundary.

 

This is a solar magnetic phenomena containing electromagnetic frequencies. The closer together they are the more heat will flow into the ocean causing the climate temperature to increase slightly. The earthquake periodicities would also increase as the largest plates telegraph the mantle's more frequent strain energy cycle. Like is happening now.

 

. And then, as their timing slows the heat content to the ocean would decrease causing cooling of the climate while the earthquakes decrease. The holocene's Bond and Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last glacial occurred at quasi 1470 year periodicities and would be a result of these frequencies along with the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the Younger Dryas.

 

But through this process the average content would increase or decrease with the solar magnetic/ planetary magnetic record previously discussed.

 

post-88603-0-00842900-1403338881_thumb.png

 

 

 

"I admire your enthusiasm, but you are not doing science. I'm sorry. But it is true. You are not a scientist as you yourself say, so I do not see this as a weakness in you. It is a great strength that you have the imagination to do this. Your weakness is that you really believe you are doing science. Please, take the time to learn the science from the experts, challenge all you like but listen. Develop your idea, and develop it scientifically. Try to prove yourself wrong, listen to criticisms, build. Who knows, maybe this idea doesn't work, but if you keep challenging yourself, you might find yourself publishing something RELEVANT in a bonafide scientific journal one day."

 

And you may not notice that you have been co opted to see things in a certain way. You were trained by someone who was trained by someone else. There was a process that required and still requires you to do things a certain way, you were told what was important and what was not. There has been pre programming in the way you think and do science since your early education.

 

But you do not see this confirmation bias, it is how people everywhere operate. Scientists are not immune to its influence.

 

If this model didn't have all of the predictions of observations I would not be here because I would know the model was not any better than what is already out there. I'm here because it does explain phenomena, you might not like it or agree with it but that's life in a free market of ideas.

 

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reactionary post, not addressing any of the scientific details. I'm checking out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

..... And you may not notice that you have been co opted to see things in a certain way. You were trained by someone who was trained by someone else. There was a process that required and still requires you to do things a certain way, you were told what was important and what was not. There has been pre programming in the way you think and do science since your early education.

 

I sense more than a hint of a Galilean complex going on with you here... you alone against the establishment. I don't have a horse in this race and am really quite ignorant of the subject matter so don't have an opinion either way but this does stick out to me.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense more than a hint of a Galilean complex* going on with you here... you alone against the establishment. I don't have a horse in this race and am really quite ignorant of the subject matter so don't have an opinion either way but this does stick out to me.

Reading the first page of Arc's last proffered link, I see those authors taking the same tack. (Get it? Horses, race, tack? :lol: )

 

As I and other respondents are not quite ignorant of geology, the gambit sticks out like a batholith.

 

*Galileo gambit @ Wikipedia

...

Adding one more preoccupied Geoscientist who would be unwilling to invest the time to understand this idea would not be any more productive than the current situation. ...

So if experts are unwilling and/or incapable and we forum idiots are incapable but not unwilling to understand the idea, what does that leave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense more than a hint of a Galilean complex going on with you here... you alone against the establishment. I don't have a horse in this race and am really quite ignorant of the subject matter so don't have an opinion either way but this does stick out to me.

 

You are probably right. It seems to eventually develop in some threads where there is a large disagreement between individuals. I have a feeling that has been slowly developing for over a year, that no matter how good the evidence I post, it will be ignored. Post 275 is a good example. No comment? Too much for someone to deal with?

 

They take the "pretend it doesn't exist" tactic and keep banging away at the tattered edges where perceived weaknesses are. Thats OK for awhile but there is some "pretending to not see the connection" going on here.

 

That post above, #311 by Billiards is a cut and run. He didn't like me showing in the preceding post how weak his standard model is. The long list of inventions to fix it's problems.

 

And again, he didn't understand my model so he didn't like the detailed answer I gave;

 

"So you can't imagine the mantle could sustain the strain energy response's for millions of years as a sawtooth incline, huh. That the fraction of a degree rise over millions of years could contain short periods of reduced or increased energy. The "tooth" containing frequencies or pulse cycles of strain energy releases or reductions of them. The spacing between them controlling the variable content amounts. A Glacial would be widely spaced intervals and an interglacial would be closely spaced having the higher thermal content at the crust/mantle boundary.

