Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Mike Smith Cosmos · August 3, 2013

OK, several things to set straight here. ..........................

I swear I just heard a large round of applause for that great speech ! Or was it the sound of that humungous . ginormous hammer getting up steam for a 'ONE SHOT '

Edited August 3, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

arc · September 8, 2013

Speculation! I take exception to that. The difference between a speculative argument and a theory is that the theory makes accurate predictions. This hypothesis has very accurate predictive qualities. Let me show you.

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

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 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.

How does this match observations? The Pacific divergent plate boundary expands more than the Atlantic's does. But why? Shouldn't they expand the same if the crust is being pushed out by the mantle. The answer is seen in a simple thought experiment that I use to illustrate the solution. Imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable. The other end a short distance away unconnected.

Now we can apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree. Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement. This is an accurate prediction using this model.

When the field generator's cycle changes to a lower amperage the process reverses to a slow contraction in the mantle 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. Cycles that are widely spaced can result in extra infill which in conjunction with a long decrease in core temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement. The resulting increased crustal movement and compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes. There is currently not any other hypotheses or even theory that can offer a clear and direct mechanism for mountain structures even close to this.

It also provides answers for the processes involved in Island arcs, deep ocean trenches, the Basin and Range Area, the San Andrea's Fault and continental break-up and collisions. It even provides a mechanism for the large scale flood basalt events like the Deccan and Siberian Traps.

This is hypothesis is much more than mere speculation.

The largest volcano on Earth, and possibly the solar system, may have been discovered;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130905-tamu-massif-shatsky-rise-largest-volcano-oceanography-science/

"A volcano the size of New Mexico or the British Isles has been identified under the Pacific Ocean, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) east of Japan, making it the biggest volcano on Earth and one of the biggest in the solar system."

The article describes the structure, called Tamu Massif, as a shield volcano like Mauna Loa in Hawaii, a rounded dome measuring approximately 450 by 650 kilometers (280 by 400 miles), 292,500 square km in area. The peak is about 2,000 m (6,500 ft) below the surface, while the base extends down to about 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) deep.

It is located at the boundary of three tectonic plates. Which makes it fit my hypothesis perfectly.

"My hypothesis 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 mantle's circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension."

This would allow the molten magma to make it's way to the surface at a divergent plate boundary where, by the way, the crust is thinnest. According the model this would be a period of higher magnetic field strength, increasing the molten cores temperature and resulting in more extension of the crustal plates by the thermal displacement of the mantle. This is similar to the formation of other large scale flood basalt events such as the Deccan and Siberian Traps.

It's important to define this mechanism. It is directly proportional to the thermal expansion of the outer core's molten iron, which itself is proportional to the magnetic field's increase in strength. The distance the plates are separated or more properly retracted is what is proportional and resultant of those values. It is simply that the wider the plates are separated the more magma can flow out. A junction of three plates makes for an even more efficient aperture through which magma can flow out in large volumes.

So the model simply states that the larger the plates, the plates with the largest or widest expanses, will be proportionally separated at divergent plate boundaries in greater and proportional degrees to the smaller plates, thus explaining the volumes of these basaltic outflows.

"Imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable. The other end a short distance away unconnected. Now we can apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree. Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement."

The current divergent plate boundary metrics observed, the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year and the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year, are indicative that the energy level that now produces the expansion of the crust is less than that which produced the Tamu Massif and which is itself even smaller than the energy level that produced the Deccan and Siberian Traps.

Had there been an even larger field strength during the Deccan and Siberian Traps events the continents may have separated and created a new divergent plate boundary. There is always a subsequent ocean that would follow over time as the nascent mid ocean ridge grows and extends the new continental shelf on either side of the new rift. This is how the Atlantic formed and all other divergent boundaries found in ocean or continental locations.

Edited September 8, 2013 by arc

KrisMiss · September 14, 2013

Wow, this thread is extremely interesting, i definetly plan on jumping into this, but i think i need to catch up to you guys first! any good links/pages anyone could recommend for a novice with basic (college) education about geosciences? im a CE with a good grasp on advanced mathematics and love geosciences! id love to expand my knowledge here!

arc · September 14, 2013

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.

