Essay

I'm amazed at the sheer presumption of other human beings. Media hype makes it sound as if this is mainly about rising sea levels or storms, but we can run away from the oceans and hide from storms. However, it's a bit more involved than the sea level, or more drought and storminess, or more unpredictability in general.... The June 2009 New Scientist mentions, “When Earth warms to the point that it no longer has cold poles and warm tropics, as the result of geologically released greenhouse gases, the oceans stop mixing. Without mixing, only the uppermost layer of the ocean remains oxygenated, and anaerobic bacteria that produce poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas thrive. Before long, the level of hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere becomes lethal.” ...or you could search 'ocean anoxic events' to see the patterns in geologic history ...before the poles developed enough ice to prevent that process. === It is presumptious to think we can acidify the oceans, as well as stagnate their circulation, and then not disrupt the planetary food web. If chutzpah is about choosing life everlasting (biodiversity's perpetuation) and hopefully maintaining some continuity in our global civilization or any civilization, rather than maintaining our Western notion of comfort while condemning future generations into a sulfuorus hades, then guilty as charged. ~

Short of "nuclear geoengineering" ...there are still "unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration for common purpose." Soils are a reservoir of carbon that is large enough to solve the problem, if the soils can be managed in the most appropriate way ...to build up more carbon richness. Plus, that effort would help solve many other global-scale problems. ~

...I was just reading this myself, via FB, and I notice the link says: "Russian scientists sent to the site are now providing first-hand data showing that unusually high concentrations of methane of up to 9.6 percent were present at the bottom of the first large crater shortly after it was discovered on July 16. Andrei Plekhanov, an archaeologist at the Scientific Centre of Arctic Studies in Salekhard, Russia, who led an expedition to the crater, told The Journal Nature that air normally contains just 0.000179 percent methane." That's roughly a hundred thousand-fold difference, over five orders of magnitude more methane, isn't it? === p.s. Is there a name for these 'dimples' ...caused by the methane 'burps,' which seem to appear in the aerial photo accompanying your link above? Burples? ...and that is ocean and ice, rather than blue sky and clouds, in the upper part of that picture ...beyond the beach; right?

Mike, Your numbers 1 and 2 are already central to the foundations of science, but the hurdles are rigorous. ...but rather than 'leaving' and returning to the island, aren't we more extending our island? ~

Like a ball hitting the floor, Africa seems to have "bounced" off of the European plate (or vice versa) about 40 times, before settling down. "Late Miocene salt deposits in the western Mediterranean indicate that the Mediterranean completely desiccated... ...about 40 times in the latest Miocene, withdrawing about 6% of the salt from the world's oceans (Ryan 1973). The net reduction in average ocean salinity by about 2.0% may have had a significant effect on ocean circulation." -p.201 from: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991. Note also: "If the Straights of Gibralter were closed today, the Mediterranean would dry up in about 1000 years...." -p.201 "Since the Mediterranean deposits are 2-3 km thick, and only 70 m of salt would be produced by isolation if it happened just once, the cycle of evaporation must have been repeated about 40 times...." -p.201 === Though I'd be happy to hear of any updates on this 1991 information. ~

Here are some important "parts" to consider, imho. Start by reading some of the different topics, already listed on the religion forum here, especially the first "pinned" topic about "recommended readings" and the second topic about how God is defined. Trying to define God…. I imagine if you locked any two philosophers in a room, they’d happily emerge with three definitions. And if any two theologians (even of the same faith) were similarly locked in a room, I’m expecting that only one would emerge alive. === Our definitions (especially the nitty-gritty details …or even worse, the contradictions or lack of details in those definitions) make all the difference. If you see unwanted differences, or you want different scenarios, or you want to resolve or transcend dichotomies, then re-examine your definitions. But first, learn how “stable complexity” will develop or “emerge” out of simple, robust, chaotic systems (the parts). There is a book called The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains this very well; so you don’t need to learn all about Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors (try an image search of that phrase, or for “Chaos Theory and Stable Attractors”). ...for some random research and applications, even aside from their beauty! Science examines the stable complexity of our universe while it tries to deduce and understand the simple, robust, chaotic parts, which make up the systems (as they are defined) that the various scientific disciplines choose to study. Do disciples of any faith do any differently? If we imagine that there could be "a comprehension" of all the meaning and significance in all the matter/energy in all of space/time, then wouldn’t that be like comprehending the omniscience in the omnipotent omnipresence? The source of preference, power, and place is mysterious enough to be approached, and reconciled, from both religious and scientific perspectives, istm. Learning how Power is related to matter/energy changing within spacetime (mass times acceleration times the movement/time ...or something along those lines), and learning how matter and energy relate to mass and dimension, are good starting points for developing a comprehension of how the various parts might build up into an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent whole.... ...depending upon your own definitions, of course. Good luck with your studies! ~