This is a solar magnetic phenomena containing electromagnetic frequencies. The closer together they are the more heat will flow into the ocean causing the climate temperature to increase slightly. The earthquake periodicities would also increase as the largest plates telegraph the mantle's more frequent strain energy cycle. Like is happening now.

. And then, as their timing slows the heat content to the ocean would decrease causing cooling of the climate while the earthquakes decrease. The holocene's Bond and Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last glacial occurred at quasi 1470 year periodicities and would be a result of these frequencies along with the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the Younger Dryas."

Another post ignored with a dismissive comment and a quick exit. If you can't deal with the answers don't ask the questions. And looking like you are too afraid to tackle posts like #275 doesn't help.

 

Reading the first page of Arc's last proffered link, I see those authors taking the same tack. (Get it? Horses, race, tack? :lol: )

 

Do you know about the author of that link? He is a major contributor to that site.

http://www.seismolab.caltech.edu/anderson_d.html

Don L. Anderson EMERITUS PROFESSOR

Eleanor and John R. McMillan Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus

Ph.D., 1963-2002

California Institute of Technology

Seismological Laboratory

1200 E. California Blvd., MS 252-21

So. Mudd Building, Rm 263A

Pasadena, CA 91125

Email: dla@gps.caltech.edu

Website: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~dla

Research

Interpretation of deep Earth seismic data, including tomography, to derive models for the composition, physical state and evolution of the Earth's interior; derivation of global geodynamic models; synthesis of geochemical, geophysical and geodynamic data; interactions of lithosphere and asthenosphere.

Past

Director, Seismological Laboratory, 1967-1989

Acme, believe me, Billiards knows the weight of this man's words. Dr. Anderson is not one to be disregarded. And that site is for discourse regarding the related phenomena. It is filled with material by topnotch scientists.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Acme, believe me, Billiards knows the weight of this man's words. Dr. Anderson is not one to be disregarded. And that site is for discourse regarding the related phenomena. It is filled with material by topnotch scientists.

We have all made an honest inquiry into your work & I am not swayed by your appeal to authority. I read the first page and it is nothing but complaints against the establishment, i.e. a Galileo gambit. Why? Because the establishment doesn't accept the author's work. Jim Berkland comes to mind in this regard. As he did and as the zombie guys have done, you should do. Get a blog and take your show on the road ala the going rogue gambit. Good luck. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first page and it is nothing but complaints against the establishment

Are you referring to the first page of Mantle plumes ? - http://www.mantleplumes.org/

 

The contributors are scientists from both sides of the debate. Dr. Anderson is part of the establishment. I don't follow your reasoning.

 

 

As he did and as the zombie guys have done, you should do. :)

 

You have miscategorized Dr. Anderson and his contributions to that site. As for "going on the road", I have two sites on weebly and a SFN blog. I'm here because it strengthens my model to debate it. The feining and avoiding materials like that of post #275 are apparently par for the course though. There is, to say, a lot of time spent by certain individuals to concentrate on what they perceive as low hanging fruit, not willing to risk attacking the material in posts like #275.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I'm here because it strengthens my model to debate it. The feining and avoiding materials like that of post #275 are apparently par for the course though. There is, to say, a lot of time spent by certain individuals to concentrate on what they perceive as low hanging fruit, not willing to risk attacking the material in posts like #275.

Obviously you have the only correct view so I bow to your brilliance. How stupid and impudent of me to have questioned it. I'll just return to the ill begotten hole I climbed out of and self-flagellate for my transgressions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you have the only correct view so I bow to your brilliance. How stupid and impudent of me to have questioned it. I'll just return to the ill begotten hole I climbed out of and self-flagellate for my transgressions. :)

 

Cool, when did we get a drama dept. Lets do Shakespeare next! My turn, pretend I sound like Patrick Stewart!