KrisMiss · September 14, 2013

lol! you felt the universe get closer huh? love it! well, its a bit too late, im already a recruit...u know us engineers, once we sink our teeth in its all over! i have to admit you write beautifully, but i know i definetly want to make sure i read your thesis and give it the time it obvioulsy deserves. just from what ive read do far seems very intuitive and impressive to me. I want to make sure i comprehend it completely you have so many great ideas, i see a lot of potential for real life applications that are exciting! cant wait to dig in some more! (after doing a bit of a brush up on my geosciences of course!) and i'll def see if Ophiolite has some good advice for me.

-Your excited "new recruit" Kristen

studiot · September 26, 2013

ARC, you may find that this book of interest is obtainable from your university library.

Geophysical Geodesy : The slow deformation of the Earth

By K Lambeck

Oxford University Press

arc · September 27, 2013

ARC, you may find that this book of interest is obtainable from your university library.

Geophysical Geodesy : The slow deformation of the Earth

By K Lambeck

Oxford University Press

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

Ophiolite · October 10, 2013

I have not yet re-read the thread. Your argument, as I recall is that thermal expansion and contraction of the core as a consequence of variations in geomagnetic field strenght lead to expansion and contraction of the mantle that in turn cause plate tectonics to alternate between subduction and oceanic crustal generation.

If my understanding is correct, please state what phase we are in at present and how you reconcile the fact that both conditions are presently occuring and are measurable.

arc · October 11, 2013

Let's recap a little so everyone reading will be able to follow this discussion.

This NASA article is a good place to start. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now referring to your question; I think the entire plate matrix has a uneven distribution of compression which causes the observed subduction in some trenches while others have less, Aleutian for example, and others have what appears to be none. I believe there is currently not any observed subduction in the Mediterranean. The reason there is varying amounts of subduction is due to the large difference in the plate sizes and masses. The model provides a means to preload the entire plate matrix simultaneously.

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

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

In my model this would indicate that the subduction lags behind the expansion portion of the cycle. It takes longer for the plates to melt into the asthenosphere than it does to create the infill that leverages the plate into the trench. So the answer to why is there some subduction happening now?, would be because not all of the plate compression (probably the largest ones) has bled out into the trenches before this current expansion cycle started.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 11, 2013 by arc

Mike Smith Cosmos · October 11, 2013

Hi arc

I have just read through this summary, of your theory. It is really packed with information. If you really believe this to be true ,as you clearly demonstrate, you do.

You ought to turn it into a cartoon style video. Say, starting with the sun as the source, going right through plate movements to mountain building.

I think people would follow it better and not give up with geographical mental exhaustion in the process.

Just a suggestion!

Mike

Ophiolite · October 11, 2013

Hi arc

I have just read through this summary, of your theory. It is really packed with information. If you really believe this to be true ,as you clearly demonstrate, you do.

You ought to turn it into a cartoon style video. Say, starting with the sun as the source, going right through plate movements to mountain building.

I think people would follow it better and not give up with geographical mental exhaustion in the process.

Just a suggestion!

Mike

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, I may not have been clear. NO!

Arc is proposing a mechanism, based on scientific observation and employing - to a degree - the scientific method. Half the nutters on the internet have you-tube videos and animations and are incapable of stringing together a sequence of two logical thoughts. Arc, though he may well be wrong, is proceeding in the correct manner. Mike, I love your enthusiasm, more than that I am occassionally inspired by it, but at this stage going down that route would be a bad idea.

M

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

The geomagnetic field is very complex. Our attempts to simulate it - and thus confirm we have a comprehensive understanding of it - have been only partially successful thus far. I am unaware of any research that demonstrates conclusively that an increase of field strength at the surface must be accompanied by and a consequence of an increase of field strength in the core. Indeed, as I understand the consensus the reverese is true. You need to address this, or your hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

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

1. You need to demonstrate quantitatively that the increased heat generated in the core cannot be carried away through convection fast enough to limit temperature increases to an irrelevant level.

2. The heat transferred by any means from the interior of the Earth is orders of magnitude less than that necessary to induce any climatic effect. The total heat flow from the planet in ayear could melt a global layer of ice less than 1cm thick. On this point you are irredeemably wrong.

