arc

Post #40, here it is again. I think its time to apply this model to some more climate change phenomena. Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers. http://earthobservat...s/OceanCooling/ Quote: The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did. Here's another, What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.” So they know what these input values are, but the sea level rise is 50% higher than estimates would suggest. The ocean expansion is what is being observed. It does not equal the rise when added to the melt. And one more. “In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.” “One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.” "Over estimate" and "is not in agreement" vs "more realistic and slightly underestimates". Hmmmm. Maybe the deep ocean has another heat source. The article is worth reading. Here's something else that is related; 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. Wow, the ocean looks like it is the dominant thermal content around here. Except for that it is 1/22,000 thousandths of the terrestrial mass of the Earth. So using the NOAA example above, what would a similar 0.1 C mean change in the Earth's volumetric heat capacity (VHC) do to the ocean? Make it phase change into something like Venus? So this unaccounted 50% expansion in the deep ocean could be a vary vary vary small natural variation in the Earth's VHC manifesting through ocean hydro-thermal and volcanic systems. Or as I like to call it; Strain energy.

Why is the ocean expansion 50% more than estimated? I anxiously await your model's results.

WOW, my model has the same warming but it can integrate it into the historical climate history. Making accurate predictions that your model doesn't and that you are going out of your way to avoid. If 100% of the climate scientist were looking at the wrong model, which they are, then they would all be wrong! This is about two different models, one makes accurate predictions of current and past climate and geodynamics, the other can only refer to climate since around 1850 to present and can't explain what is going on anyway. Why is the ocean expansion 50% more than estimated? Oh ya I forgot the old model can't tell me.

That has been more than apparent. Yet, here you still are. ARC Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:36 PM I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it. The offer is still open. I think its time to apply this model to some more climate change phenomena. Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers. http://earthobservat...s/OceanCooling/ Quote: The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did. Here's another, What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.” So they know what these input values are, but the sea level rise is 50% higher than estimates would suggest. The ocean expansion is what is being observed. It does not equal the rise when added to the melt. And one more. “In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.” “One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.” "Over estimate" and "is not in agreement" vs "more realistic and slightly underestimates". Hmmmm. Maybe the deep ocean has another heat source. The article is worth reading. Here's something else that is related; 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. Wow, the ocean looks like it is the dominant thermal content around here. Except for that it is 1/22,000 thousandths of the terrestrial mass of the Earth. So using the NOAA example above, what would a similar 0.1 C mean change in the Earth's volumetric heat capacity (VHC) do to the ocean? Make it phase change into something like Venus? So this unaccounted 50% expansion in the deep ocean could be a vary vary vary small natural variation in the Earth's VHC manifesting through ocean hydro-thermal and volcanic systems.

I'm new at this too! I just learned I need to always address the person whom I am talking to.

Just for those that are interested, this model can accurately predict. The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand untill now 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 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 (not me) Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant This is what this model can deliver in accurate prediction of observations. The historic climate forcing seen in 14C tree ring samples shown earlier (and in even greater detail in the model) provide an answer to the variation through the geologic records of the past climate. A causative mechanism by this model, whether anybody wants to take the time to read and understand this is up to them. But you really need to understand this model. Simply throwing out data related to the current model is pointless. It is based on a incomplete model. Isn't it clear as to why it is so contentious?, so open to interpretation?, so many unknowns? The current model contends this recent warming stands separate from the preceding climate history. The warming being caused by industrial development. It could be but the model does not explain the preceding climate, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and so on into the past. This is accuracy that the current model cannot deliver. Kris, no need to apologize that terse response was directed at iNow. You are doing great, Thank you for joining in, keep going!

Kriss, thank you for your enthusiasm and support. Its important to understand this warming does not coincide with movement of noticeable proportions, it is the byproduct of the strain energy released at the crust/mantle boundary as the mantle is displaced. It is very subtle, very slow, which has made it an unseen contributor to the planets heat flux. Volcanoes can contribute to heat flux in both directions and are a component player in this simply because as I stated earlier they make up the largest continuous mountain range in the world. "world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content." Most of the strain energy released moves through this system. Again you have not read the thesis, you are making false assumptions because of a willful lack of understanding. I explained this already and now you are simply misrepresenting the model. You have been told you need to learn the details of it. "It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it." So if you are not interested in understanding the model, there is no point in engaging you in conversation, it is pointless already.

