arc

I'm sorry Sam. I enjoy debate and the give and take of the battle. It's so much like chess, don't you think? If you feel I crossed a line please accept my apologies I do not want to have you as an adversary outside of the cordial debate we both seem to enjoy. Again my sincere apologies, arc

Sorry about that. I think Sam is great guy. We're just having some fun. I hope my posts reflect that, Sam your having fun right?

Don't confuse capitalism with a form of government. This is about communism and democracies. capitalism is an economic model that is adaptable by either. It is a system of economic reward for taking risk. With great individual monetary reward comes the likelihood of abuse of those without. Democracies do better at preventing these abuses than communist bureaucracies. I reiterate: "Communism has failed repeatedly in economies of scale." What did you think I was referencing? This debate is not comparable to tribal units of populations. You might as well said "high school senior classes" . These are large industrialized nations that due to the limitations of a communist central control structure the government bureaucracies tend to be corrupt, with graft moving money up to the top just like the Mafia. The difference between democracies and them is the accountability at the voting booth is a powerful weapon against corruption. The communists have nothing to protect the public from abuses of police and the bureaucrats that they are in business with. Communism has change little in this way since changing their economic model. There's just more money involved. billions and billions more! Really, you want to go to how I used a biology term in a different context. And stars are alive? Are stars alive? Started by SamBridge, Jan 13, 2013

That's the point and the difference, once communists are in power they eliminate the mechanisms that would challenge their authority. They suspend supreme judicial, they outlaw dissenting political parties, they ban independent unions. We have seen this structure and its tactics in smaller political frameworks because its core method of operation is the same, graft of local government and law, with fear and intimidation as needed, with no reserve towards using violence within and without its society. I am referring to the Mafia. And like the cold war, it took an superior outside power framework to keep it in check. It took a federal law enforcement structure that was independent of the mafias graft influence in the local government and police to fight it. You are mistaken to equate communism with democracies. Communism is a system that invites unchecked power and abuse. And seldom relinquishes power without bloodshed. Communism has failed repeatedly in economies of scale. look at China before and after it's conversion to its present structure. The old was pure communism with tens of millions dead from repeated famines, the new is a hybrid with no internal or external social or political balance to the governments authority. This new creature will be interesting to watch, can it evolve as its people adjust to a life of great wealth for some and 19th century living and working conditions for others? Maybe they can elect someone that shares their concerns. Oh, I forgot their communist.

Isn't it strange how the world has changed. Back around 1970 when I was around 9-10 my best friends were two brothers whose parents kept their son's 22's, a 30-06 and a 30-30 on an open rack with the ammo in an unlocked drawer below its lower shelf. The guns hung on the boy's wall between there beds. They were taken down many times by them and passed around to me and others for inspection. Around that time I had achieved a pinnacle in my cannon development, the 5 previous had led up to this copper beauty. It was made from the arm of an industrial spot welder my dad had scraped. It possessed all of the refinements that the previous 5 cannon had revealed through many firings over several years in my parents 3/4+ acre suburban backyard. This had the improved breach formed of silver solder, the earlier model used lead that blew out the back after a half dozen shots. It had a tapered barrel that I had turned down using a drill press retooled as a makeshift lathe. We loaded it like the others with powder from too many black cats to count, pushed in a cotton ball, packed it with a Lincoln log and slide a sawed off piece of outboard motor drive shaft down the barrel. We set it out where all the others had fired, pointed at the shed with a scrap wood pile at its side. The large stack of mixed lumber with 7-8 sheets of plywood leaning against it was our back-stop. The cannon looked small like the others had sitting in the green lawn on its wood block carriage. It's wheels, stolen from a model train undercarriage, sat on a section of track screwed to a piece of plywood. We knelt down and while my friend blocked the wind I lit the fuse borrowed from one of the many firecrackers. We turned and ran like hell. We ran to the back of the yard spun around and dropped prone watching for the two foot long plumb that announced in moments it would fire. The boom was huge. The discharge of smoke went half way to the target, you could see the plywood compress then bounce forward. As we jumped up the neighbors door opened, I enjoyed that look he and the others gave me when I did this. The projectile went through like a drill, leaving a ring of powder burnt slivers radiating out from the hole centers. After clearing the plywood it sawed through a 2x4 and halved the 1x4 that was on top of it. Besides the many cannon there was later crossbows, a flame thrower that shot 25-30 feet, a BB machine gun hooked to an industrial air compressor, it's rate of fire made an MG-42 look like a muzzle loader and many other none dangerous but still entertaining projects. This industrial childhood I lived was driven by a desire to build and invent not to needlessly destroy or harm. I did these things because making things blowup is dangerous and to a kid like I was that was fun. Anyone up for Bomb camp?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria The modern Syrian state was established after the First World War as a French mandate, and represented the largest Arab state to emerge from the formerly Ottoman-ruled Arab Levant. It gained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic. The post-independence period was tumultuous, and a large number of military coups and coup attempts shook the country in the period 1949–1971. Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt, which was terminated by a military coup. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.[7] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971.[8] On 6 September 2007, Israeli jet fighters carried out Operation Orchard against a suspected nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean technicians.[52] In November 1956, as a direct result of the Suez Crisis, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, providing a foothold for Communist influence within the government in exchange for military equipment. And the cold war continuous as we fight the same "ruthless corrupt nepotistic one party rule" of the new face of our old adversary. Those bullets and tanks now killing Syrians are made in a Russia that is ran by a former KGB director.

