arc

I am very sorry that I come across as such an ass, and it is by no means even a suggestion on my part that I in anyway can hold a candle to your's and most of the other members knowledge here. I am, in that, at a massive disadvantage. What makes this extremely difficult for someone such as myself is I come here with, may I call it, a unique perspective. I only have one skill I can offer in this. And only because I have put in so much time and effort in this forum have I made it this far with this idea without hitting a wall. This one skill I have is I can look at a mechanical result and reverse engineer it in my mind to a quite accurate mechanism of cause. I believe it is related to autism/Aspergers. I have done this with the observable surface geology of the earth. I did not let the current model dictate these interpretations. I feel the observations show overwhelmingly that the crust is being slowly displaced outward by the mantle in periodic events. These are countered by periods of contraction that are primarily define by compression of the crust and subduction. The supporting observations I have made from this simple mechanism can explain any surface phenomena you want to throw at it. This is where I would prefer to begin a discussion of this model. It, on its own, can counter and beat the current model's surface geologic interpretations of observations. I should have probably stopped my thesis there but I love a good mystery. It is by process of elimination that this idea is where it is. I did at the beginning divide the plate tectonic portion from the more speculative solar magnetic part due to the obvious lack of direct evidence and I even stated this on my profile page; The second is http://electrotectonics.weebly.com/ where a broader examination is made with a more speculative assessment of these planets and their field generating mechanisms that also incorporates the above mentioned work in a more comprehensive and unified presentation. I could really use some help on this part, I'm in over my head. So, I am very aware of the weaknesses I have. Both personal and in this idea. It has been my observation that in reading the current interpretation of surface geology that the many weaknesses in the current model are smoothed over to fill in the gapes. I have read or heard more than once a phrase similar to "Well, it's complicated and we are working on that." The current model does not have among many, an adequate mechanism for mountain building. And especially one that can explain an apparent periodical mechanism. It is frustrating to me that in six months I have not adequately discussed this with anyone. The discussion always starts at its weakest or should I say most tenuous claim. Tenuous claims are like any other construct. It is the related and supporting structure that determines the structural soundness of these seemingly unsound additions to the construct. Convection and mantle plumbs are the same position. Geology is currently stuck. It sound harsh, but it is true. http://www.mantleplumes.org/Coffin.html , http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Nail.pdf Mantle plumb, and by extension, convection is not providing a clear cause and effect to the surface observations. I am reasonably confident in my surface observations and my interpretations of the immediate mechanism of mantle displacement. It would seem reasonable that a mantle of the earth's volume, having a thin solid and rather brittle crust, would vary through thermal expansion and contraction to the degree observed at mid-ocean ridges. It is the various bits of information that give me reason to extend my speculation to the field generator's molten iron. The debate of the longevity of earth's primordial heat and periods of cataclysmic vulcanism that can break a continent into pieces while concurrently creating new oceans, would fit nicely to a periodical, and in that, variable energy source that provides this expansive surface tension. This is what has lead me to the field generator and its documented variable field strength. It would seem logical that the magnetism/current principle would produce thermal expansion in the molten iron. It is through simple extrapolation that I move to other phenomena. I present "a causative link between solar magnetic proxy 14C content and climate variation of the last 1100 years" and the accompanying graphs because the challenge that has be made on a solar magnetic influence connection in my thesis. Moontanman is one of several who have challenged a connection. http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.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. I will say to anyone who reads that paper above, they should then look carefully at these graphs below and tell me they don't see a link between solar magnetic variability and what appears to be periods of planetary heating. Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. 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, it's 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 "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." It is not my intention to appear anything but grateful to this forum and its members for this opportunity to discuss this. I am struggling in trying to avoid dropping a wall of text. I have a massive and challenging task here. Please be patient with me, I am like I said, in over my head.

I guess you win then, you have the education to understand and produce such equations. I do not. It is that simple. Well played my good man. You originally stated "I am not willing to do this until and unless you assure me that you will be willing to abandon this hypothesis if I demonstrate with clear, evidence based argument, that it is flawed." You have only shown that I am flawed. My idea is still waiting for its measure against all others. This really is the problem here, you can only use the existing model to judge this idea. Any criticism falls on all shoulders fairly. Can convection and the current model handle such scrutiny? To be measured side by side in the same light of day? My solution is very simple, and it fits the observations. You are only attacking the messenger and not the message. You have proved very easily that I am not you intellectual equal, but in actuality, I will fall short compared to most anyone else here. Which I readily admitted long ago. But you have not shown that my model is inferior to the current model. This solution possesses what geology does not currently have, simple mechanisms and clear and accurate predictions. I do not think you really want to throw the baby out with the bath water and continue to have so much ambiguity in geology. But I'm not a real geologist either so maybe I'm just stepping on too many toes, and making people uneasy about their strongly held beliefs of the way things work in geology and climate. And on that note, nobody has addressed the graphs showing "a causative link between solar magnetic proxy 14C content and climate variation of the last 1100 years" that I have now posted in three threads with no challenge. Any takers. Here it is again. As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow. 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 ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic activity and climate variability. The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in current 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 current the liquid iron will expand. This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area. As I stated before 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 in very small amounts of displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronous timing. This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age. Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. 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, it's 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 "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 note the unlikely possibility that it is solar thermal radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change. Again, I would welcome an alternative explanation by anyone of the observations above, one that deals directly with the 14C content and temperature correlation. Or are we just back to where we were before.