...its sort of an apples and oranges problem, depending upon various definitions.... ...or maybe it depends on your perspective.... === From a sociological perspective, functionally, religions and sciences both provide narratives or stories that help explain the human condition and what we observe; or as Molly Worthen (author of “Apostles of Reason”) says, “…how people make sense of reality.” So it would be easy to say religions were the earliest attempts to create an all-encompassing worldview, and that later sciences developed as an objective system for discovering, understanding, and managing various practicalities of the physical world--a worldview of only practicalities. But technically, science is more about the method, whereas religion is more about the dogma; so neither seems related, istm, except that both derive from a desire to know more…. However by using a very loose definition for “science,” I’d say from an anthropological perspective that ‘science’ created ‘religion’ because …in the beginning was the word (or, in the beginning …was meaning), which seems to signify the dawn of intelligence and memory and pattern recognition as well as symbolic thought and communication. It wouldn't qualify as true science, but people were always trying to make sense of reality; whether religions existed or not. Religion seems to serve as a part of the societal superstructure, which later develops out of whatever “scientific” structure might arise from any society’s original infrastructure; it develops later, out of whatever systems people utilize for making sense of their circumstances. imho ~

"A study of the last 11 centuries reveals over 200 eruptions, with around three quarters of these explosive, and with an average frequency of 20-25 events per 100 years (Thordarson and Larsen, 2006). The apparent increase in eruption frequency over the last few centuries can be accounted for by improved documentation of eruptive events. Studies of longer timescales e.g. the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, suggest similar eruption rates to historic times." Icelandic volcanic eruptions in historic time (Thordarson and Larsen, 2006). === It would be hard to avoid some effects, you'd think; but whatever effects occur, they probably contribute to an ongoing "baseline" rate for effects on the Greenland ice sheet. ~

You're right! If you measure the top 10% of society (or even the top 50%) we are # 1; go USA. But if you measure things the "socialist" way (100% of the population) ...which would include the bottom 20%, and could even include the millions of illegal immigrants... then we barely meet those 1st World standards. Finally the Libertarian perspective, which seems to be filled only with contradictions and short-term, provincial goals, begins to clarify itself; everything would be ideal, if it weren't for those systemic, pervasive, and/or chronic "social" problems. Perhaps you are confusing some notion of "socialist" ideals with social science-based policies? ~

Sorry, but I see a big difference between, "I have no idea" and "I've already learned it," so I didn't think to ask if you already have attempted a solution. If you have some 'best guesses' that you could post, I'd like to see if I can tell what is correct or confusing. ~

If you could "do them without a factory," and on a budget, then it would be done already. But I'd like to see what updates you can find; you have discovered the key to civilization's global existential problem. === And if you want usable power, instead of just liquid fuel, then there are even more opportunities to discover new adaptations for pyrolysis. ... Searched: woodgas camp stoves I've got pictures of a 30-gal. trashcan-sized design, which burns in a manner similar to the above photo; so ask if you're interested. ~ ...time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis....

Yikes! ...a quick [image] search of "newman-projection" reveals images such as: and https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/sterisom.htm ...cyclohexane: ...from many ".edu" websites. ...so it seems there is a lot to learn.... ~

Excellent point! I want to stretch my notion to include the light of the supernova that forged the elements of that volcanic deep-sea environment, but that still does not account for all the gravitational (heating) energy that is generated by the formation of the planet. Though wherever the energy is coming from, life seems to be the best way to dissipate that energy; taking high energy and converting it into lower energy (longer wavelengths), hence the "light into heat" metaphor allusion. Life is acting like an enzyme, within its vast chemical universe. And the net, or balance, of all living processes yields an increase in entropy; so living creatures are like little entropy generators. ISTM.... Life, including its creation, growth, and development, is hard work; but the extra entropy generated makes it all worthwhile, thermodynamically speaking, in the long run. ~