This should help you in your studies. This phenomena almost completely involves one directional movement over the deglaciation period as the crust and mantle find equilibrium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level. .... both postglacial rebound and past tectonics play important roles in today's intraplate earthquakes in eastern Canada and southeast USA. Generally postglacial rebound stress could have triggered the intraplate earthquakes in eastern Canada and may have played some role in triggering earthquakes in eastern USA including the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811.

Anytime a large mass like an ice sheet is removed quickly, such as during this current inter-glacial warming, there is the expectation that the crust below will rebound and in doing so produce seismic events. The North Pole is in the Arctic Ocean so we have to limit a simple model to the North American continent and that I believe would slowly rebound due to the ice melting. The other end in the south I would agree should show a negative elevation adjustment in accordance to the mantle depressurizing and readjusting for the crust's new displacement requirements. I don't see how you can choose such a narrow window for an event such as this, being this melting/rebound began at the end of the last glacial period and continues to this day.

Your welcome, I've missed all of your encouragement from up in "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" Where did you disappear to? I originally posted this in the climate Science section in response to this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74977-reasons-not-to-worry-climate-change-debate/page-2 And more specifically this post below. overtone Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:20 PM Quote Correlationplus demonstrated mechanism plus dozens of generated hypotheses solidly supported plus absence of contradictory findings plus absence of alternative hypotheses [unquote] I believe I can challenge those statements in red, but not in that existing thread. I need to initially post a larger amount to make my case, but that would have been thread hijacking, correct? Everyone would not have appreciated me posting this amount of content on the thread. I assumed putting it within sight of that thread was a better idea. Well, it doesn't matter now I'm here in Speculations a long way from there. So if anyone who is or has posted up there in; "Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)" this is a challenge to the absence of contradictory findings and the absence of alternative hypotheses.

Communist don't like to share power, its there way or your in prison or dead. North Korea, China, Cambodia, Soviets Union and even their little puppets like Castro never allowed/allow dissent. Take what they give you and don't complain. Take the Soviets for example, there schools taught their politic,their medical was meager for the masses but the leaders seemed to have the best from the west, their industries cranked out the worst junk ever made. Quality control procedures for critical systems like the space program were interesting though, a nice apartment by their standards and the threat of merely loosing it on the low side to getting the gulag or shot for a mishap like an accident. No wonder alcoholism on the job was so widespread. It was as close to Hebert Spencer's "survival of the fittest", if by fittest you mean a ruthless corrupt nepotistic one party rule. A truly tragic period in human history.

O.K. here it is. Could a moderator please move this to the top of the thread if possible. Thank you, arc Abstract This hypothesis regards the current understanding of atmospheric variability. The best science available has been focused primarily on several different forcing agents. The most recent warming trend that began around 1850 +/- has been attributed to anthropological CO2 emissions. The longer record going back to the beginning of the Holocene is highly varied in temperature with ice core records showing both gradual and sudden temperature swings in both directions. Currently there does not seem to be a single model that can account for the warming that categorizes the beginning of the current inter-glacial, the rapid temperature reversals of the Younger Dryes, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and other historic climate phenomena that it can be applied to. Not to mention the controversial warming of the last century and a half. There has been difficulty in securing a single forcing agent that can be linked to the variations seen in historic climate records. This has resulted in a complicated climate formula of solar iridescence, fresh water flows that shut down the thermohaline, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and many other theoretical mechanisms to solve the current climate variation puzzle. I believe the simplest solution is likely the most accurate. The most obvious straight forward solution with the least number complexities should be the most accurate at predicting the multiple observations seen in the climate record. This model proposes a thermal forcing agent derived from the strain energy of the Earth’s mantle as it is displaced by an outer core's thermal variability. This thesis will show in a practical manner a logical reexamination of previous research to provide a new perspective into this sometimes contentious subject. The thesis will also provide a new level of predictive resolution to historic climate variability.

I don't want to start a debate or hear a rehash about the bad things we did while we fought communism. I'm sure everyone we hurt in that fight would be justified to blame us. But the west did not operate with malice as a core value. After WW2 we liberated western Europe, communists "liberated" what became the Soviet eastern block. Estimates are they killed 40-60 million of there own "comrades" inside and outside the soviet central. Without the west's solid counter action to this ruthless "survival of the fittest" politic, this self feeding environment gulags and forced labor of tens of millions of innocent captives would have continued unchecked. Does anyone want to imagine what would have happened if America would have been a continent of several dozen separate self interested countries similar to South America? arc

SORRY, I just get in the zone and don't know when to quit. Pretend that the first few paragraphs are the abstract. And it really is worth reading.