I'll respond, over time, to the other paragraphs, most of which contain either fatal errors, or highly questionable interpretations.

Mike Smith Cosmos · October 11, 2013

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, I may not have been clear. NO!

Arc is proposing a mechanism, based on scientific observation and employing - to a degree - the scientific method. Half the nutters on the internet have you-tube videos and animations and are incapable of stringing together a sequence of two logical thoughts. Arc, though he may well be wrong, is proceeding in the correct manner. Mike, I love your enthusiasm, more than that I am occassionally inspired by it, but at this stage going down that route would be a bad idea.

oops! Sorry!! Bad idea.

Its just ,I tend to think in pictures, and I get a little overloaded if I do not get out a pencil and start sketching down the concept.

eg This goes there ! so that must go there because! etc etc I think I was given a steam engine when I was too young.

. But I accept not everyone thinks this way.

Some people think in words! and

perish the thought some people think in maths aaaggghhh !

mike

studiot · October 11, 2013

I prefer to think in pints.

Mike Smith Cosmos · October 11, 2013

I prefer to think in pints.

beer.gif

Very funny !

arc · October 12, 2013

Hi arc

I have just read through this summary, of your theory. It is really packed with information. If you really believe this to be true ,as you clearly demonstrate, you do.

You ought to turn it into a cartoon style video. Say, starting with the sun as the source, going right through plate movements to mountain building.

I think people would follow it better and not give up with geographical mental exhaustion in the process.

Just a suggestion!

Mike

I'm sorry mike I know it is hard to follow. I struggle to give enough useful information without adding to much unneeded verbiage. Let me offer an analog in the form of a balloon or sphere made of a thick rubber material. It's material makes up 85% of the spheres volume. Yes, it has a very thick skin, actually thicker than its interior center space is wide, and it is now a dimensionally accurate model of the Earth's mantle. Now we are going to apply to the sphere's surface a thin coating of a brittle material, like maybe a plaster, to act as a surrogate crust. After the plaster has dried we can begin to simulate the dynamics of this model. Lets say this sphere has a hollow interior matching the volume of the outer core's, and we have furnish a hydraulic fluid into its space.

As we apply a minuscule outward displacement of the mantle the outside surface will be required to increase by a multiplied dimensional proportion to its thickness to compensate, in other words its outside surface will be required to increase by stretching. The thickness of the mantle is integral to furnishing the increased displacement from very small changes of outer core thermal expansion. This is a mechanical leverage device.

The thickness of the mantle is instrumental to the mechanical leverage that the mantle's displacement imposes on the crust. It can multiply the very small but almost infinite expansionary energy that exists at the molecular scale during thermal expansion of the outer cores molten iron, and convert it into much larger lateral kinetic movement that manifests in the crust at the surface. It is analogous to the mechanical advantage attained through the gear ratios of mechanical energy transfer systems.

The model releasing heat in its own accord is analogous to the mantle's strain energy response of thermal energy. A balloon or tire will do the same as it is inflated, the mantle is no different in this respect having gravity and its own viscosity to overcome through its displacement outward.

So our scale model mantle has increased in its surface area and caused the plaster crust to crack at locations of least resistance to the increasing tension, these cracks are analogous to the Earth's divergent plate boundaries relieving the tension from the outward displacing mantle. Now we are going to fill these cracks with plaster as they slowly diverge. This is analogous to the magma that flows into the mid-ocean ridges and fills the gap as it is created.

We will do this periodically until the gap, or in the Earth's case, the divergent plate boundaries have a sizable infill of new material in place. Now referring to our model mantle, we will release the hydraulic pressure of the outer core and watch as the mantle slowly recedes and the crust is loaded with increasing compression. The crust would normally follow the mantle down but can't due to the new infill, the crust will be slowly put into a state of ever increasing gravitational potential energy as its mass is put into compression not unlike that of a very flat roman arch.

If enough infill is in place the amount of raised mass will be forced to find a way to overcome the trenches. They have a determined maximum rate of subduction that cannot be overridden, it is dependent on the ocean plate melting into the asthenosphere to release this compression. As the compression builds the crust will be redirected upward. The mountain building periods are times that followed the accumulation of large deposits of divergent plate boundary material. The degree of mountain building is in direct proportion to the amount of infill material.