I'm sorry mike I know it is hard to follow. I struggle to give enough useful information without adding to much unneeded verbiage. Let me offer an analog in the form of a balloon or sphere made of a thick rubber material. It's material makes up 85% of the spheres volume. Yes, it has a very thick skin, actually thicker than its interior center space is wide, and it is now a dimensionally accurate model of the Earth's mantle. Now we are going to apply to the sphere's surface a thin coating of a brittle material, like maybe a plaster, to act as a surrogate crust. After the plaster has dried we can begin to simulate the dynamics of this model. Lets say this sphere has a hollow interior matching the volume of the outer core's, and we have furnish a hydraulic fluid into its space. As we apply a minuscule outward displacement of the mantle the outside surface will be required to increase by a multiplied dimensional proportion to its thickness to compensate, in other words its outside surface will be required to increase by stretching. The thickness of the mantle is integral to furnishing the increased displacement from very small changes of outer core thermal expansion. This is a mechanical leverage device. The thickness of the mantle is instrumental to the mechanical leverage that the mantle's displacement imposes on the crust. It can multiply the very small but almost infinite expansionary energy that exists at the molecular scale during thermal expansion of the outer cores molten iron, and convert it into much larger lateral kinetic movement that manifests in the crust at the surface. It is analogous to the mechanical advantage attained through the gear ratios of mechanical energy transfer systems. The model releasing heat in its own accord is analogous to the mantle's strain energy response of thermal energy. A balloon or tire will do the same as it is inflated, the mantle is no different in this respect having gravity and its own viscosity to overcome through its displacement outward. So our scale model mantle has increased in its surface area and caused the plaster crust to crack at locations of least resistance to the increasing tension, these cracks are analogous to the Earth's divergent plate boundaries relieving the tension from the outward displacing mantle. Now we are going to fill these cracks with plaster as they slowly diverge. This is analogous to the magma that flows into the mid-ocean ridges and fills the gap as it is created. We will do this periodically until the gap, or in the Earth's case, the divergent plate boundaries have a sizable infill of new material in place. Now referring to our model mantle, we will release the hydraulic pressure of the outer core and watch as the mantle slowly recedes and the crust is loaded with increasing compression. The crust would normally follow the mantle down but can't due to the new infill, the crust will be slowly put into a state of ever increasing gravitational potential energy as its mass is put into compression not unlike that of a very flat roman arch. If enough infill is in place the amount of raised mass will be forced to find a way to overcome the trenches. They have a determined maximum rate of subduction that cannot be overridden, it is dependent on the ocean plate melting into the asthenosphere to release this compression. As the compression builds the crust will be redirected upward. The mountain building periods are times that followed the accumulation of large deposits of divergent plate boundary material. The degree of mountain building is in direct proportion to the amount of infill material. The model's 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 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. Mike, I hope this helps illustrate the thermo/mechanical dynamics of this model. I find it easier to reverse engineer the Earth's geodynamics than to build onto an already tenuous model of convection currents and the now proposed mantle plumbs. The current model's complexities and lack of predictions makes it vulnerable to major revision by a simpler and more importantly accurate model that make numerous predictions of observable phenomena. That is this model's strength, and the current model's weakness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection Typical mantle convection speed is 20 mm/yr near the crust but can vary quite a bit. The small scale convection in the upper mantle is much faster than the convection near the core. A single shallow convection cycle takes on the order of 50 Million Years, though deeper convection can be closer to 200 Million Years. As I mentioned in the previous post; 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 mass, 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. I would enjoy someone to express how much they like the current model, tell how it answers so many mysteries like the plaination that occurs before mountain ranges develop or the formation of mountain ranges themselves - both continental margin and the difficult to understand continental interior, the formation of divergent plate boundaries, the formation of convergent plate boundaries, the variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries, the Basin and Range area in the SW of N. America, the 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 sea mounts, formation of island arcs and why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant. This model's strength is in its simplicity and in its ability to make predictions of observations in such simple and logical manner. My conclusions are based primarily on the necessities of the already mentioned process' accurate analog of surface observations. There is by process of elimination, through and/of a very small number of possibilities, the conclusion that the mantle is displaced in periodical events. The only, and I cannot emphasize this enough, mechanism that logically fits these parameters is the magnetic field variability that is shown above in the NASA article. The magnetic field should be expected to behave like any other electrical phenomena, whereby an increase in magnetic field strength would produce an increase in current and by that an amplitude change of the current within the outer core itself. Thermal expansion and contraction would be a obvious and completely logical outcome of this variation in current amplitude. Am I missing something here? "as I understand the consensus the reverese is true." Citation needed. You refer to current heat flow values that have only recently been accurately quantified. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/07/17/kamland-geoneutrinos/ This article is about the Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND), and states, of the 44 trillion watts of heat that continually flows from Earth's interior into space, 50 percent of the heat is due to radioactive decay and other sources, and primordial heat left over from the planet's formation must account for the rest. The research says radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth's crust and mantle is a principal source of the 20+ trillion watts. But where does the other slightly more than half come from. Stuart Freedman who is a member of Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division and a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and who is also leading the participation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), says in the article; "One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy". "Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question." You cannot tell me definitively that this unaccounted thermal content mentioned above was not increasing coming out of the Little Ice Age or appreciably higher during the Medieval Warm Period. Or compared to these current measurements lower during the 120,000+ years of the last glacial period. It was not ever considered that there could be a mechanism to produce thermal variability in the planets heat flow. So, given this very short observational period, your conclusion that there is not a variable heat flow is base on a lack of observational evidence not a preponderance thereof. I would say that there is actually a preponderance of evidence to suggest that there is such a mechanism. Firstly in the evidence I posted in an earlier thread; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/ As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow. 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 ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic activity and climate variability. The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in current 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 current the liquid iron will expand. This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area. As I stated before 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 in very small amounts of displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronous timing. This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age. Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. 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, it's 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 "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 note the unlikely possibility that it is solar radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change. I would welcome an alternative explanation by anyone of the observations above, one that deals directly with the 14C content and temperature correlation. There are many historic geologic events that cannot be explained by the current model. They are all defined by a large thermal content that cannot be solved by a solar thermal radiant source. But fit perfectly to a model using a terrestrial thermal content increase. The first is explained by this link. http://www.clim-past.net/7/831/2011/cp-7-831-2011.pdf Down the Rabbit Hole: toward appropriate discussion of methane release from gas hydrate systems during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum and other past hyper-thermal events G. R. Dickens1,2 1Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, USA Received: 21 March 2011 – Published in Clim. Past Discuss.: 6 April 2011 Revised: 30 June 2011 – Accepted: 1 July 2011 – Published: 5 August 2011 This is a great article on a geologic mystery, the Early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) ca. 52–50 million years ago. Where temperatures in at least high-latitudes and in the deep ocean, warmed by at least 5 C. (9 F.) from the late Paleocene ca. 57.5 million years ago, an additional 5–8 C. (9-14.4 F.) warming of the atmosphere and ocean occurred between 55.5 and 56.3 million years ago. This event is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and it lasted less than 200,000 years. Enormous amounts of 13C-depleted carbon rapidly entered the carbon cycle during the beginning of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. Explanation for this carbon input has been thermal warming causing the release of the gas hydrate on oceanic continental slopes, followed by release of methane CH4 from the seafloor and its subsequent oxidation to CO2 in the ocean or atmosphere. The atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming. The heat had to migrate into the seafloor mud and liberate the gas hydrate, the dissolved C02 then was carried to the surface and released, where it produce the increased atmospheric greenhouse warming. The article continued with more incredible figures of geologic discharges. The volume and timing of the release of carbon requires a massive discharge into the ocean with the mass depending on the 13C composition of the source. "About 6000–12000 Gigatonnes of Carbon with a 13C of −25‰. In comparison, burning and use of almost all fossil fuel reserves will emit about 4000–5000 Gigatonnes of Carbon by 2500 AD with a 13C value of about −30 ‰. Geologists have no mechanism within the framework of conventional carbon cycle models to explain a geologically rapid and truly global >2.5‰ negative 13C excursion, except by human extraction and burning of most known fossil fuel resources. This problem regarding the PETM forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box” (G. R. Dickens 2011). "The atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming." That is evidence of the deep ocean warming before the atmosphere. This is easily solved by my model. The thermal content of this event entered the ocean through the same process I already described earlier; Let's look at something to illustrate this concept. ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005. Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere. The volumetric heat capacity of the terrestrial Earth should dominate the ocean even more so than the ocean over the atmosphere. The atmosphere at 0.000 001 percent of one earth mass (that's 1/1,200,000) and the ocean at 0.022 percent (1/22,000) of one earth mass are, by large surface area exposure, in direct contact to the remaining 99.978+ percent of the planet's thermal content. The mantle constitutes about 84% of Earth's volume with temperatures that range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at its inner boundary. Next is the outer core; a billion trillion tons of molten iron that has temperatures estimated between 4400 °C (7952 F.) in the outer regions to 6100 °C (11000 F.) near the inner core, of which may have a temperature as high as the Sun's surface, at around 5430 °C (9806 F.). This model simply acknowledges the dominance of the terrestrial mass' thermal content. And its ability, without measurable content loss, to direct the oceans thermal content in measurable gains or losses. This permits the the ocean's variable thermal content to be a forcing agent of Earth's climate. The hypothesis contends that the heat content bias of the earth’s terrestrial mass is a forcing mechanism. That if a long term planetary thermal content was in a fractionally lower level than it is now the deep ocean temperature would be substantially lower than it is now. The reduced heat content of the ocean would then express a lower surface heat flux. And due to this the solar input would not be able to furnish surface temperatures anywhere close to current levels which would in turn produce increased snowfall amounts and lower seasonal temperatures. According to the model a very small amplitude increase of the magnetic field generator would produce the currently observed divergent plate boundary movement and impose thermal content into the ocean from the concurrent strain energy released from the mantle's displacement. The fact that we are currently in an inter-glacial during an ice age period that began 2.6 million years ago suggests that the planet has been in a thermal see-saw with the temperature balance point at close proximity to the forcing agent, where a fractionally small variable is able tip the temperature balance in the opposite direction. The longer periods of the glacial over the much shorter inter-glacial suggests that after an initial fractional ocean temperature decrease the resulting sunlight reflecting snow produces an albedo feedback that quickly reduces the effects of solar thermal radiation. The model requires a small heat content bias increase from strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary to warm the ocean to reverse the glacial mechanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. According to the model, around 2.58 million years ago the Earth's field generator lowered its energy level from a previous higher level period. Although the field generator output varies continuously this was a new lower average compared to the previous and brought the Earth into the current Ice Age period. The interglacials, like the one we are in now, show that the field generator can vary enough, even in short time frame increases, to impose thermal content into the ocean/atmosphere in what seem to be consistent periodicities. These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar magnetic influences. The rapid changes in ocean temperature are so small in content compared to the Earth's terrestrial content that it is just really inconsequential to the terrestrial content. And even more important, the heat associated to ocean content forcing is determined by the strain energy response to the field generator's output. The terrestrial volumetric heat is there as a base line temperature, never measurably changing. There is ample evidence of terrestrial warming of the ocean and atmosphere in past historical climate events, its just that our current model is incapable of dealing with the observations. The Dansgaard–Oeschger warming events that interrupted the last glacial period approximately 25 times during the last 50,000 years appear to have had periodicities that, because of their precise timing, would suggest a solar connection over a climate or environmental mechanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland, there is evidence to suggest D-O events have been globally synchronous. A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002) to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003); if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise). A solar cycle would be a logical source of such precise timing of so many events. It hard to imagine an ice sheet purging at such exact periods as has been suggested. 25 time in the last 50,000 years, 1470 +/- years apart. The Bond events have been suggest to be the Holocene Era's continuation of this cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change. It gets harder and harder to avoid a solar magnetic forcing of almost all currently unsolved historic climate events. As long as my model can out perform the current model's ability to make predictions of observations of geologic phenomena I am quite confident of its accuracy. It is the current model that has to answer for itself.