I believe I have found a link between the Sun and Earth’s magnetic field strength and climate history. I know what you’re thinking; crackpot. We’ll let me show you what I have and then we can judge it fairly.This hypothesis is related to my plate tectonic thread. If you have not read “Plate Tectonic Mechanism?“ you should familiarize yourself with posts # 4-8 before posting here to save time. It will introduce you to the concept and give weight to the possibilities of climate forcing from strain energy released from the mantle. I will briefly describe its basic outline to initiate this thread’s beginning. This NASA article is a good place to start. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth'sliquid 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 hypothesis simply requires that the amperage and temperature of 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 from extra infill or a long period of decrease in temperature, it 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. This is the most basic description of the electromagnetic/strain energy mechanism. If it does not seem to be a viable source for this thesis please read http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/ to familiarize you to this highly accurate model of a plate tectonic mechanism. If you are in need of additional proof of its predictive power please go to my profile page to access my plate tectonic site for a comprehensive explanation. I hope the highly accurate predictive quality of the observations will be satisfactory to most critics. The strain energy imposed on the mantle will increase with distance from its source of displacement at the outer core, with the crust mantle boundary producing the greatest amount energy from its surface tension release. This thermal energy should find its way to and through the crust and into the ocean that has a crustal contact area of some 68% of the Earth’s surface. This heat energy should have a signature in the ocean system. There should be a measurable change in thermal dependent phenomena such as the Global Ocean Conveyor and the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation. Can the solar magnetic variable be linked to a measured large scale ocean thermal anomaly? Let’s look at a solar magnetic valuation. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/ This is a Sept 23, 2008 article in NASA Science News website titled; Solar Wind Loses Power , Hits 50-year Low. “The Sun’s solar wind that has been measured since the early 1960’s, has lost since the mid 1990’s, 3 percent of its speed. The change in pressure comes from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13 percent cooler and 20 percent less dense. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic field has weakened by more than 30 percent since the mid 90’s”. A 30% decrease in solar magnetic field strength since mid 90’s. Now let’s look at an ocean thermal metric. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04385.html On Dec 1st, 2005, A Prof. Bryden and his colleagues reported in Nature that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) seems to have weakened by about 30 percent in the last decade. O.K. A 30% decrease in magnetic field strength since the mid 90’s correlated to a 30% decrease in ocean conveyor output in the same time period. What do other’s think about this research. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/full/439256a.html 19 January 2006, Nature, News Feature article titled; Climate change: A sea change by Quirin Schiermeier; Article details reactions to the Bryden results. Points made bySchiermeier include the following: - The results are a surprise to scientists in the field. - Modeling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years; this is hard to reconcile with the Bryden measurements. Maybe Prof. Bryden is wrong, it looks like a complicated system to measure. Maybe there’s more data? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049801.shtml 12/24/2011; Observation of decadal change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation using 10 years of continuous transport data. Matthias Lankhorst Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA Torsten Kanzow Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany This report presents the first observational record of MOC measurements that is continuous and sufficiently long to exhibit decadal-scale changes, here a decrease by 20% over the observational period (Jan. 2000–June 2009) Recently, some numerical model simulations have produced results that show a weakening of the MOC since the 1990's and observational confirmation of this now is a high priority. That’s interesting, but not proof. I need to find more data that shows solar magnetic forcing. 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…… 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. Eight Bond events have been identified beginning about 11.5 thousand years ago and the last being the Little Ice Age that NASA's http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary defines; a cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals. GRAPH A http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf Image above courtesy of USGS GRAPH A This is a USGS graph from August 2000 showing carbon-14 or 14C content in tree rings going back in time 1,100 years. This is not a temperature proxy but a solar magnetic field energy level proxy, it is a count of the concentration, or lack thereof, of carbon-14 that has been measured in a chronological sampling of the individual seasonal rings of trees of similar growth characteristics. The tree ring content is at a specific value that is a measure of the atmospheric 14C. The 14C is a rare form of the three naturally occurring carbons, with 12C concentrations at 99%, 13C at 1% and 14C at trace amounts of 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) that make up the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 14C is derived from very high energy particles from space, oddly named 100+ years ago as cosmic rays. The fraction of 14C in each sample relative to the other two types of carbon (12C and 13C) gives comparative measure of the Sun's magnetic field strength at that specific point in the tree ring samples genesis. It illustrates the level, or amount of cosmic rays that can enter the Earth's magnetic field at that given period in time. When the Sun's magnetic field is in a period of increased solar flux, the cosmic rays are deflected at the far reaches of our solar system. But when the Sun's field is weaker the particles can enter the envelope of the solar magnetic field known as the heliosphere and travel into the orbits of the inner planets including Earth. When the Sun's field is weak the Earth's field responds in kind, allowing an increased amount of charged cosmic ray particles to enter the upper atmosphere where they are subjected to various transformations, including the production of neutrons that in turn become through additional reactions carbon-14. The 14C mixes into the atmosphere and undergoes one more process to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Plants and trees take up the carbon dioxide during photosynthesis incorporating the CO2 carbons 12C, 13C and the radioactive isotope 14C into its cellular structure. The 14C gives an extremely unique record of magnetic field variability. And I believe a way to analyze and solve the current unanswered questions surrounding the thermal forcing of the planet. The various maximums and minimums, Medieval or Maunder for example, on the graph were identified not as periods of high or low 14C, but as a high and low numerical count of sunspot content. This phenomenon is joined by the precise filtration that the Sun's varying magnetic field energy does to cosmic ray numbers. The graph shows this in their inverse values. The stronger the field is the lower the 14C count, and the weaker the field the higher the 14C. GRAPH B This graph and text created by Robert A. Rohde, who has no connection with this author or this paper, was provided through Wikipedia Creative Commons. GRAPH B This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b). In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland (Beer et al. 1994). Both of these proxies are related to solar magnetic activity. Sunspots are darker, cooler regions of the sun's surface associated with high magnetic flux. Higher numbers of sunspots indicate a more active sun with stronger and more complicated magnetic fields. The dominant change in sunspots reflects the quasi-11 year solar magnetic cycle. The quiet period observed from 1645 to 1710 is known as the Maunder Minimum and is associated with a near zero abundance of sunspots. Beryllium-10 is a cosmogenic isotope created in the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays. Because the flux of such cosmic rays is affected by the intensity of the interplanetary magnetic field carried by the solar wind, the rate at which Beryllium-10 is created reflects changes in solar activity. A more active sun results in lower beryllium concentrations (note inverted scale on plot). Since the atmospheric residence time for beryllium is not more than a few years, it is also possible to resolve the solar magnetic cycle in beryllium concentrations. *Beryllium measurements, such as these, are the best evidence that the solar magnetic cycle did not cease even during the period with no evident sunspots. The dark curves are 30 year averages of the data. *Now we can see that the solar magnetic field component may only be coupled to the sun spot mechanism during higher energy periods of field generation. GRAPH C E. Bard, G. M. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 453 (1997). GRAPH C Time series of the sunspot number as reconstructed from 10Be concentrations in ice cores from Antarctica (red) and Greenland (green). The corresponding profiles are bounded by the actual reconstruction results (upper envelope to shaded areas) and by the reconstructed values corrected at low values of the SN (sunspots)(solid curves) by taking into account the residual level of solar activity in the limit of vanishing SN (see Fig. 1). The thick black curve shows the observed group sunspot number since 1610 and the thin blue curve gives the (scaled) 14C concentration in tree rings, corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field [20]. The horizontal bars with attached arrows indicate the times of great minima and maxima [21]: Dalton minimum (Dm), Maunder minimum (Mm), Spo¨rer minimum (Sm), Wolf minimum (Wm), Oort minimum (Om), and medieval maximum (MM). The temporal lag of 14C with respect to the sunspot number is due to the long attenuation time for 14C. GRAPH D This is the same USGS graph with overlays by this author. The first thing I want to comment about is the vertical rise of the carbon-14 on the right side of the graph (remember 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 (shown below in graph E). In this model, carbon-14 (14C) and Beryllium-10 (10Be) are inverted to the magnetic field strength as a portion of the more stable and slower changing content of carbon-12 CO2 in the atmosphere. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in 14C content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux increasing in strength, and as Bond noted strengthening Earth’s field. This is mutual inductive coupling and according to this model, should produce the increased amperage noted in the above NASA article of Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Sun's varying field is the only mechanism controlling 14C and 10Be content and timing. This is straight forward and real clear. But what has the solar thermal radiation been doing during this time? If the solar thermal radiation dropped even .5% we would feel it in the climate cycle. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf Satellite radiometer measurements made over the last 20 years have shown that total solar irradiance varies 0.1 percent over one 11-year sunspot cycle, but that irradiance varies considerably with the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (Lean and others, 1995a). The variation of 0.1 percent in total solar irradiance over one sunspot cycle translates to a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5° to 1.0°C (Labitzke and van Loon, 1993). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age -hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels. "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis UNEP/GRID-Arendal. It looks like there is enough solar thermal radiation variability to account for historic cooling periods, 0.5 to 1.0 C for an 11 year cycle and the Little Ice Age's 1550-1850 cooling. But some research discounts this as viable forcing agent. A full-disk multiwavelength extreme ultraviolet image of the sun taken by SDO on March 30, 2010. False colors trace different gas temperatures. Reds are relatively cool (about 60,000 Kelvin, or 107,540 F); blues and greens are hotter (greater than 1 million Kelvin, or 1,799,540 F). Credit: NASA/Goddard/SDOAIA Team 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. If The variation of 0.1 percent in total solar irradiance over one sunspot cycle translates to a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5° to 1.0°C (Labitzke and van Loon, 1993). Then what does .2 produce? And could it have reduced energy for the little ice age? We have seen from the graphs and text above that solar thermal radiation variability may not be synchronized to the magnetic field component of the Sun. The next detail is that the actual historic temperature tracks with the solar magnetic energy level. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age show atmospheric temperature tracking the 14C (the solar magnetic proxy) in the graph. The current scientific explanation of this would be it is a coincidence. The 14C has an extraterrestrial causation of a radio isotope measured at 1 part per trillion, hard to see a forcing agent in that. All that is left to consider is the solar magnetic energy that regulates the 14C and 10Be is, through mutual inductive coupling is producing a varying amperage and thermal expansion in the Earth's outer core by which the mantle is displaced outward, releasing strain energy as heat. In this tele-connection the 14C and 10Be variation will track with and likely lead the ocean and atmospheric temperatures. GRAPH E GRAPH E Now I want to examine the question of why there is a vertical rise in the graphs C and D indicating the declining content of the 14C, a solar magnetic field proxy in graph D and the 10 Be, a sunspot proxy in graph C, that matches in timing the sharp rise in temperature shown in graph E. Current debate contends or refutes the sudden temperature rise in graph E is anthropological. The pro-anthropological side points to the fact that it coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, proposing a link between carbon release during fossil fuel burning and the current temperature anomaly. The carbon, in the form of CO2 gas, has increased in atmospheric content to levels that in various modeling produce "Greenhouse Warming". Current research shows atmospheric sensitivity to increases of the projected levels, which bolsters their argument. The counter argument I can make in accordance with this model is the 14C and 10Be in graphs C and D are declining (shown inverted) at the same rate that the temperature is climbing. And as shown, above, the solar magnetic field is always increasing in proportion to the 14C and 10Be decline in content, indicating the solar magnetic component in the graph is in a very strong higher energy level period. And as shown above, the temperature always tracks the 14C which is a proxy for the solar magnetic component. The 14C vertical rise (declining content) in graph D is shown at about 1950 (the most recent content measurement available) to be at or above the Medieval Warm Period level. This indicates to this citizen researcher that the solar magnetic field had been strengthening prior to this period, and through Mutual Inductive Coupling, the magnetic field generator of the Earth will respond with a thermal increase of strain energy heat released from the mantle that will following the 14C signal by a multi decadel delayed forcing of the ocean and then atmosphere. The increase of outer core amperage and concurrent core temperature rise produces a proportional increase of the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation and Global Ocean Conveyor (thermohaline) with concurrent increases in liberated ocean sequestered CO2.There is not an "anthropologic" solution to this extraterrestrial forcing by solar magnetic inductance with 14C and 10Be decline and temperature-CO2 increase synchronicity. There are many research papers on reconstructed CO2 records using stomatal frequency analysis of fossil leaves. This is one of them. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event. Friederike Wagner* †, Bent Aaby‡, and Henk Visscher* *Department of Botanical Palaeoecology, Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 4, 3584 CD, Utrecht,The Netherlands; and‡Botanical Institute, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, University of Copenhagen,Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark Communicated by David L. Dilcher, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 15, 2002 (received for review April 20, 2002) "To corroborate the concept of a coupling between recurrent Holocene cooling pulses and CO2 fluctuations, we document stomatal frequency data that constrain timing and magnitude of CO2 shifts associated with the prominent 8.2-ka-B.P. cooling event. . . . . The reconstructed CO2 record shows a fluctuating pattern (Fig. 2). Inferred CO2 minima with averages of 275 ppm by volume (ppmv) occur at 8,680 years B.P. and between 8,430 and 8,040 years B.P.; prominent maxima with values of 300–325 ppmv occur at 8,640 years B.P. . . . . In effect, there seems to be every indication that the occurrence of Holocene CO2 fluctuations is more consistent with current observations and models of past global temperature changes than the common notion of a relatively stable CO2 regime until the onset of the Industrial Revolution." There is correlation to thermal increases in this revising of historic CO2 content that is showing variability. This research shows CO2 at 300-325 ppmv and as always, it follows behind temperature rise. If we look at a longer time span record; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html GRAPH F GRAPH F The Younger Dryas is the 800 pound gorilla of the climate warming record since the end of the last glacial period. Here's the facts; brief (1,300 ± 70 years) period of glacial conditions and drought. Mean annual temperature in the U.K. dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F) The rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere was sudden and brief, proving difficult to solve due to both rapidity and duration with mechanisms such as solar thermal radiation flux, solar orbital flux, bi-polar see-saw, or even a shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" by large glacial sourced fresh water fluxes that are unable to provide adequate rapid energy fluxes on what looks like 1,470 year periodicities. A CO2 greenhouse forcing would seem impossible. http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/marchal01epsl_42277.pdf Atmospheric radiocarbon during the Younger Dryas: production, ventilation, or both? Olivier Marchala; *a, Thomas F. Stocker a, Raimund Muscheler b a. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland b. Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, Uë berlandstrasse 133, P.O. Box 611, CH-8600 Du«bendorf, Switzerland Received 16 August 2000; received in revised form 5 December 2000; accepted 13 December 2000 The second feature in the Cariaco basin 14C record not replicated by our model is the rapidity of the 14C atm (atmospheric) increase at the onset of the YD. Almost all available high-resolution 14C data for the AllerÖd/YD boundary show a rapid age decline (14C increase) from ~10.8^11.0 14C kyr BP to ~10.6 14C kyr BP (see [16] and references therein). This decline is, to our opinion, very important and it would be very valuable to be able to model it. "rapidity of the 14C atmospheric increase at the onset of the Younger Dryas." I suspect this rapid increase during the beginning of Younger Dryas of 14C indicates the solar magnetic field, being the forcing agent, switched to a lower energy level in what according to the model would be a collapse of the solar magnetic field. The field strength reversal would of course lead the atmospheric 14C increase by 20 to 60 years. A detectable sudden increase in the proxy would likely indicate an even faster, or more properly termed abrupt, change to lower energy by the forcing agent. Can the Mutual Inductive Coupling of the Sun's and Earth's field generators really produce rapid ocean temperature increases and decreases? This phenomenon requires a high temperature fluid mechanism connected to a large dominating volumetric heat capacity of a planetary scale that can respond to and transport quickly the sudden changes in the Earth's field generator's temperature. GRAPH G 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 are limited by the current standard model to solar variability as the only possible cause. I think their close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century" GRAPH H Base graph courtesy of NASA GRAPH H This is not a coincidence; the current standard model of the solar system is missing an important piece of the planetary thermodynamic process involving solar magnetic forcing of the planets that possess magnetic fields. The solar magnetic inductance of the Earth's core and the heating of the Earth's interior influence the surface temperature records that are shown in these graphs. You have seen an explicit series of research that show solar magnetic coupling to Earth surface temperatures that have no explanation by way of the current standard model. You have seen the solar magnetic field strength represented in two separate proxies, C14 and 10Be, that are a match not only in timing but also in proportion to the climate history of the last 1100+ years. There is not a current model anywhere that can show a cause and effect of this period of Earth's climate history let alone one that includes the post Industrial warming currently being observed. From the Younger Dryas to the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age on to the current Modern Max the solar magnetic field flux has in timing and degree matched the Earth's surface temperature Flux history. "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". This statement gives me the chills (no pun intended). Take another look at graph G, do any of the other high solar magnetic activity periods look like they lasted very long. What currently worries me is the before mentioned NASA article; "the Sun’s magnetic field has weakened by more than 30 percent since the mid 90’s" and the 2005 article "Prof. Bryden and his colleagues reported in Nature that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) seems to have weakened by about 30 percent in the last decade". The lead time for those two causative events have put us down the road almost 20 years so we could start seeing some effects any time, and I suspect the last few unusually cold winters may be the beginning of the new normal.