The super structure was entirely made of aluminum, including all sheet metal in selected areas. You can see the control cabin framing and canvas exterior, below. In the dining room all furniture was aluminum including tables and the silverware. The only things flammable were upholstery, draperies, floor coverings, gas bags, miscellaneous things like wiring insulation and 200,000 cu. m of hydrogen. No, it was that the gas burned. The canvas covered metal ship would have been fine with the static discharge that caused the hydrogen to ignite if it would have been filled with nonflammable helium instead. Ummm. I'm pretty sure the insurance carrier will have the last say in all of that.

Hi Kris, I think you made a nice start in engineering BTW. Well, I'm not in the center of the geophysics universe, but this morning I did feel a infinitesimally small movement of its center towards me. You should ask Ophiolite he is the resident geo expert, I think they believe I am a science renegade, so I should not be openly recruiting converts. That being said, your welcome to make up your own mind. My thesis' biggest critics have most likely not taken the time to read it entirely. That's human nature, shoot first, ask questions to the next of kin.

There is a sweet spot in all boats where the cargo (human or other) can receive the least amount of vibration and shock. It is almost always directly forward the stern or transom. That is the pivot point of the dynamic loading caused by waves. The farther forward you go the more vertical movement is produce. The pounding from a series of large waves can fracture what would seem as normally durable components. Your batteries are I assume lead acid, which are vulnerable to vibrations and shock. They are best given a home down low as far back as possible, unless its nothing but smooth water then go for stability and trim. How big of boat? Oh, and I forgot to mention, if lead acid ventilate well. Wave action + hydrogen gas + spark from loose wire = BIG BANG acid shower.

If that is true Thomas Edison owes lighting bugs a lot in royalties.

Very cool, several years ago a patent was filed by a guy who if I remember correctly worked for JPL. He saw the front flipper of I think a gray whale,can't remember exactly. But anyway, saw that it's surface was sculpted and uneven, so back at work he ran models and found that this design reduces drag in wings and hydrofoils. I have been waiting to see this in planes but I suspect it will not work in powered aircraft due to the wide range of speeds involved. But hydrofoil applications would seem more possible. It's always important to not only watch what is happening, but to see what is happening.

Ophiolite, I have waited almost six months to here you say that. There is no one else I would prefer to do this. I must warn you though, this is hard to get out of your head once you start applying it to phenomena. I find few dead ends with this, in fact, I have not found any due to it's simplicity. You know almost at the start in whether it looks promising or not. It flows like water into a glass, it is well adapted to Occam's Razor. I am sure I have made some (probably many) technical errors with the field generator and you will be quite amused by my befuddlement , but I believe it will be many more years, probably decades, until a truly accurate model is revealed. But this idea is mostly about the simple mechanism that results, and the chain of events related to it. So, yes I will accept your gracious offer with no conditions other than that we may discuss the flaws in a full and timely manner before abandoning that portion or the entire concept. I am just a simple man, I believe this concept in the hands of a true expert like yourself will produce results far greater than I could ever have imagined.

I invited you to discuss this model, not to discuss your data and causation's relating to the current standard model. I have stated here at SFN previously that those results match the data. ARC Posted 15 June 2013 - 11:29 PM Hello Essay, Thank you for replying. I take all your points and agree things will possibly be quite bad in the future. I am a fan of history, but I would never say I am a historian. My personal take on this climate change situation is the scientific data is correct for their observations, everything adds up. I am convinced there is warming to the degree that is understood to be happening. I agree that under the current model anthropological forcing is responsible. But I also have a very accurate model that appears to me to be superior to the current geodynamics model. It explains in simple, easy to understand processes what the current model does not. Again, you asked; I'm all ears if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades, but until you do then the human cause explanation is easily the best one available given how it fits the data and the physics of greenhouse systems. This model is exactly that. I have shown very reasonable evidence that you did not once acknowledge. You instead only recounted data of the current model. Which wasn't what I had invited you to discuss. It is difficult to explain the technical details to someone who only wants to scan your post to counter claim using a competing model. iNow Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:01 PM Arc - I'm not seeing details about tectonics, just sunspots (which have been ruled out) and temperature readings. More here:http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm\It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots. ARC Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:16 PM 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. I'm glade you were paying attention, It's so much easier to discuss. Again, it is difficult to explain the technical details to someone who only wants to scan your post to counter claim using a competing model. Sincere questions lead to fruitful discussions. ARC Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:36 PM I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it. The offer is still open.