 

Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious summer by this sun of York; And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house. In the deep bosom of the ocean . . . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite my better mind wishing to "cut and run", I just can't resist to point out the major flaw in arc's oft-self-heralded "post #275."

 

Here arc claims to show a link between solar flux and earth seismicity (in Japan). Firstly the presentation is horrendous, so much so that it is not entirely clear that the "correlation" he finds exists whatsoever. Even if we forgive the lack of any statistical analysis, the graphical presentation is laughable. If you wish to show an increase in frequency with time, use a measure of frequency on the y-axis, please!

 

The argument rests on the observation that in the last 100 years solar flux is observed to increase (according to tree ring data), and the number of earthquakes detected also seems to increase. Here's the massive flaw: In the past 100 years we've got good at detecting earthquakes, and therefore we have measured more of them. The "correlation" arc has observed is simply an artifact of the bias in sampling.

 

Post #275 debunked.

Edited by billiards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite my better mind wishing to "cut and run", I just can't resist to point out the major flaw in arc's oft-self-heralded "post #275."

 

Here arc claims to show a link between solar flux and earth seismicity (in Japan). Firstly the presentation is horrendous, so much so that it is not entirely clear that the "correlation" he finds exists whatsoever. Even if we forgive the lack of any statistical analysis, the graphical presentation is laughable. If you wish to show an increase in frequency with time, use a measure of frequency on the y-axis, please!

 

The argument rests on the observation that in the last 100 years solar flux is observed to increase (according to tree ring data), and the number of earthquakes detected also seems to increase. Here's the massive flaw: In the past 100 years we've got good at detecting earthquakes, and therefore we have measured more of them. The "correlation" arc has observed is simply an artifact of the bias in sampling.

 

Post #275 debunked.

 

Really!

 

I'm sorry my crude manner of presenting my model is so incompatible to your erudite sensibilities. But . . . . . .how much of a difference do you think there is between a 7.0 or greater earthquake then as to now? :lol: Do you think they were missing some of those smaller than 8.5.

Maybe they couldn't tell the difference between a tsunami and a high tide! :doh:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan

 

"This is a list of earthquakes in Japan with either a magnitude greater than or equal to 7.0 or which caused significant damage or casualties. As indicated below, magnitude is measured on the Richter magnitude scale (ML) or the moment magnitude scale (Mw), or the surface wave magnitude scale (Ms) for very old earthquakes. The present list is not exhaustive and reliable and precise magnitude data is scarce for earthquakes that occurred prior to the development of modern measuring instruments."

 

Debunked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really!

 

I'm sorry my crude manner of presenting my model is so incompatible to your erudite sensibilities. But . . . . . .how much of a difference do you think there is between a 7.0 or greater earthquake then as to now? :lol: Do you think they were missing some of those smaller than 8.5.

Maybe they couldn't tell the difference between a tsunami and a high tide! :doh:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan

 

"This is a [/size]list of earthquakes in Japan with either a magnitude greater than or equal to 7.0 or which caused significant damage or casualties. As indicated below, magnitude is measured on the [/size]Richter magnitude scale ([/size]ML) or the [/size]moment magnitude scale ([/size]Mw), or the [/size]surface wave magnitude scale ([/size]Ms) for very old earthquakes. The present list is not exhaustive and reliable and precise magnitude data is scarce for earthquakes that occurred prior to the development of modern measuring instruments."[/size]

 

Debunked?[/size]

So you're only considering earthquakes "which caused significant damage or casualties". In your source it says: "The present list is not exhaustive and reliable and precise magnitude data is scarce for earthquakes that occurred prior to the development of modern measuring instruments."

 

Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue?

 

Why don't you do a global analysis? so as to increase your confidence in the "correlation"? i.e. to protect yourself from statistical anomalies by including more data --

 

Many large earthquakes occur that cause little/no damage, why not include those?

 

Post #275 is completely useless, it is bunk.

Here is a histogram of number of earthquakes per year from a recent catalogue...