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

Mike, I hope this helps illustrate the thermo/mechanical dynamics of this model.

I find it easier to reverse engineer the Earth's geodynamics than to build onto an already tenuous model of convection currents and the now proposed mantle plumbs. The current model's complexities and lack of predictions makes it vulnerable to major revision by a simpler and more importantly accurate model that make numerous predictions of observable phenomena. That is this model's strength, and the current model's weakness.

1. You need to demonstrate quantitatively that the increased heat generated in the core cannot be carried away through convection fast enough to limit temperature increases to an irrelevant level.

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

Typical mantle convection speed is 20 mm/yr near the crust but can vary quite a bit. The small scale convection in the upper mantle is much faster than the convection near the core. A single shallow convection cycle takes on the order of 50 Million Years, though deeper convection can be closer to 200 Million Years.

As I mentioned in the previous post;

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

I would enjoy someone to express how much they like the current model, tell how it answers so many mysteries like the plaination that occurs before mountain ranges develop or the formation of mountain ranges themselves - both continental margin and the difficult to understand continental interior, the formation of divergent plate boundaries, the formation of convergent plate boundaries, the variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries, the Basin and Range area in the SW of N. America, the Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world, continental break-up, mid-ocean ridge offset faulting, Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts, formation of island arcs and why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant.

This model's strength is in its simplicity and in its ability to make predictions of observations in such simple and logical manner.

I am unaware of any research that demonstrates conclusively that an increase of field strength at the surface must be accompanied by and a consequence of an increase of field strength in the core. Indeed, as I understand the consensus the reverese is true. You need to address this, or your hypothesis falls at the first hurdle.

My conclusions are based primarily on the necessities of the already mentioned process' accurate analog of surface observations. There is by process of elimination, through and/of a very small number of possibilities, the conclusion that the mantle is displaced in periodical events. The only, and I cannot emphasize this enough, mechanism that logically fits these parameters is the magnetic field variability that is shown above in the NASA article. The magnetic field should be expected to behave like any other electrical phenomena, whereby an increase in magnetic field strength would produce an increase in current and by that an amplitude change of the current within the outer core itself. Thermal expansion and contraction would be a obvious and completely logical outcome of this variation in current amplitude. Am I missing something here?

"as I understand the consensus the reverese is true." Citation needed.

2. The heat transferred by any means from the interior of the Earth is orders of magnitude less than that necessary to induce any climatic effect. The total heat flow from the planet in ayear could melt a global layer of ice less than 1cm thick. On this point you are irredeemably wrong.

You refer to current heat flow values that have only recently been accurately quantified.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/07/17/kamland-geoneutrinos/

This article is about the Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND), and states, of the 44 trillion watts of heat that continually flows from Earth's interior into space, 50 percent of the heat is due to radioactive decay and other sources, and primordial heat left over from the planet's formation must account for the rest. The research says radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth's crust and mantle is a principal source of the 20+ trillion watts. But where does the other slightly more than half come from. Stuart Freedman who is a member of Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division and a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and who is also leading the participation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), says in the article; "One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy". "Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question."

You cannot tell me definitively that this unaccounted thermal content mentioned above was not increasing coming out of the Little Ice Age or appreciably higher during the Medieval Warm Period. Or compared to these current measurements lower during the 120,000+ years of the last glacial period. It was not ever considered that there could be a mechanism to produce thermal variability in the planets heat flow. So, given this very short observational period, your conclusion that there is not a variable heat flow is base on a lack of observational evidence not a preponderance thereof.

I would say that there is actually a preponderance of evidence to suggest that there is such a mechanism. Firstly in the evidence I posted in an earlier thread; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/

As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow.

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

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

This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic activity and climate variability.

The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in current of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased current the liquid iron will expand.

This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area.

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

This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Image below courtesy of USGS

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

Image below modified by this author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers note the unlikely possibility that it is solar radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change.

I would welcome an alternative explanation by anyone of the observations above, one that deals directly with the 14C content and temperature correlation.