I don't know specifically, but mixing different weights of oil (being okay for "single weight" oils) was the common folk wisdom from back in the day, except that you shouldn't mix oils from different brands/formulations. But I don't recall what they said about the mixing of variable viscosity oils, so sorry. Though all that was back before high-tech sensors were added to engines, or oil companies became more innovative with their different formulations; so I'd be more worried these days about trying to get creative with my resources. I'd guess that mixing the wrong two additives could cause problems. ~

Sorry Mike, I should have said liverworts, rather than rockworts. [<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - about 1 inch - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->] ...but I'm glad you found some black algae. I was starting to wonder if "black algae" might only be mixed colonies of red and green algae ...or maybe just dead "golden algae" (The Chrysophyceae, usually called chrysophytes, chrysomonads, golden-brown algae or golden algae are a large group of algae, found mostly in freshwater... per wikipedia). Sorry about leading you astray; rockwort sounds so primitive, but apparently all worts are not the same! ~

Those two lines seem contradictory, unless you have a fairly unique definition of religion, which may be why some study of comparative religions seemed an appropriate suggestion.

...especially if they might also view "what they are saying" as referring to a context broader than, or not limited to, only the material world.~

Statue of WW I assassin unveiled in Sarajevo [June 27,2014] Modern-day opinion on [the assassin] Gavrilo Princip mixed: ...clearly! === …and the "new borders” of the old Ottoman Empire (divided up after WWI), from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and through North Africa (Libya, Egypt, Serbia to the Ukraine, and Syria, Iraq, and Iran), were contrived by Western Europeans as a result; especially the Middle East. A century later, how is that working out? ...but Crimea is not included! ...and we wonder why.... ~

Light Blue= Uplifted Mountains Associated Darker blue= the Basins ( thus possible location of Shallow inland warm seas ?? ) Then Large rivers would exit these inland seas to the oceans ? Am i getting the picture, or am I at sea ( eeuuh ) Mike Mike, the most stunning fact (I recently learned ...and which helped stimulate my interest in continental development) about the "planet's crust" is that: ....The oldest ocean floor (most of the planet's crust) is only 200 Million years old! Yet the oldest parts of continents are over 4 Billion years old; so most of the planet's crust has cycled 20 times (one might extrapolate) since the continents first started floating around as pieces of the lighest planetary crust, riding around on these huge and random conveyor belts of slightly [2 to 4%] heavier, rapidly recycling, crust... I'm thinking. And these original "floating" masses would accrete island (arc) chains onto their perimeter as they would run into the island arcs during their travels... more or less... in addition to breaking apart and/or adding some land volcanically of their own. As you noted, compression may cause uplift of mountains or plateaus (such as China and Colorado), but buoyancy due to heating from below (as in hotspots) also contributes to a lot of the uplift and growth of mountains and plateaus. My interest is the basins which fill in with eroded sediments, and how these turn into kilometers-deep rock formations. I'm thinking they are not deep when formed; but that the basin sinks as more sediments are deposited, while always staying roughly level with the (perhaps flooded) surface. ...thus over time, pushing down into the continent and perhaps deforming the lighter continental crust downward into (or more "firmly" onto) the mantle. Ice, built up to several kilometers in height over certain parts on a continent, might also have similar effects. To a large degree (afaik) those "basin" deposits/sediments were the first soils. That is probably too over-generalized, but until life (plant life) came up onto the continents roughly 500 Mya, soils wouldn't exist except as sandy or silty sediments; but with no clay or organic matter to bind the grit together. I saw the Nature Episode "Fabulous Frogs" last night. Those were the first "animals" to come up onto the land they said (well, amphibians in general, such as salamanders, etc., ...whatever was evolving then) ...except for the insects, which were already here on the land, as Nature "explained" it. But what I found interesting was that they said the land, at that time, was a barren rocky landscape covered in black algae! Black algae! Well that won't translate well into your paintings, but as a highlight or offset it could be worked in, I'll bet. But I think the (slick/shiny?) black algae is interesting for several reasons. It would be the first large source of organic matter to help bind the sediments into soils, as well as being a food source for insects perhaps, and also a source of acids to help dissolve nutrients from the rocks ...perhaps too. ALSO the sun was a little fainter back then, and maybe the skies were hazey enough that plant pigments needed to be "darker" to be able to absorb a wider range of wavelengths. It was still mostly hot and humid, even when there was ice building up in certain areas, often enough for tens-of-millions of years back in those early days; though at times the ice took over, and things got cold and dry (along with cold and wet; or later, hot and dry) often enough for long stretches too. But don't think the "barren rocky landscape" was completely devoid of plant life, even before the animals (frogs) came up onto land. Rockworts and various primitive plants took over whatever areas they could exploit, I'm sure; and then the ferns came along (once enough soil had built up, I suppose) to reach up above the surface more than just a few inches. But I don't know the timing of those different (evolutionary) plant successions, in relation to when the amphibians came to dominate. The evolution of lignin (wood) is a very interesting story too, but that is a hundred million years or so later. [Edit] The show said frogs came from amphibians that arrived about 300 Mya, and by 250 Mya were starting to look more like frogs (but still not yet real frogs). Wikipedia says that by 200 Mya the early roots of modern frogs developed, and that by 150 Mya "true" frogs had appeared. Lignin had already appeared by that time (I thought the amphibians were earlier). "Now a new genomic analysis suggests why Earth significantly slowed its coal-making processes roughly 300 million years ago—mushrooms evolved the ability to break down lignin." "The 60-million-year-long Carboniferous period—when the bulk of the world's coal deposits were laid down and atmospheric CO2 levels declined—ended roughly 300 million years ago. The coincidental timing suggests the appearance of this ability to break down lignin helped slow the massive burial of organic carbon via nondegraded tree trunks and other wood, such as the lignin-rich fernlike plants known as arborescent lycophytes, now extinct." ...so The Carboniferous ...was a period of Global Tree Pollution! ~ Happy Hunting!