Tim, nature requires that all processes be done with a "conservation of energy", the efficiency law built into every atom in the universe. I am not a physicist and should stay away from the complexities of that field. But I know that you will not find in nature any unneeded mechanisms and processes, nature seeks to find equilibrium and balance throughout its domain and does so expending as little energy as is required to do the job. With that in mind, my theory if correct should describe in simple terms the least number of energy transfers or conversions needed to explain completely the observed phenomena. The inclusion of extra or complicated mechanisms to bridge inconsistencies in the thesis is an indication that the concept is inaccurate at the very least to completely wrong if it requires a string of complicated and/or numerous mechanisms, most being below surface, unseen and only imagined. This NASA article is a good place to start. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy. This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. 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. That's it, 179 words. Plain and simple with everything based on the most basic principles of thermodynamics. Tim, do you see any place you need to insert a current or convection cell? A rotating fluid or thick magma? You should work out your model, find someone to help you with the complex maths and physics and see if it can provide predictions of observations. I am satisfied that I have been accurate in my model, its simplicity is in a way a validation. I will change it very little except to describe it more clearly, such as when studiot helped me with the correct terminology of strain energy, sharpening my thesis' cutting edge so to speak. arc

The inner core was always thought to be solid, but now with better resolution the inner core appears to be in two distinct zones of "seismic anisotropy and texturing of iron crystals within the inner core". The inner core has previously been believed to be surrounded by the molten iron outer core that is associated to the field generator. This has not changed, this new discovery is concerning the inner core and a new inner-inner core. From what I can deduct it is not physically separate, i.e. rotating or moving independently. It looks to be involving the anisotrophy or preferred alignment of its interior structures to seismic waves. I have raised the question of whether the seismic anisotrophy could be aligned with or associated to an electrical anisotrophy. The physical structuring "composed of iron crystals of a single phase with different degrees of preferred alignment along Earth's spin axis" is an interesting feature. Can it be associated or even modeled to the field generators performance as in suppression of eddy currents? The tremendous heat and pressure seen in the OP has contributed no-doubt to this 'different phase of crystalline iron" ​but could also the electric field and current involving the field generator be a contributor in its early development? Could the current high temperature be caused by eddy currents? This is a fascinating discovery in deep Earth science. arc