 

mag_timeline.jpg

 

You have to be careful with these though, this catalogue deliberately has cut-off magnitudes that "were selected prior to the start of the project (Fig. 1) and were dictated by the time constraints and availability of funds:

 

1900-1917: Ms≥7.5 worldwide + smaller shallow events in stable continental areas

1918-1959: Ms≥6¼

1960-2009: Ms≥5.5"

 

http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscgem/overview.php

 

That's why you see those steps. If you look at the yellow bars, the Mw>=7.5, the trend is not affected by these deliberate cutoffs. There might still be biases in the data though, as older records are more likely to be lost, and record keeping would have been less rigorous than it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're only considering earthquakes "which caused significant damage or casualties". In your source it says: "The present list is not exhaustive and reliable and precise magnitude data is scarce for earthquakes that occurred prior to the development of modern measuring instruments."

 

Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue?

 

Why don't you do a global analysis? so as to increase your confidence in the "correlation"? i.e. to protect yourself from statistical anomalies by including more data --

 

Many large earthquakes occur that cause little/no damage, why not include those?

 

Post #275 is completely useless, it is bunk.

 

OK, so lets look at what I've said:

 

The model explains that the largest plates, due to the mantle displacement, move proportionally more than the smaller plates because;

 

 

A measured thermal expansion or contraction in the molten iron of the Earth’s outer core would produce a short time frame signal, or more exact, an almost immediate response of movement in the outer mantle and crust. As the mantle displaces inward or outward from the core’s thermal expansion or contraction the crust will respond with lateral movements of divergent boundary or convergent boundary metrics. This lateral movement in the crust will vary in each plate, based on each plate’s relative size, or more accurately, its width in relation to the plate’s direction of movement.

This is simply due to the plate’s proportion to the total circumference of the Earth; the plates will move a percentage of that total gain or loss of circumference based on the plate’s relative width to that total.

As an example of this phenomena, imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable while the other end is a short distance away unconnected. Now we apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree.

Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement.

So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean.

 

The degree of energy loading into all divergent plate boundaries will be proportionate to the plates width.

 

But, don't confuse this necessarily with the size of the quakes. It would seem logical that the more beam you have (plate width) the greater the severity of earthquakes. But I feel that measurement is more dependent on the conditions in the specific divergent boundary itself, plate angle and other boundary conditions.

 

After all, the mediterranean region has many strong quakes but lacks the long flexible ocean plate that telegraphs nicely. The mediterranean has the weight of the Alps to resist the movement of the smaller ocean plate that is connected to Africa. Europe and the Alps hold the subducted plate allowing large amounts of energy to build up, there is just not the mechanical advantage to telegraph the mantle displacement metrics that show in the Japanese records as many quakes due to more divergent plate boundary movement.

 

Could there be a boundary somewhere that has the large plate but little trench resistance where you could see a lot of proportionate movement without the large energy storage that culminates as bigger earthquakes? I doubt it, I think the subduction at these larger plates result in conditions of greater proportions, the Mariana Trench as an example.

 

There are really no other sources of earthquake data that extend so far back in history, and its the Pacific Plate's size that produces the quantity of larger earthquakes that would undoubtedly be noted by a long lasting literate society.

 

post-88603-0-07615200-1403475112_thumb.png

 

And you can clearly see that the earthquakes relate to the 14C energy levels rather well.

 

This data describes the mechanism in a specific mechanical way, a behaviour that I believe is easily understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so lets look at what I've said:

 

The model explains that the largest plates, due to the mantle displacement, move proportionally more than the smaller plates because;

 

 

A measured thermal expansion or contraction in the molten iron of the Earth’s outer core would produce a short time frame signal, or more exact, an almost immediate response of movement in the outer mantle and crust. As the mantle displaces inward or outward from the core’s thermal expansion or contraction the crust will respond with lateral movements of divergent boundary or convergent boundary metrics. This lateral movement in the crust will vary in each plate, based on each plate’s relative size, or more accurately, its width in relation to the plate’s direction of movement.[/size]

 

This is simply due to the plate’s proportion to the total circumference of the Earth; the plates will move a percentage of that total gain or loss of circumference based on the plate’s relative width to that total.