A quick exit using dismissive comments belies anxiety.

It would likely be destroyed by the spouse or family out of fear. Fear of embarrassment, reprisal, revenge, lawsuit, you name it. It is already an emotional time, something like that could put someone over the edge.

I'm sorry to hear you say that. I can understand this change in standard model can be upsetting to some people. But I cannot help if it is so accurate to the observations. Isn't that what science is all about, finding the simplest explanation that produces the best explanation. I started out in geology as a hobby, now I am trying to tell people about a very simple process that yields very accurate answers. And it seems to upset people. Very strange indeed. But I take encouragement it's resilience, it looks to have had no weaknesses to exploit.

OK, first off that is one giant Freudian slip. That should have been hypothesis. That is embarrassing. My apologies for appearing presumptuous. iNow, Thanks for coming down to speculations, I was worried our talk had ended. You will not see a spike in geological activity that accounts for sudden global average annual temperatures. These two thermal contents are way out of proportion and timing to each other. Lets look at a comparison for a better perspective. 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. 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 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 really no "spike in geological activity that account for the spike in global average annual temperatures" The heat content that warms the ocean/atmosphere is produced by the strain energy response to the outward displacing mantle. During this time the tectonic plates are slowly extending and the divergent boundaries are filling with magma. The large scale movement in the global plate matrix occurs during the other half when the field generator has lowered it's output and the climate is cooler. This is when the mantle recedes because the outer core's contraction from reduced amperage, this then begins loading gravitational potential energy into the crust. This raised mass is what slowly leverages the crust into the trenches, displaced laterally by the most recent ridge infill.

Deleted double post. Curses these glitches.

There is something special about absolute rule, that allows the use of a solder as an expendable utensil, a single use weapon if so desired. You could allow their dead bodies to pile up to fill a trench in antiquity or over barbed wire on an island in the South Pacific during WWII.