...just fyi.... "Starting last weekend [as of June 20], the geographical extent of surface melting expanded from about 10 percent of the island to 40 percent. You can see the sudden surge in this graphic [above]." ...plus, as the snow melts, the dark impurities get concentrated at the surface. === But in terms of that melting water from Greenland going into the ocean... "From the end of April 2012 through the end of April 2013, which corresponds reasonably well to the period between the beginning of the 2012 and 2013 melt seasons, the cumulative ice sheet loss was 570 Gt, over twice the average annual loss rate of 260 Gt y-1 during 2003-2012." Hundreds of billions of tons ...each year, increasingly. ~

As mentioned, "...I've been forming general impressions of continental evolution and want to explore these notions we form of what it must have been like back then." And those "various" scenarios I suggested as "another possibility" or "various ...patterns" or "various orientations" were just speculation on "these notions we form" about what "could be." Some of the things that "I'd expect this planet could sustain," are based somewhat from an online Climate Science class that I took (and passed) this past semester. Very different ocean and continental conditions and positions would strongly affect how solar heat would be distributed around the planet, which is what "the weather" is driven by. While the Plutonist explanation covers the big picture, the Neptunists were probably seeing the evidence remaining from the extensive formation of evaporites. Extensive, broad and shallow, inland seas were common, and might be evidence of relatively "persistent" rainstorms; similar to the Amazon during flood season, except for all year long. Even today, the Amazon Forest, by countering enough of the normally prevailing atmospheric forces, generates it's own [more regular and persistent] weather! But that all depends on well-evolved biosystems and soils, which didn't begin contributing as much (to climate or erosion) until the most recent few hundred million years. The continents, for so much of their histories, were smaller and flatter (and often somewhat bowl-shaped?), and often enough at a poor latitude for facilitating planetary (atmospheric/oceanic) heat flow, that continental weather/climate was probably boring to the extreme for eons enough. I think there is evidence for long and regular accumulations of sediments, which even reflect (long and regular) Milankovitch patterns, from over a hundred million years ago; so some places obviously avoided major disruptions or extremes for long periods. But for particular coastlines or latitudes, or when the continents would travel through certain orientations, whatever weather pattern that could develop would likely have been more extreme and persistent than what we are familiar with in today's "temperate/zonal," and more highly seasonal, climate. ...istm ...speculatively. ~

Do you follow how they arrived at the 3.47 number for Total Plant Biomass ...from using Total surface area along with Mean plant biomass? Could you use the same pattern to find Total NPP?