Let's recap a little so everyone reading will be able to follow this discussion. This NASA article is a good place to start. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ 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. My thesis simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over multi-million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by 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. As the mantle is displaced outward 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 is the heat that is responsible for climate variation, it is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area and releasing the thermal energy. 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 mass, 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 a lower amplitude the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now slowly loading up into 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. Now referring to your question; I think the entire plate matrix has a uneven distribution of compression which causes the observed subduction in some trenches while others have less, Aleutian for example, and others have what appears to be none. I believe there is currently not any observed subduction in the Mediterranean. The reason there is varying amounts of subduction is due to the large difference in the plate sizes and masses. The model provides a means to preload the entire plate matrix simultaneously. As the outer core's temperature lowers imperceptibly the mantle responds and moves in tandem. What will the crust do? It would likely move with the mantle but it can't because of the nice new slice of seafloor in the divergent plate boundaries that now blocks its pathway down. The plates begin to preload like a Roman arch, slowly sliding to 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. Refering 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 plate into the trench. So the answer to why is there some subduction happening now?, would be because not all of the plate compression (probably the largest ones) has bled out into the trenches before this current expansion cycle started. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout its cycle, even from one maximum to the next in both timing and duration. Now lets say we have a extra long thermal expansion cycle and the divergent plate boundaries build up a very large infill, one of those that only happens every 20 or 30 million years. When the outer core begins to cool and initiates the plates 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 over come 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 have not unloaded their gravitational potential energy completely. 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. "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 it's 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 more simple and common divergence/subduction cycle as a result. Similar to what we are observing right now.