Sorry iNow, I did not want to throw to much out there at once, it can sometimes hurt more than help. iNow Posted Today, 09:01 PM http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm\ It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots. Hey, your still in that old model. But in either model solar magnetic energy levels can very in strength quite independent of solar radiation which has been quite consistent. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt ABSTRACT (Lean 2000): Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity, reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to space based observations. The long-term variations track the envelope of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. Well, there it is. A 0.2 % total increase since 1675. Sunspots are just the suns visual record of what its field is doing, in this example, increasing the Earth's magnetic field strength and through that, its molten core. OK, let's say we have had a period of fairly continuous magnetic field strength, and the mantle has been slowly extending outward from the thermally expanding outer core's molten iron. The mantles progress is measured by the divergent plate boundaries movement and subsequent infill by the fresh magma created by the strain energy. This variable thermal content changes the ocean temperature through the thermal release of the 80,000 kilometer (49,700 mile) long tectonic rift system that is referred to as the mid-ocean ridge. This system contains the world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content. As the mantle continues to displace, infill will grow as the plates separate until the magnetic field lowers in strength. As the outer core's molten iron contracts the mantle will then move in tandem. A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy. This article states; that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. My theory simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. An increase in amperage will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward expansion. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension. When the field generator's cycle changes to a lower amperage the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now loading up its raised mass as gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. If the cycles are widely spaced, the extra infill or a long decrease in temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province Opinions vary regarding the total extension of the region, however the median estimate is about 100% total lateral extension. Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north. Evidence exists to suggest that extension initially began in the southern Basin and Range and propagated north over time. The "extension initially began in the southern Basin and Range and propagated north over time" is the result of that particular latitudinal Pacific Plate section having the widest lateral portion of ocean floor applying the most allowable movement in the southern basin area. The southern area wasn’t actually first it was just the movement was proportionally more the farther south you go. The Miocene Epoch, 23.03 to 5.3 million years ago, was a time of warmer global climates. The earth went from the Oligocene Epoch through the Miocene and into the Pliocene. The Pliocene was followed by the Pleistocene, 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago, as it cooled into a series of Ice Ages. The time line works. The Miocene was a warmer period that was concurrent with the Basin and Range extension. This is when the mantle would be in a long period of slow expansion. The East Pacific Rise is the primary expansion fracture on the earth; it was subducted under North America during a long period of thermal contraction in the middle Miocene. When the core began a subsequent period of increased energy output the expansion fracture would impart the slow gradual expansion into the overriding Basin and Range area, stretching it out to its current dimensions. There is no real kinetic movement in the North American plate or any others during expansion, the mantle has extended and opened the divergent boundaries to magma. The plates do almost all of their kinetic movement during subduction when the mantle is cooling, that puts the plates in compression. I was studying some controversy in regards to mountain formation. There is a great paper that outlines the theory that proposes a more recent and defined era of rapid mountain building on a global scale. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006 Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period CLIFF D. OLLIER School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia 9.2. EXAMPLES 9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains (As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps). According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid. They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.) 9.4. CONCLUSIONS (Mountains are created by the vertical uplift of former plains, independent of any folding of the rocks underneath. The age of mountains should therefore refer to the age of vertical uplift after planation, not to the last period of folding (if the underlying bedrock happens to be folded). Most uplift occurred in the Plio-Pleistocene, or the very Late Miocene. The Neotectonic Period is demonstrated by the large amount of work listed in table 9.I. Plate tectonics, the ruling theory of the past forty years, has no adequate explanation for the widespread planation in mountain regions, or the remarkably young uplift. Indeed it is based on an association of folding and uplift that is demonstrably untrue. Plate tectonics has no plausible explanation for mountains on passive margins or continental interiors. From now on it is incumbent on those who propose models of mountain formation to do two things: Incorporate planation surfaces into the story (or prove there was no former planation). – Either disprove the Neotectonic Period hypothesis, or show how their proposed mechanisms fit into the time scale of just a few million years). . . . .(Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time. Some unknown process created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift. This is a deviation from uniformitarianism. The mountain building period is relatively short, and not on the same time scale as granite intrusion (which takes tens of millions of years), or plate tectonics which is supposedly continuous over hundreds of millions of years. The same rapid uplift occurs in areas where hypotheses such as mantle plumes are not appropriate. We do not yet know what causes this short, sharp period of uplift, but we can exclude naive mountain-building hypotheses that are on the wrong time scale.) . . .(One of the biggest obstacles to our hypothesis of widespread Plio-Pleistocene mountain building is that the period of time available for the preceding planation is too short. Only further investigation can clarify this point.) I think the variability of the solar magnetic field can answer this challenge. I believe long and short duration periods of high magnetic field induction have driven various geologic events, the breakup of Pangaea and the subsequent 600 thousand year cataclysmic volcanic event for one. Here is another source. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity. The time period is short, geologically a blink of an eye. As if the entire crust was put under compression as the mantle receded. If there hypothesis is correct the mountain building periods have occurred repeatedly over the Earth's history. But the periods in between have to be long enough to allow the former to erode substantially. Periods of cooler planetary thermal content interrupted by periods of increased planetary thermal content.

CJ, I must warn you that just posting videos or other content by others is sometimes not in your best interest. To much of this will depreciate your reputation. Do some studying and create your own content. This stuff can be used as reference, but it may be compromised by the party you obtained it through. Go to the original source if possible, NASA, USGS, NOAA and others of similar reputation are best. There is just to much monkey business with climate change information to trust anything you find without clear knowledge as to the integrity of subject matter. A bad post only hurts your reputation.

Thank you iNow for this opportunity to share this. Let me outline this model without the high resolution that will come later. The model is based on the magnetic field generator of the Earth having a variation in current and field. I can document this evidence by several reliable sources, this is one of them. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/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. 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 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 ampacity 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. 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 in very small amounts of displacement. This mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronized 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/fs-0095-00/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 that you have pointed out; "that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?" 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.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.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. This model is strengthened by the accurate predictions that it makes concerning plate tectonic movement and geologic processes not shown here but are accessible through the links below.

No, not that at all. You asked for "if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades" I am just saying that I have a better model than the current geodynamics, and it has predictive abilities regarding plate tectonics, the formation of mountain ranges and such. The mechanism behind it is also responsible Earth's climate history, such as when the climate cooled after the Oligocene going into the Miocene. The current model on the Earth's interior does not make predictions of geology, let alone climate.

I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.