There are many historic geologic events that cannot be explained by the current model. They are all defined by a large thermal content that cannot be solved by a solar thermal radiant source. But fit perfectly to a model using a terrestrial thermal content increase. The first is explained by this link.

http://www.clim-past.net/7/831/2011/cp-7-831-2011.pdf

Down the Rabbit Hole: toward appropriate discussion of methane release from gas hydrate systems during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum and other past hyper-thermal events G. R. Dickens1,2

1Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

2Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, USA

Received: 21 March 2011 – Published in Clim. Past Discuss.: 6 April 2011

Revised: 30 June 2011 – Accepted: 1 July 2011 – Published: 5 August 2011

This is a great article on a geologic mystery, the Early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) ca. 52–50 million years ago. Where temperatures in at least high-latitudes and in the deep ocean, warmed by at least 5 C. (9 F.) from the late Paleocene ca. 57.5 million years ago, an additional 5–8 C. (9-14.4 F.) warming of the atmosphere and ocean occurred between 55.5 and 56.3 million years ago. This event is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) and it lasted less than 200,000 years. Enormous amounts of 13C-depleted carbon rapidly entered the carbon cycle during the beginning of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. Explanation for this carbon input has been thermal warming causing the release of the gas hydrate on oceanic continental slopes, followed by release of methane CH4 from the seafloor and its subsequent oxidation to CO2 in the ocean or atmosphere. The atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming. The heat had to migrate into the seafloor mud and liberate the gas hydrate, the dissolved C02 then was carried to the surface and released, where it produce the increased atmospheric greenhouse warming. The article continued with more incredible figures of geologic discharges.

The volume and timing of the release of carbon requires a massive discharge into the ocean with the mass depending on the 13C composition of the source. "About 6000–12000 Gigatonnes of Carbon with a 13C of −25‰. In comparison, burning and use of almost all fossil fuel reserves will emit about 4000–5000 Gigatonnes of Carbon by 2500 AD with a 13C value of about −30 ‰. Geologists have no mechanism within the framework of conventional carbon cycle models to explain a geologically rapid and truly global >2.5‰ negative 13C excursion, except by human extraction and burning of most known fossil fuel resources. This problem regarding the PETM forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box” (G. R. Dickens 2011).

"The atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming." That is evidence of the deep ocean warming before the atmosphere.

This is easily solved by my model. The thermal content of this event entered the ocean through the same process I already described earlier;

Let's look at something to illustrate this concept.

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003

S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer

National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005.

Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.

The volumetric heat capacity of the terrestrial Earth should dominate the ocean even more so than the ocean over the atmosphere.

The atmosphere at 0.000 001 percent of one earth mass (that's 1/1,200,000) and the ocean at 0.022 percent (1/22,000) of one earth mass are, by large surface area exposure, in direct contact to the remaining 99.978+ percent of the planet's thermal content. The mantle constitutes about 84% of Earth's volume with temperatures that range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at its inner boundary. Next is the outer core; a billion trillion tons of molten iron that has temperatures estimated between 4400 °C (7952 F.) in the outer regions to 6100 °C (11000 F.) near the inner core, of which may have a temperature as high as the Sun's surface, at around 5430 °C (9806 F.).

This model simply acknowledges the dominance of the terrestrial mass' thermal content. And its ability, without measurable content loss, to direct the oceans thermal content in measurable gains or losses. This permits the the ocean's variable thermal content to be a forcing agent of Earth's climate.

The hypothesis contends that the heat content bias of the earth’s terrestrial mass is a forcing mechanism. That if a long term planetary thermal content was in a fractionally lower level than it is now the deep ocean temperature would be substantially lower than it is now. The reduced heat content of the ocean would then express a lower surface heat flux. And due to this the solar input would not be able to furnish surface temperatures anywhere close to current levels which would in turn produce increased snowfall amounts and lower seasonal temperatures.

According to the model a very small amplitude increase of the magnetic field generator would produce the currently observed divergent plate boundary movement and impose thermal content into the ocean from the concurrent strain energy released from the mantle's displacement.