 

As an example of this phenomena, imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable while the other end is a short distance away unconnected. Now we apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree.

 

Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement.

 

So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean.

 

The degree of energy loading into all divergent plate boundaries will be proportionate to the plates width.

 

But, don't confuse this necessarily with the size of the quakes. It would seem logical that the more beam you have (plate width) the greater the severity of earthquakes. But I feel that measurement is more dependent on the conditions in the specific divergent boundary itself, plate angle and other boundary conditions.

 

After all, the mediterranean region has many strong quakes but lacks the long flexible ocean plate that telegraphs nicely. The mediterranean has the weight of the Alps to resist the movement of the smaller ocean plate that is connected to Africa. Europe and the Alps hold the subducted plate allowing large amounts of energy to build up, there is just not the mechanical advantage to telegraph the mantle displacement metrics that show in the Japanese records as many quakes due to more divergent plate boundary movement.

 

Could there be a boundary somewhere that has the large plate but little trench resistance where you could see a lot of proportionate movement without the large energy storage that culminates as bigger earthquakes? I doubt it, I think the subduction at these larger plates result in conditions of greater proportions, the Mariana Trench as an example.

 

There are really no other sources of earthquake data that extend so far back in history, and its the Pacific Plate's size that produces the quantity of larger earthquakes that would undoubtedly be noted by a long lasting literate society.

 

attachicon.gifJAPANESE EARTHQUAKES 13.png

 

And you can clearly see that the earthquakes relate to the 14C energy levels rather well.

 

This data describes the mechanism in a specific mechanical way, a behaviour that I believe is easily understandable.

Wow that's a long post to answer the least important of my criticisms. I still believe a global analysis would be more robust. But please, let's not dwell on that.

 

So ...

 

• why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue?

• why only use earthquakes that cause damage?

 

Brief responses appreciated.

 

As a side note, your plot with the earthquakes arbitrarily plotted on the delta 14C curve is just awful. Why not plot the earthquakes as a histogram?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue?

• why only use earthquakes that cause damage?

"I'm sorry my crude manner of presenting my model is so incompatible to your erudite sensibilities. But . . . . . .how much of a difference do you think there is between a 7.0 or greater earthquake then as to now? :lol: Do you think they were missing some of those smaller than 8.5.

Maybe they couldn't tell the difference between a tsunami and a high tide! " :doh:

It's going to be a long time until you live down that one down!

 

Billiards, you know why. I already explained it to you, its pretty simple to understand.

 

Because the point is to present a hypothesis and then show evidence supporting it, you know that. Do I need to repost my last post?.

Tell you what, I SHOWED MY MODEL CAN PREDICT OBSERVABLE NATURAL PHENOMENA. NOW YOU HAVE YOURS DO THE SAME!

 

Your attempt to inject complexity into my model's simple and easy to understand predictions and its verification through easily understood data is the antithesis of good scientific inquiry.

 

Maybe thats why you don't make any predictions . . . . . . . . Just a thought!

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc, I think I have run out of words for you. I will leave with this very nice post I found by Ophiolite on another thread "spotting pseudo science."

 

Occasionally a member posts something along these lines:

 

I have a rough idea about how A may arise. There is some evidence to support this. (X and Y). If I am correct we should also find that M occurs in circumstances where N preceded it. Can anyone see any immediate flaws in this speculation, or sugges thow we might test it?

 

That is a rational, sensible scientific approach.

 

Unfortunately, it is an approach that is all to rare. Instead what we get is more like this.

 

I don't like current theory. It is obviously wrong. I think W is far more likely and this is obviously supported by what I think would happen if C and D occurred. (Science hasn't recognised their importance yet.) I expect the usual dogmatic diehards will reject this because they lack the imagination to think outside the box.

 

This is illogical, arrogant and stupid.

 

Are you really suggesting we should encourage faulty logic, egotism and deluded ignorance?

Arc, you fall squarely into the latter camp (my bold in the quote above).

Edited by billiards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.