Thank you everyone for the kindness you have shown to Georgette and me, I cannot express my gratitude enough. This last week has been the hardest I have ever had in my life, and distant future the leaves me with great trepidation, but what you have shared with me has given me a great strength of spirit. I will always take comfort from what you have shared and all of your generous kindness you have given us. Thank you, Marc Ophiolite, I would expect nothing less than what you have always shown, your best.

I want to apologize to everyone here for my behavior in the past, and especially lab rat who had the misfortune of being the recipient of my most recent digressions. I am truly sorry to everyone who may have been impacted. Last Friday my beautiful wife of 27 years, Georgette, underwent her fourth surgery since last December for thyroid cancer. The first was to remove the thyroid and the following two for the lymph nodes on either side. We were encouraged that this is the most curable cancer and her prognosis was estimated at 90%. She had the one prescribed radiation treatment in the early spring, and still encouraged, we hoped for the best. She went for her sixth month follow up where the blood work showed some cancerous thyroid cells had resisted the radiation and had regrown. My wife played down the situation to me and I was unaware the prognosis had changed drastically, I assumed this was just one node that they had missed earlier and another treatment of radiation or something else would take care of things. On Friday they removed one tumor half the size of a pea from her neck just below her left ear. While my wife was in recovery her doctor came out to talk to me. She somehow knew my wife had possibly downplayed the re-occurrence and quickly brought me up to the current situation. She cannot receive any more radiation and in the doctor's words “the cat is out of the bag.” I don’t know how much time we have now, I believe it is in the several to many years range due to these cancer cells normally slow growth rate, but it is dependent on these cells reoccurring in areas that are assessable. I have slept very little since, and feel generally numb to what goes on around me. I should have delayed indefinitely joining you nice people here back in March. But I so much wanted to share my plate tectonic thesis and I naively thought it would be quickly received and accepted ( what a maroon! ) and my wife would recover and I could get back to taking care of her and our four kids. I need to back away now and really concentrate my attention on this wonderful woman and make the most of what we have. arc P.S. I will peek in to check for Ophiolite's response to my thesis. He's not getting off that easy. Oh, what the heck. I love to show her off. This was taken two month's ago by her and sent to my phone.

Your references to the seasonal use of the Nile floods for construction seems vague, it instead seems to reference the already well understood celebrations that occurred to mark the floods arrival. The current research has a good grasp of the canals and the heavy transport capabilities that the ancients possessed. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071024-ancient-egypt.html Ancient artwork shows Egyptians using boats or barges to move large monuments like obelisks and statues, and canals have also been discovered at the Giza pyramids and the Luxor Temple. (Related: "Ancient Flowers Found in Egypt Coffin" [June 29, 2006].) And a well-known unfinished obelisk at the quarry is thought to weigh more than 1,100 tons. It was the largest such monument ever attempted but was abandoned after latent cracks emerged, revealing a rare glimpse of ancient construction practices. "If they had just been using rollers and dragging things each time, everything would have been much more time-consuming and far slower." Experts said the canal likely filled in with water during the one of the Nile's annual floods. Workers would have dragged the large stone monuments onto rafts at a point below the floodwater level, allowing the artifacts to float when the water level rose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 800 km (497 mi) away. Traditionally, ancient Egyptians cut stone blocks by hammering wooden wedges into the stone which were then soaked with water. As the water was absorbed, the wedges expanded, causing the rock to crack. Once they were cut, they were carried by boat either up or down the Nile River to the pyramid.[15] It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of limestone, 8,000 tonnes of granite (imported from Aswan), and 500,000 tonnes of mortar were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid.[16] You need to show in technical detail how these 25 to 80 ton stones were raise to their position using your thesis' explanation. Diagram of great pyramid by Jeff Dahl who has no connection to me or this post. The use of water to lift a specified load, such as in the common practice of shipping through locks, requires the locks capacity to allow the displacement of a volume of water equal in weight the same or more than the weight of the ship and cargo. If the sides of the locks are not high enough the water will just spill over as the ship displaces the water. The ship or barge must also be capable of displacing slightly more than its own gross weight, ship + cargo, of water to be able to float. Granite is very dense compared to an equal weight in water, the barge must mitigate this difference by increased dry volume that displaces in water what is equal to or more than the granite and barge's gross weight. If this is similar to what you have devised, the engineering complexity of constructing this for lifting the massive blocks far surpasses that of the pyramids. I believe the amount of time,work and technology involved would far exceed the benefits.

I'm a reformed UFO believer, but it was fun stuff when I was young. The late 60's to early 70's was like the golden age of the UFO cultural phenomena. Plenty of material in the paperback book section of the local grocery store. Books, movies, T.V. it was like a drug to the hyperactive grade schooler that I was. It seemed so probable back then. If science didn't have the answer, it was aliens. Pyramids, Atlantis, Aztecs, Incas, they even mixed it with eastern and western religions, there was no limits, no boundaries. Even Bigfoot! True mass appeal was their goal, leave no stone un-turned except the truth. The sources were so one sided, with no objectivity to speak of. Looking back it was high entertainment value, low educational content. Chariots of the Gods was a perfect example, when I watched an actual scientific examination of that movie's claims when I was around 12 or 13, it was game over. I wanted to be those guys that took these books and movies apart piece by piece, or at least be able to view everything I saw after that with as sharp of a "critical analysis" as I could muster within my limitations. It was the moment I realized I could be quite fooled with quite little effort on their part. They simply left out key information that would have made there claims invalid. So easy, just pick and choose, in this type of analysis less is definitely more. More hype = more money. These UFOlogists have that over exposed appearance. If they were honest with themselves and us they would admit they are in to deep to see the evidence with any objectivity. It's like having a your bookkeeper perform their own audit of their work. "No surprises, everything looks legitimate". I think the most obvious thing in all this is the lack of true whistle blowers in this supposed 70 year cover-up. No secrets are kept for so long by so many, it's not within the natural behavior of our species as current NSA and other recent and past revelations have shown.