The fact that we are currently in an inter-glacial during an ice age period that began 2.6 million years ago suggests that the planet has been in a thermal see-saw with the temperature balance point at close proximity to the forcing agent, where a fractionally small variable is able tip the temperature balance in the opposite direction. The longer periods of the glacial over the much shorter inter-glacial suggests that after an initial fractional ocean temperature decrease the resulting sunlight reflecting snow produces an albedo feedback that quickly reduces the effects of solar thermal radiation. The model requires a small heat content bias increase from strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary to warm the ocean to reverse the glacial mechanism.

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

The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats.

According to the model, around 2.58 million years ago the Earth's field generator lowered its energy level from a previous higher level period. Although the field generator output varies continuously this was a new lower average compared to the previous and brought the Earth into the current Ice Age period. The interglacials, like the one we are in now, show that the field generator can vary enough, even in short time frame increases, to impose thermal content into the ocean/atmosphere in what seem to be consistent periodicities. These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar magnetic influences.

The rapid changes in ocean temperature are so small in content compared to the Earth's terrestrial content that it is just really inconsequential to the terrestrial content. And even more important, the heat associated to ocean content forcing is determined by the strain energy response to the field generator's output. The terrestrial volumetric heat is there as a base line temperature, never measurably changing.

There is ample evidence of terrestrial warming of the ocean and atmosphere in past historical climate events, its just that our current model is incapable of dealing with the observations. The Dansgaard–Oeschger warming events that interrupted the last glacial period approximately 25 times during the last 50,000 years appear to have had periodicities that, because of their precise timing, would suggest a solar connection over a climate or environmental mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event

Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland, there is evidence to suggest D-O events have been globally synchronous. A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002) to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003); if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise).

A solar cycle would be a logical source of such precise timing of so many events. It hard to imagine an ice sheet purging at such exact periods as has been suggested. 25 time in the last 50,000 years, 1470 +/- years apart. The Bond events have been suggest to be the Holocene Era's continuation of this cycle.

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

Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change.

It gets harder and harder to avoid a solar magnetic forcing of almost all currently unsolved historic climate events.

I'll respond, over time, to the other paragraphs, most of which contain either fatal errors, or highly questionable interpretations.

As long as my model can out perform the current model's ability to make predictions of observations of geologic phenomena I am quite confident of its accuracy. It is the current model that has to answer for itself.

Edited October 12, 2013 by arc

Mike Smith Cosmos · October 12, 2013

We'll explained. I like it !

The sun is /has causing /caused the major Earth changes. I have got it, by heck I have finally got it.

You are a genius !

All done by ELECTRO MAGNETIC INDUCTION Brilliant.

I

The machinery of change to the Earth ! Perfecto !

We'll done Mark.

Mike

Edited October 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

Ophiolite · October 12, 2013

OK, arc, let's return to my first point. Would you explain to me in what possible way your series of short comments addresses my concern. Here is a reminder:

1. You need to demonstrate quantitatively that the increased heat generated in the core cannot be carried away through convection fast enough to limit temperature increases to an irrelevant level.

As to point two, would you explain to me in what possible way your rambling response, loaded with references and quotes that fail visibly to support your claims, addresses my concern. Here is a reminder:

2. The heat transferred by any means from the interior of the Earth is orders of magnitude less than that necessary to induce any climatic effect. The total heat flow from the planet in ayear could melt a global layer of ice less than 1cm thick. On this point you are irredeemably wrong.

I shall not be progressing any further until these points are dealt with.

arc · October 12, 2013

I guess you win then, you have the education to understand and produce such equations. I do not. It is that simple. Well played my good man.

You originally stated "I am not willing to do this until and unless you assure me that you will be willing to abandon this hypothesis if I demonstrate with clear, evidence based argument, that it is flawed."

You have only shown that I am flawed. My idea is still waiting for its measure against all others. This really is the problem here, you can only use the existing model to judge this idea. Any criticism falls on all shoulders fairly. Can convection and the current model handle such scrutiny? To be measured side by side in the same light of day?

My solution is very simple, and it fits the observations. You are only attacking the messenger and not the message. You have proved very easily that I am not you intellectual equal, but in actuality, I will fall short compared to most anyone else here. Which I readily admitted long ago. But you have not shown that my model is inferior to the current model.