Hi Mike, I don't know about the specifics, but I've been forming general impressions of continental evolution and want to explore these notions we form of what it must have been like back then. One impression, I try to focus on, is how much more different "weather" can be, compared to what we consider as the bounds of extreme weather. Especially with the continents in different positions and one global ocean (more or less) back then, patterns of weather, "seasons," and climate were very alien ...at least for some long stretches of continental evolution. The picture you describe seems more like a mega-flash flood scenario, rather than a giant, ceaselessly flowing river. Various monsoon-like weather patterns could produce those sorts of mixtures of sediments. Another possibility could be variations of glacial mega-floods or glacial lake drainages. Especially at the end of the Permian, many glaciers or ice sheets were retreating as things warmed, volcanism/rifting rose, and Pangea broke apart ...more or less. With various orientations of continents and ocean and/or seaways, I'd expect this planet could sustain a relatively "stationary" storm, like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, for at least one season if not for multiple years. Flash floods may have persisted for months or years, eroding away the continents in ways we wouldn't expect. Giant hail storms, if either regular or sporadically persistent, could present a barrier to migrations or mixtures of plant and animal species, as well as greatly speeding up erosion. I just try to remember that what we now consider to be a climate with "extreme weather," looks like a flat line, when compared to graphs of the climate variations and changes covering many long periods of the continents' tortured histories. ~ signing off due to lightning storm "currently" outside!

Perhaps great minds do think alike. For my part, I think I probably looked at this, whenever it started months ago, and decided it was an obvious attempt to grasp at some newly discovered ersatz [and non-anthropogenic] mechanism to explain rapid climate change ...and also that it was not even worth any attempt to untangle the illogicality of the premise. That was then. Now, with the semester over and one class finished, this looked like a long-running topic of interest. I didn't notice which forum this was in, nor realize this was probably that same thread I had not replied to when it started. You are talking about the sunspot cycles, right; when you speak about solar magnetic flux? That was the only thing that came up when I searched the term. You describe plate tectonics so simply, it seems as if things could change easily; which is why I asked about the time scales. "All the time" is not an answer. It ignores the question about how long it takes for these "solar magnetic" changes to have any effect; any effect such as those "atmospheric phenomena [which are] a byproduct of the model's plate tectonic mechanism." There is a well-known [though not well-understood] link between the sunspot cycles and climate. It's accounted for in the models; and as INow noted, it doesn't account for recent, increasingly rapid, changes. Also, aside from completely ignoring how GHG theory does explain the recent anomolous changes, you completely ignore the point about Milankovitch Forcings. They have the periods of "40,000- and 100,000-year time scales," which explain millions of years of ice-age changes quite well. Milankovitch cycles can even be found in varved sediments from the Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous epochs, hundreds of millions of years ago. Or are you describing some supplementary mechanism.... No, you're not; are you? === And, all of that aside, you are claiming a link between earthquakes and climate (by way of solar influence on tectonics), so I can see why this ended up in Speculations. I did look up your source, and found a site with many interesting (seemingly relevant) tidbits: http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/whatsnew.html Paleoclimatology Branch of the National Climatic Data Center. To find: What's New for 2005: (plus archives back to 1995) ...they have a link to your cited source. I noticed the last sentence of the Abstract from your source says: 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. "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." BUT... there several other very interesting Abstracts on the same page: ...are you suggesting the solar magnetic induction causes these Milankovitch cycles, or just that the Milankovitch cycles are not relevant? ~

On what time scale does this supposed "strain energy" affect ocean heating? === You say... "These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar origins." ...suggest!?! So, to ask sarcastically, it's just a big coincidence that orbital "timed events" (Milankovitch forcings) are more than "consistent enough" with "heat content that periodically warms the ocean/atmosphere through the millennia?" === How would your "strain" heat make its way up through the millennial-scale, deep-ocean conveyor? Wouldn't there be plently of evidence for oceans being affected from the bottom up, through your mechanism; rather than being affected through some top down (as with climate) mechanism, for which we actually, iirc, do find evidence? ~