The way humans have always valued the hides, feathers, skulls, tusks, bones, teeth and claws of those animals they find "inspiring" it would seem likely that someone would have beat you to that. Picking up a memento from a cave or completely going full on and taking the trophy "on the hoof".

I'm still laughing as I write this. Hmmm. . . .lets see. . . . . cows in cars . . . . . cows in bikinis . . . . . . cows having pillow fights . . . . . . .um . . . . .nope, nothing about space.

Just saw this ad in speculation section. http://www.animals-in-space.com/ The link takes you to this At the bottom of the page it says; This is a training exercise. No animals will be launched into space. What the ?

But dogs, as in wolves in the cold winter environs need to acquire sufficient amounts of meat to maintain their metabolisms. To do this they hunt in pacts to run down larger game or more often to separate the young and/or weak from the heard. To be this active in sub freezing temperatures requires substantial food energy. From the physical descriptions of a Bigfoot the ape would be required because of it's size to consume a substantial amount. The availability of this large amount of food would seem unlikely in areas that routinely accumulate deep snow. This is why bears hibernate. If you claim they live at these elevations they would need to hibernate in dens. This would require moving great distances down to lower elevations away from deep snow and freezing temps to areas of rain and still bitter cold temperatures. It rains a lot in the N.W. U.S., all winter long. This is not the ideal conditions for foraging for food. Deer and elk move down to where they can feed and can be routinely seen and photographed. Changing habitats would increase the likelihood of being seen and filmed. There are many bow and rifle hunters in this area who now routinely carry cameras but never capture one shot of a Bigfoot even though wind and dampening rain can help abate noise and scent. Again, these are and have been a very studied and explored geologic feature. They should have produced signs of these creatures. There should be at least some sign that in the last 10,000 years there was habitation in more than a few of the explored tubes. Dried feces should be a obvious sign. Although this is about human examples you will not need to extrapolate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleofaeces Paleofeces (UK: Palaeofaeces) are ancient human feces, often found as part of archaeological excavations or surveys. Intact feces of ancient people may be found in caves in arid climates and in certain other locations. They are studied to determine the diet and health of the people who produced them through the analysis of seeds, small bones, and parasite eggs found inside. The feces can contain information about the person excreting the material as well as information about the material itself. They can also be chemically analyzed for more in-depth information on the individual who excreted them. The success rate of usable DNA extraction is very high in paleofeces, making it more reliable than skeletal DNA retrieval. A species must first have existed before it can be considered extinct. You have a long way to go for either.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

As I already posted; So now once again, where are these winter dens needed to survive these cold below freezing environs. You have a serious disconnect to reality with this line of thought. The winter temperatures in the Cascades alone can kill in a matter of hours or so during heavy snow storms with deadly wind chill temps, and then temperatures continue to remain well below freezing during clear weather. Are you suggesting they have a cold weather metabolism that would produce body heat at survivable levels while active during winter periods of seasonally mandated low calorie intake? Hibernation would seem to be mandatory for survival, so where are the thousands of dens used over the last 10,000 + years that would contain evidence of these creatures? You are proposing a truly mystical creature, wouldn't you agree?

That is a remarkable place to begin a journey of discovery. The prior body of knowledge would give you the greatest amount of resource information. You obviously rely heavily on your own interpretation of evidence, why not subject all of the prior up to the most current research to this simple but often fruitful process. So you knew, rather than even assumed or suspected that it was wrong before you started. You make a definitive evaluation without reviewing the current body of accumulated study. That shows a bias of undeniable proportions. A poor study of the prior work in any subject would produce the same results, why is your's any different? You would have to exhibit extraordinary evidence to disregard prior conclusions, do you sense you have satisfied that requirement? Sounds like what you are saying is that you can pick and choose the evidence that you find helpful to your interpretation of the evidence. Am I correct? Using your criteria of evaluation to make this opinion, it appears to me you have made a lateral move at best in your studies. I do not know of or ever read of any Egyptologist, that is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian that believes the Egyptians were any such thing. I have enjoyed reading over the years the continuing discoveries about this ancient culture, beginning with the discovery as a young child in my parents attic of an original copy of the National Geographic that chronicled the 1922 discovery of Tut's tomb by Howard Carter and George Herbert. It was magnificent!