This solution possesses what geology does not currently have, simple mechanisms and clear and accurate predictions. I do not think you really want to throw the baby out with the bath water and continue to have so much ambiguity in geology. But I'm not a real geologist either so maybe I'm just stepping on too many toes, and making people uneasy about their strongly held beliefs of the way things work in geology and climate.

And on that note, nobody has addressed the graphs showing "a causative link between solar magnetic proxy 14C content and climate variation of the last 1100 years" that I have now posted in three threads with no challenge.

Any takers. Here it is again.

As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow.

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

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

This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic activity and climate variability.

The model simply correlates the magnetic field variability shown above and the production of heat at the crust/mantle boundary from strain energy. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in current of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased current the liquid iron will expand.

This is the mechanism that displaces the mantle. The heat that is responsible for climate variation is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area.

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

This is why graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Image below courtesy of USGS
http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf

Image below modified by this author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

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

The researchers note the unlikely possibility that it is solar thermal radiation related, but because of the lack of evidence of a solar magnetic causation they make no connection to climate change.

Again, I would welcome an alternative explanation by anyone of the observations above, one that deals directly with the 14C content and temperature correlation.

Or are we just back to where we were before.

Edited October 13, 2013 by arc

Ophiolite · October 13, 2013

Sorry, arc, but I'm not in this to win. I'm in this to examine your proposal as a genuine scientific hypothesis. I shall set aside for the present the request for a demonstration of the mathematics of the heat transfer portion of your idea. It would be nice if you would concede that before your proposal can be taken seriously, not by members here, but by practicing Earth scientists, then you would have to address that.

I am more concerned then when you are challenged on a point you respond with a wealth of detail very little of which seems to have any relationship to the question raised. At least please, in future, state in a sentence, or at most a paragraph in what way the examples offer support your point..

You say I am attacking the messenger. Nonsense. I am attacking the message and the way it is being delivered. From the range of material you have gathered and the innovative interpretation you have placed on them I suspect, now that you have raised the point, that you are my intellectual superior. But frankly, and excuse the language, that has ****-all to do with anything.

As to your challenge about the current models, let sidestep into that for a few exchanges. What weaknesses do you say exist in the current model. (I am confident I could list several, but i want to know which ones you think are critical.) Please, arc, give me a simple response: such as this. Plate tectonic theory is based upon the notion of rigid plates, yet we are aware that the plates cannot be rigid. Further no development of the model has defined, to within an order of magnitude, the extent to which they are not rigid.

Moontanman · October 13, 2013

I have gone over this again and I think that you are basing this on a false assumption. Yes Jupiter and Io have a large electrical connection but you have yet to show such a connection exists between the Earth and the Sun and you are ignoring that the energy that causes Io to be so active geologically is attributed primarily to gravitational flexing not a electrical current generated by a magnetic connection.

Can you demonstrate other wise?

http://www.space.com/16419-io-facts-about-jupiters-volcanic-moon.html

The volcanic activity is a result of Io being stretched and squeezed as it orbits Jupiter. Io's rock surface bulges up and down by as much as 100 meters during the process. This impacts Io’s volcanic activity in a similar way to which the Earth’s oceans react to the moon. Io’s irregularly elliptical orbit also heightens the tidal activity.

arc · October 13, 2013

Sorry, arc, but I'm not in this to win. I'm in this to examine your proposal as a genuine scientific hypothesis. I shall set aside for the present the request for a demonstration of the mathematics of the heat transfer portion of your idea. It would be nice if you would concede that before your proposal can be taken seriously, not by members here, but by practicing Earth scientists, then you would have to address that.

I am more concerned then when you are challenged on a point you respond with a wealth of detail very little of which seems to have any relationship to the question raised. At least please, in future, state in a sentence, or at most a paragraph in what way the examples offer support your point..

You say I am attacking the messenger. Nonsense. I am attacking the message and the way it is being delivered. From the range of material you have gathered and the innovative interpretation you have placed on them I suspect, now that you have raised the point, that you are my intellectual superior. But frankly, and excuse the language, that has ****-all to do with anything.