Tim, Most analogies used to explain physical similarities between two examples have limits that increasingly tests the analogies validity as the analogy is forced. Your use of ice could be used to bolster or refute my thesis based on the accurate applications of the physical properties involved. One of the key factors in my thesis is the curvature of the Earth and the loading of gravitational potential energy in the form of the mass of the crust. I would use a different analogy to explain this. When a bridge is designed to span a distance and the particulars do not call for center supports the span if not to great can be accomplished by a simple curved deck fitted between to immovable abutments. This is the mechanism that is at play in my thesis. The crustal plates are the curved deck loaded with its own mass that will dissipate its energy as movement into the abutments on either end. As the mantle recedes, incrementally loading energy into the crust's raised mass, the energy will divert as kinetic movement into the trenches and mountains as the gravitational potential energy dissipates. Trenches and mountains are simply compression relieving devices, just as the mid-ocean ridges, aka divergent plate boundaries, are a tension releasing device. Your analogy is missing this key component and therefore is a weak example of the physics involved. arc The current movement of North America is due to the mantle's displacement of the crust through slow thermal expansion, allowing magma to incrementally fill the tension releasing mechanism of the divergent plate boundary as it is moved apart. This slow expansion is happening concurrently with the various rates of subduction in some trenches as the larger plates are still unloading their compression from the earlier mantle contraction period. There is no large scale displacement or mountain build during during this time. Just movement as the crust adjusts to equalize crustal energies. Additional and large scale subduction is during the contraction portion of the cycle when the gravitational potential energy in the crust is incrementally unloaded as kinetic movement into the trenches and more importantly mountain complexes. Tim, the validity of a thesis is in its ability to predict observations. This is where your thesis will live or die.