Ya, but there's one more quality that you're missing. . . . . . . but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I think you are miss identifying the "deity" in your thesis. Power is the deity that you are looking for in this. Money allows quick acquisition and disbursement of power. The amount I can pay for a lawyer is proportionate to the degree of success I will likely achieve in the legal issue I am engaged in. Money is simply the medium that power moves through most often, the most fluid form of power in the world, a form that in the past was easily transferred and now in this digital world is even more so. This power can be as brutal as a mob hit or as generous as a charitable gift that is often referred to as a way to "empower" the receiver. Until the advent of a currency in the form of a universally coveted metal the transfer of power was limited to trading commodities in raw or finished form. These could be difficult to market in a small economic area and limited in its trading at great distances. Money can be turned directly in to power and power directly into money. Money may be the root of all evil but power is the ground in which it suckles. So back to my original post. Humans have always since their earliest beginnings associated safety and survival with power. So acquisition of power is at the core of what people desire. Power is what they covet, or what you would say worship. They just simply throughout history have preferred to get it in cash.

Thank you, I am always appreciative of your expert advice. You have helped me greatly in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear Black bears were once not considered true or "deep" hibernators, but because of discoveries about the metabolic changes that allow black bears to remain dormant for months without eating, drinking, urinating, or defecating, most biologists have redefined mammalian hibernation as "specialized, seasonal reduction in metabolism concurrent with scarce food and cold weather". Black bears are now considered highly efficient hibernators.[58][59] Black bears enter their dens in October and November. Prior to that time, they can put on up to 30 pounds of body fat to get them through the seven months during which they fast. Hibernation in black bears typically lasts 3–5 months.[15] During this time, their heart rate drops from 40–50 beats per minute to 8 beats per minute. They spend their time in hollowed-out dens in tree cavities, under logs or rocks, in banks, caves, or culverts, and in shallow depressions. Females, however, have been shown to be pickier in their choice of dens, in comparison to males.[60] Although naturally-made dens are occasionally used, most dens are dug out by the bear itself.[53] A special hormone, leptin is released into the black bear's systems, to suppress appetite. Because they do not urinate or defecate during dormancy, the nitrogen waste from the bear's body is biochemically recycled back into their proteins. This also serves the purpose of preventing muscle loss, as the process uses the waste products to build muscle during the long periods of inactivity. In comparison to true hibernators, their body temperature does not drop significantly (staying around 35 degrees Celsius) and they remain somewhat alert and active. If the winter is mild enough, they may wake up and forage for food. Females also give birth in February and nurture their cubs until the snow melts.[61] During winter, black bears consume 25–40% of their body weight. The bears that you and your friend see are becoming typical due to people's reluctance to kill them out their back doors as was the case up to 20 - 30 years ago. These bears no longer fear humans. They have moved down to populated areas for foraging garbage. The bears that habitat high elevations in cold climes do hibernate. These are the same locations always claimed as habitat for Bigfoot, high rugged mountainous areas with heavy winter snow accumulation. This has always been the excuse by Bigfoot believers, that they are in these remote areas, living their lives unseen which it seems would require some type of winter accommodations. Unless you think their down in the suburbs now, digging in peoples garbage cans.

Are you sure this is a true religious practice? Or is it a common construct based on our evolutionary journey as a social animal? To simply use money is just the decision to join a group behavior for personal gain. A primary behavior of humans throughout our history. It may be more utilitarian than say a formal ceremonial and cultural behavior like deity worship or marriage but none the less is motivated by social acceptance and by that personal gain. Money is power in the same way as marrying into upward social mobility.

Wooops, I didn't see Phi for all's link above on this, sorry for stepping on your toes. arc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull Discovery Paranormal researcher Lloyd Pye, the owner of the skull, says he obtained the skull from Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, in February 1999. According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.[1][2] Claims Pye claims that the skull is the hybrid offspring of an extraterrestrial and a human female.[3] According to Pye, a dentist who examined the upper right maxilla found with the skull determined that the skull was that of a child aged 4.5 to 5 years. The volume, however, of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated closer to the bottom of the orbit than to the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[1] The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material ofmammalian bone. Young children withhydrocephalus typically have an abnormally large head, as fluid pressure causes individual skull bones to bulge outward. Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.[4][3] DNA testing DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.[3]

The entire folklore of Bigfoot in my area, that is the N.W. U.S., is framed by a solitary individual roaming the mountains of the Coast and Cascade ranges and even extending eastward into the Rockies. So far this behavior resembles, as already mentioned by Arete, that of the black bear. What would a large primate living in the same environment as a black bear be required to do to survive these harsh winter environments. Historic Native American tribes give evidence that to survive the coldest winter conditions in these areas require a communal society working together for food and shelter. Often needing to move frequently to locate game and shelter in milder climes. The bears survival is dependent on being spread out enough to limit its competition with other bears for the resources needed to fatten up during the summer in preparation for a long harsh winter of little sustenance. The harshness of these winters on the bears is validated in that hibernation is essential to their survival. It would then seem almost a requirement that a large ape would need to hibernate through the winter in these extreme environs. This would require shelter similar to that of the bears. A dugout earthen cave with a small opening, its sleeping area lined with foliage. A large cave opening would not suffice in these cold alpine winters of below freezing temperatures. And would this creature also store food for the winter like a squirrel? This is the crux of the matter, where are these domiciles, these winter quarters that would contain hair and DNA, possibly even bones of a death from natural causes.