As to your challenge about the current models, let sidestep into that for a few exchanges. What weaknesses do you say exist in the current model. (I am confident I could list several, but i want to know which ones you think are critical.) Please, arc, give me a simple response: such as this. Plate tectonic theory is based upon the notion of rigid plates, yet we are aware that the plates cannot be rigid. Further no development of the model has defined, to within an order of magnitude, the extent to which they are not rigid.

I am very sorry that I come across as such an ass, and it is by no means even a suggestion on my part that I in anyway can hold a candle to your's and most of the other members knowledge here. I am, in that, at a massive disadvantage. What makes this extremely difficult for someone such as myself is I come here with, may I call it, a unique perspective. I only have one skill I can offer in this. And only because I have put in so much time and effort in this forum have I made it this far with this idea without hitting a wall. This one skill I have is I can look at a mechanical result and reverse engineer it in my mind to a quite accurate mechanism of cause. I believe it is related to autism/Aspergers.

I have done this with the observable surface geology of the earth. I did not let the current model dictate these interpretations. I feel the observations show overwhelmingly that the crust is being slowly displaced outward by the mantle in periodic events. These are countered by periods of contraction that are primarily define by compression of the crust and subduction. The supporting observations I have made from this simple mechanism can explain any surface phenomena you want to throw at it. This is where I would prefer to begin a discussion of this model. It, on its own, can counter and beat the current model's surface geologic interpretations of observations.

I should have probably stopped my thesis there but I love a good mystery. It is by process of elimination that this idea is where it is. I did at the beginning divide the plate tectonic portion from the more speculative solar magnetic part due to the obvious lack of direct evidence and I even stated this on my profile page;

The second is http://electrotectonics.weebly.com/ where a broader examination is made with a more speculative assessment of these planets and their field generating mechanisms that also incorporates the above mentioned work in a more comprehensive and unified presentation. I could really use some help on this part, I'm in over my head.

So, I am very aware of the weaknesses I have. Both personal and in this idea. It has been my observation that in reading the current interpretation of surface geology that the many weaknesses in the current model are smoothed over to fill in the gapes. I have read or heard more than once a phrase similar to "Well, it's complicated and we are working on that." The current model does not have among many, an adequate mechanism for mountain building. And especially one that can explain an apparent periodical mechanism.

It is frustrating to me that in six months I have not adequately discussed this with anyone. The discussion always starts at its weakest or should I say most tenuous claim. Tenuous claims are like any other construct. It is the related and supporting structure that determines the structural soundness of these seemingly unsound additions to the construct. Convection and mantle plumbs are the same position.

Geology is currently stuck. It sound harsh, but it is true. http://www.mantleplumes.org/Coffin.html ,

http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Nail.pdf

Mantle plumb, and by extension, convection is not providing a clear cause and effect to the surface observations.

I am reasonably confident in my surface observations and my interpretations of the immediate mechanism of mantle displacement. It would seem reasonable that a mantle of the earth's volume, having a thin solid and rather brittle crust, would vary through thermal expansion and contraction to the degree observed at mid-ocean ridges. It is the various bits of information that give me reason to extend my speculation to the field generator's molten iron. The debate of the longevity of earth's primordial heat and periods of cataclysmic vulcanism that can break a continent into pieces while concurrently creating new oceans, would fit nicely to a periodical, and in that, variable energy source that provides this expansive surface tension.

This is what has lead me to the field generator and its documented variable field strength. It would seem logical that the magnetism/current principle would produce thermal expansion in the molten iron. It is through simple extrapolation that I move to other phenomena. I present "a causative link between solar magnetic proxy 14C content and climate variation of the last 1100 years" and the accompanying graphs because the challenge that has be made on a solar magnetic influence connection in my thesis.

Moontanman is one of several who have challenged a connection.

I have gone over this again and I think that you are basing this on a false assumption. Yes Jupiter and Io have a large electrical connection but you have yet to show such a connection exists between the Earth and the Sun and you are ignoring that the energy that causes Io to be so active geologically is attributed primarily to gravitational flexing not a electrical current generated by a magnetic connection.

Can you demonstrate other wise?

http://www.space.com/16419-io-facts-about-jupiters-volcanic-moon.html

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

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

I will say to anyone who reads that paper above, they should then look carefully at these graphs below and tell me they don't see a link between solar magnetic variability and what appears to be periods of planetary heating.