http://www.geology.illinois.edu/people/xsong/Sites/papers/sun_song08_epsl.pdf Geologists Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song at the University of Illinois have confirmed the discovery of Earth's inner, innermost core, and have created a three-dimensional model that describes the seismic anisotropy and texturing of iron crystals within the inner core. What they found was a distinct change in the inner core anisotropy, clearly marking the presence of an inner inner core with a diameter of about 1,180 kilometers, slightly less than half the diameter of the inner core. The layering of the core is interpreted as different texturing, or crystalline phase, of iron in the inner core, the researchers say. "Our results suggest the outer inner core is composed of iron crystals of a single phase with different degrees of preferred alignment along Earth's spin axis," Sun said. "The inner inner core may be composed of a different phase of crystalline iron or have a different pattern of alignment." Images and lower text Credit: Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/IRIS Consortium Above left. Displays of the two-alignment model of inner core texturing, viewing from the North Pole (a) and along Meridians 40o and 220o (b), 100o and 280o ©, and 160o and 340o (d). The outer circle and the inner core circle (dotted) indicate the ICB (Inner core boundary) and the radius of 590 km, respectively. The dashed line in the western hemisphere of topmost inner core marks the region where anisotropy increases sharply with depth. (a) The circles and pluses indicate the fractions of polar alignment (f1) and equatorial alignment (f2) of the iron crystal's fast axis, respectively. The symbol size is proportional to the fraction. (b–d) The line segments indicate the fractions of polar and equatorial alignments. I see similarities to the laminated iron sheets of transformer cores. In transformers each sheet is separated by a very thin non-conducting thermally insulating material. The lamination's are for suppressing Eddy currents, whereas cores that are solid iron are prone to development of Eddy currents. The electric currents induced in conducting materials within the cores, when exposed to changing magnetic field flux such as in AC transformers, are due to relative motion of the field source or due to variations of the field with time. This can cause a circulating current within the body of the core. These circulating eddies of current have inductance and can therefore induce magnetic fields. These fields can cause repulsive, attractive, propulsion and drag effects. The stronger the applied magnetic field, or the greater the conductivity of the core, or the faster the magnetic field changes in time, then the greater the currents that are developed and the greater the fields produced. Eddy currents circulate within the core in a plane normal to the flux, and are responsible for resistive heating of the core material. The efficiency of the magnetic field is dependent on keeping Eddy currents to a minimum. Larger transformers rated for electricity distribution are generally more efficient, they control Eddy current losses through insulating the laminated iron plates, cooling through oil bath and cooling fins. They usually perform better than 98%. Seismic anisotropy is an indicator of directional symmetry such as layers and even crystals that have detectable alignments. Significant seismic anisotropy has been detected in the Earth's inner core. Geological materials can exhibit electrical anisotropy; electrical conductivity in one direction is more efficient than another and can be measured and compared. This characteristic is used in the oil and gas industry to locate reserves; the instruments measure this conductivity/resistivity difference. The seismic anisotropy of the iron core is most likely congruent with electrical anisotropy and considering the possibility of enormous “crystalline iron” structuring it would be a significant contributor to the success of an efficient magnetic field generator in preventing eddy currents. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy. This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. This currently developing magnetic field generator model of Xinlei Sun and Xiaodong Song looks significantly more complex than the one in that film I watched back in 1974 in 7th grade science. arc

I may have misunderstood your model. I understand that the weight of the crust moving over the one being subducted is what is supplieing the force to push the lower one down into the mantle Tim, that is not my model. You need to read posts 4-8. This is the main context of #4; Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. A fraction of a degree over millions of years. I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise. Now what would you expect from the mantle? Do you think it could contain the molecular level expansion forces of the core's liquid iron? The mantle is under extremely high pressures and temperatures especially the deeper you go. Would you think that it would move out a little making a little more room in its interior? Unlikely, I think in either model most would expect the mantle would show a reflex at its outer boundary. But how much? I would think it would resemble the current seafloor spreading metrics. So lets say this continues over a couple of million years building up a nice little slice of new divergent plate infill in the worlds entire divergent inventory. Now we start into that lower level part of the cycle with the core going down a fraction of a degree over millions of years. As the liquid iron 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 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 neat is happening here tho, 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; 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, being 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 to 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. Again, go to my profile page and then go to my Plate Tectonic site that's listed there. You will see the predictive power that this simple mechanism gives to geology. I think you may find some answers here- http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72123-is-there-heat-generation-at-the-center-of-the-earth/

Tim the plumber Posted Today, 01:12 AM Google says that the density of the earth's crust is 2.7 to 3 and the mantle is 3.3 to 5.7. The crust will not fall into the mantle. It will float upwards if it's in it. Something is driving the plates into and over each other that is not the crust falling down into the earth. Tim we may be on the wrong track on this. I located another thread; Density and Seismic Velocity Started by OSHMUNNIES, Aug 30, 2011 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59526-density-and-seismic-velocity/ "density and seismic velocity inversely proportional to one another" - OSHMUNNIES http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/density_and_seismic_velocity The Answer!...? Fri, 09/09/2011 - 02:00 OSHMUNNIES posted on this site and gave a better explanation of the phenomena. After discussing this with my geophysics prof., I've learned that although seismic velocity and rock density may be inversely proportional in mathematical theory, they don't actually have that relationship anywhere in nature. - OSHMUNNIES OK, I think were back on track. But what you want to discuss is extremely complex, there are so many variables that I don't believe I have the proper educational back ground to navigate it successfully. Tim, do you feel that my model does not provide a viable solution to subduction in using the raised crustal mass to drive the subducting plate into the resistive mantle? This is a very efficient mechanism, vary simple with more than enough force and more importantly traction, to overcome the resistance in the mantle and the friction during the plates movement down. A higher density in the mantle would not be an issue with this level of gravitational potential energy as the engine. And remember if the kinetic movement exceeds the trenches rates of resistance, the energy will be diverted into the building of mountain structures. Go back and read the beginning of this thread post # 4,5,6,7,8. arc Tim, can you elaborate a little on this hypothesis? How does the mechanism move the plates? Is there subduction?