. . . . . . . . . . As the mantle moved into rotational alignment with the orbiting debris, the core moved to equilibrium between its gravitational resistance from Uranus’ center of mass and magnetic resistance from the mantle. Moving the core 1/3 of the planets diameter away from the high pressure center of mass would greatly reduce rotational friction on the core thus possibly allowing higher generating efficiency. But I'm just speculating. I said I'm just speculating. MY APOLOGIES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus The reason for Uranus's unusual axial tilt is also not known with certainty, but the usual speculation is that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth-sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.[50] ^ Bergstralh, Jay T.; Miner, Ellis; Matthews, Mildred (1991). Uranus. pp. 485–486.ISBN 0-8165-1208-6. Oops, bad memory. SCRATCH asteroid, replace with proto planet.

We should have some kind of fossil evidence of its origins, in the U.S. or from where they migrated from in Asia. Or newer skeletal evidence. I would assume something would kill and eat a Bigfoot, in recent history like a grizzly or in the past like a saber tooth 15,000 years ago. There have been no bones found at the bottom of dormant volcanic vents or lava tube openings or any of the uncounted vertical mine shafts which are abundant in the N.W. U.S. These things collect many deer and elk and an occasional human who wasn't paying attention. But these deadly traps have never once caught a Bigfoot wandering around day or even night when many accounts claim to have heard them. Show me a skull or some bones, old or new and I'm interested. But I have heard these stories all my life and that is all they are, folklore.

Some believe an impact from an asteroid caused the current orbital characteristics. Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun. Third largest by radius, fourth by mass. Has the coldest planetary atmosphere in the solar system -224 degrees c. Its 3 billion km from the Sun and takes 84 years to orbit it once. Scientists estimate its core of silicate/iron-nickel at a small 0.55 Earth masses with a temperature of 5000 K. (4726 C.) The mantle, comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. This fluid is believed to be the source of the planets magnetic field. Uranus has the lowest internal heat of the four outer planets. Neptune, which is 1.5 billion km farther out from the Sun and is considered Uranus’ twin in size and chemistry has a heat flux of 2.61 in contrast Uranus barely emits more heat than it receives from the Sun. Uranus has fully functioning magnetic field despite being tilted out of alignment with its rotational axis by 59 degrees. The axis is in line with its orbital plane. It spins like a football not a toy top. It rolls around the sun on its side, giving each polar region a direct exposure during each solstice. The rotational axis misalignment with the magnetic field leads me to think Uranus was not directly hit by an asteroid. It came in instead at a polar trajectory and hit Uranus’ single large moon, which would have been in a conventional equatorial orbit, converting both masses into what later formed into approximately 27 moons and multiple ring systems. The gravitational pull of this polar orbiting mass of debris pulled Uranus’ atmosphere into rotational alignment with the accretions. Its iron core stayed in gyroscopic alignment with its orbit around the sun. The mantle of heavy water – ammonia was probably pulled into rotation with the outer planetary atmosphere, generating the observed spiral magneto tail extending out opposite the sun. The core, of which the magnetic poles emanate, presently resides in the South Pole 1/3rd of the planets radius in the direction of the magneto tail at 59 degrees to the axis of rotation. In comparison Neptune has a core-mantle-atmosphere in closer rotational alignment with its magnetic poles, 46 degrees out of axis. The lack of heavier (denser) outer core (mantle) material may account for the core's off center position of both planets. (Remember when you were a kid spinning on one of those playground merry-go-rounds, you were the core.) Since it takes Uranus 84 years to orbit the Sun and our observations of the unique magnetosphere is rather recent, I believe the core will stay in the proximity of the spiral magneto tail throughout Uranus’ orbit. The 1.1 heat flux of Uranus is interesting, hardly any heat over the solar input. Uranus has the lowest atmospheric temperature – 224 degrees C. (-371 F.) in the solar system. It also has a strong magnetic field and a rather small core. The small core has less surface area thus less drag resistance. The hot dense water-ammonia mantle is the most fluid core of all the planets. So this could mean there is less rotational resistance to create heat. The magnetic resistance between an inner core and outer core (mantle) is probably reduced by the 59 degrees of departure of the two field generating components. I’m picturing a sort of magnetic equilibrium between the cross rotating mantle and its magnetic coupling to the core. As the mantle moved into rotational alignment with the orbiting debris, the core moved to equilibrium between its gravitational resistance from Uranus’ center of mass and magnetic resistance from the mantle. Moving the core 1/3 of the planets diameter away from the high pressure center of mass would greatly reduce rotational friction on the core thus possibly allowing higher generating efficiency. But I'm just speculating.