It is probably a common human shortcoming to subconsciously or even consciously insert one's prejudices into one's work, or one's criticism's of other's works. It is likely that those who have studied ancient civilizations have idealize these societies through a lens colored with their own "inflections" of analytic thought. It would be a challenge not to get caught up in the grandeur of ancient civilizations like Egypt or those of Pre-Columbian Americas. Consider, in the case of 18th through early 20th century Egyptologists who were predisposed from an early age to romantic literature of travel and historical fiction. But these influences pale when compared to what the new age pseudoscience and science fiction industries has shadowed over these cultures, blinding a generation of armchair skeptics to logic and a preponderance of evidence. Would it not seem logical that at least one glyph in a tomb or on a monument or one of the scores of papyrus would show a reference to what would be for any culture an Earth shaking encounter between two worlds? Would it not inspire an entire generation of witnesses of a literate society to reproduce in writing, art, science and architecture (besides stone) an extensive historical before and after? And would it not show the cultural shock of the event to these societies? arc

During the late 18th and 19th centuries a British citizen could get the historical equivalent. A one way trip to a desolate colony located for all intents and perposes as far from home as geographically possible. Oh, and it wasn't voluntary either. arc

Hi Tim, These are the speeds that shock waves such as those generated by earthquakes can travel through the various material layers. The denser the material the faster the speeds. Sand would be slow, while basalt (ocean crust) or granite (continental crust) would be substantially faster. It looks to me that even though the mantle's material is a higher temperature with a plastic nature as compared the overlying or subducting crust, it maintains a higher seismic velocity. According to the image, the mantle shows the highest seismic velocities which leaves me to conclude it has the highest density. Would the current model require the crust to overcome this differential through hanging enough mass over the edge to create gravitational pull? Gravity driven kinetics would have to overcome both the friction of the extended crust section, which may be as wide as the Pacific, and the resistance of the mantles greater density to the subducting crust's intrusion. The current models gravity mechanism would need sizable intrusion to produce the gravitational energy needed, yet it seems the melting away of the subducted crust would be needed to overcome the density problem of allowing movement of the crust into the trench. As I mentioned before I do not possess the math skills to properly express this phenomena but my intuition tells me there is something wrong with the current models explanation of this. arc

Hello SPACE_LEMON; I think you need to relate your "complexity unit" to a capacity framework. As to how much a system could handle before failing. Or more general, one with a scale measuring overall poor design. To me complexity is a measure of failing to maintain or to stay within the parameters of an efficient system. As seen in most multi-generational systems like cities, large factory complexes, some theories, and most societies. Complexity usually requires more people, energy, room, downtime and may include excessive noise, vibration, and overall dissatisfaction of all those involved. The "unit of measure" could be anything loosely related to these examples. A lack of quality? Maybe just a calibrated scale moving away from Simple. It almost always takes a highly intelligent person to find a complex solution to a difficult problem. While occasionally an average person finds the simple solution that is its superior. Maybe it should be measured in I.Q.? ARC

Hi again Mike; This is some of post 10 and gives a starting point of how ocean crust is built at divergent centers. (think of them as expansion joints) During a period of thermal increase the crust is required to continually move independent of the mantle to release what are primarily tension stresses. The Atlantic for example has two opposing continentally attached ocean crust sections that are slowly and incrementally being separated by the expanding mantle. This is simply a very large tension relieving mechanism that back-fills with magma. During each thermal cycle the width of the plates is continually increasing from the magma infill, as it has since their creation during the break-up of the super-continent. As it does this, the continually increasing tension from the drag or friction of that additional material imposes proportionally increasing tension stresses at the continental ends of the ocean plates. Eventually, when the plates are maybe twice as wide, the ocean plates will fracture from that tensional stresses, adjacent to where they meet the continents. These new stress fractures will begin the process of becoming subduction zones during the following contraction portions of the cycles, and will develop trenches with depths proportionate to the drag created by the ever growing plates. The Pacific Plate and its now subducted twin the Farallon likely began in this manner. The Pacific Plate succumbed to this tension stress, probably shortly after the creation of what is now the oldest seafloor in the Pacific at maybe 180+ MYA. These ocean plates eventually get over ridden on one end and subducted on the other, imposing tensional forces that create structures like the Mariana Trench and the Basin and Range and developing stress relieving mechanisms such as the San Andreas Fault. This give and take of the thermal cycle will continue until the two opposing and closing continents meet, forming once again a combined continental structure. So the continents seem to be the longer lasting of the two crusts, and generate the seafloor anytime a rift is developed from thermal expansion. As the continental sections separate seafloor is created, as they come together seafloor is destroyed, sometimes taking a little continental crust with it. But that is replaced there or somewhere else by an accretionary wedge of crustal deposits that add to continental land mass like the Himalayas, Alps or anywhere else an ocean basin is bulldozed up onto or under the continental edge. A lot of the accretionary wedge material is the sedimentary outflow of river systems, so the material is just recycled continental material anyway. All the while, volcanic processes rebuild volcanic mountain arcs like the Cascades of the western U.S. and the central Andes, continually restoring their continental inventory. arc