Ophiolite Posted October 14, 2013 Posted October 14, 2013 Please refer to my point number 1. Stop putting yourself down. I mean seriously, if you can pull all the material together that you have, analyse it and produce a complex speculation then you can surely learn how to focus your writing. I've just taken the time to show you what you could have done. Don't tell me I wasted that effort, but I won't accept it. Oh, and the one thing you can say, is did I capture the heart of your message or not? Unless I know I cannot proceed.
arc Posted October 14, 2013 Author Posted October 14, 2013 Please refer to my point number 1. Stop putting yourself down. I mean seriously, if you can pull all the material together that you have, analyse it and produce a complex speculation then you can surely learn how to focus your writing. I've just taken the time to show you what you could have done. Don't tell me I wasted that effort, but I won't accept it. I am not putting myself down. I have Aspergers. I am neither ashamed nor sorry for it. It has made me very good at my job. And intuitive of many things that interest me. I do find it hard to follow some people's direction of thought. And I have a sense that this idea has confounded many people here. Oh, and the one thing you can say, is did I capture the heart of your message or not? Unless I know I cannot proceed. And yes, if that is acceptable to you I am fine with it. And to anyone out there following this, I hate to beat a dead horse but those 14C graphs need to be addressed by someone or I'm going to start thinking I'm right about this thing.
arc Posted October 21, 2013 Author Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) D. L. ANDERSON*, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013): The persistent mantle plume myth, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Published online: 26 Sep 2013. * Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like. The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes. My model is predictive of the statement highlighted above; The 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. The strain energy thermal content 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 volume, 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 means that the level of strain energy thermal content produced anywhere throughout the mantle is greater the farther from the core its place of origin resides. And thus makes it in agreement with and predictive of the article’s statement above. [that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth] [surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.] Edited October 21, 2013 by arc
arc Posted October 22, 2013 Author Posted October 22, 2013 D. L. ANDERSON*, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013): The persistent mantle plume myth, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Published online: 26 Sep 2013. * Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like. The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes. My model is predictive of the statement highlighted above; The 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. The strain energy thermal content 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 volume, 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 means that the level of strain energy thermal content produced anywhere throughout the mantle is greater the farther from the core its place of origin resides. And thus makes it in agreement with and predictive of the article’s statement above. [that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth] [surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.] That link above disclosed that they are using cookies, and by staying you are agreeing to them doing so. You can view this article above for free at the mantle plumes website; http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Anderson2013.pdf It is very interesting by the way.
billiards Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 Hey, can someone summarise the developments and main points in the thread so far? I have picked up: • expanding/shrinking core as a mechanism for plate tectonics. • some debate about the existence of mantle convection. anything else i've missed?
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) Hey, can someone summarise the developments and main points in the thread so far? I have picked up: expanding/shrinking core as a mechanism for plate tectonics. some debate about the existence of mantle convection. anything else i've missed? Arc is the best person to explain the detail, as it is his theory. However, it is very different from the standard convection current theory. He believes, and has a very interesting case for saying.... The whole thing starts with the sun's magnetic field which is very,very large, changes from time to time which causes a change in the electric current of the earth , at or near the outer molten core of the earth. This then due to extra expansive heat causes the mantle to change its size. This increase or decrease puts the plates to go under greater or lesser strain., say expansion or contraction. If contraction a gap appears at the mid Atlantic ridge say, which then gets filled with molten mantle. Then when the earth current down at the core goes into an opposite mode, say less current , less expansion of the mantle. Then the upper mantle contracts. The plates have no space to go , so push up mountains at the Atlantic/Pacific edges as well as subduction. This is different from the current theory that believes it is mantle plumes by convection, mid ocean doing the driving. Arc has very good comparative evidence for his theory. Mike ( hope I have explained it right Marc ) Edited November 9, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
arc Posted November 10, 2013 Author Posted November 10, 2013 ( hope I have explained it right Marc ) Just fine Mike. Hey, can someone summarise the developments and main points in the thread so far? I have picked up: • expanding/shrinking core as a mechanism for plate tectonics. • some debate about the existence of mantle convection. anything else i've missed? billiards, thanks for asking. 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 strain energy heat 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 volume, 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. The model provides a means to raise and load 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. Referring 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 ocean plates into the trenches. A full cycle would appear as a multi-million year period of thermal increase and expansion of the core, slowly displacing the mantle and in turn the crust. The resulting infill at divergent plate boundaries during this period will provide, during the following contraction, the leverage to slowly push the ocean plates into the trenches. These shorter periods of outer core expansion contrast to the much longer periods of thermal contraction of the outer core that provide the mantle's recedence and subsequent subduction. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout it's 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 do not unload their gravitational potential energy completely before the next increase. 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. This is a partial list of the phenomena that this model can accurately predict. The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand until now continental interior The formation of divergent plate boundaries The formation of convergent plate boundaries The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries The basin and range area in the SW of N. America Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world Continental break-up Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting. Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts Formation of island arcs Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant Increased ocean thermal content Acidfication of the ocean Carbon transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere. The cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. I could go on but my thesis is around 40,000 words, its probably best if you ask specific questions so I don't over answer.
billiards Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 OK I think I get the main ideas behind the thesis. So my first question is: Your thesis clearly requires a change in Earth's radius. Can you please tell us the range in Earth's radius required to explain all the observations.
arc Posted November 10, 2013 Author Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) We are observing it currently at the divergent plate boundaries, the spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges are small, the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year while the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. This is the current rate of displacement, an expansion total of maybe 20 cm’s a year out of almost 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55miles) of the Earth’s circumference. 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. The reason the Pacific seems to exhibit larger extensional processes at its divergent plate boundary is due to the great distance that the particular plate has to its primary anchoring point. Most ocean plates are either directly connected to a continental land mass, as is the case now with the Atlantic, which is how they all began, or they have broken free at some point and have multiple subducted edges at a variety of locations as is the case with the Pacific. The amount of movement in the non-connected or non-subducted plate edge, one that is an actively spreading Mid-Ocean Ridge or an overran plate edge, that amount is directly proportional to the distance to its anchor point. In the model more distance=more movement. The North Pacific plate, for example, is anchored in the Mariana Trench (A). Image above was furnished through and in no way endorsed by http://www.geomapapp.org using Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) Synthesis, Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332. Data doi: 10.1594/IEDA.0001000, through http://creativecommo...y-nc-sa/3.0/us/ The model explains this very simply. As an example, the extension of the Basin and Range Area is dated to the Miocene Epoch (5.3 - 23.03 MYA). The province is believed to be the result of tectonic extensional processes that began around 17 million years ago in the Early Miocene. It was considered a warmer climate period than the following Pliocene and Pleistocene Epochs that were cooler periods of climate that coincide with the Himalayan and Andes mountain building periods, which according to this model are the result of a cooling of the outer core producing a contraction in the mantle/crust. These structures would require large scale subduction and displacement of crustal gravitational potential energy into the folded and raised rock strata. These mountain structures occurred while the Earth's climate went into a period of Ice Ages. Edited November 10, 2013 by arc
billiards Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Arc, Please answer my question: Can you please tell us the range in Earth's radius required to explain all the observations. Earth's present radius is approx 6371 km. To be clear I want to know what Earth's radius would be at maximum contraction and maximum expansion according to your theoretical model. A brief and direct response would be appreciated.
Ophiolite Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Earth's present radius is approx 6371 km. To be clear I want to know what Earth's radius would be at maximum contraction and maximum expansion according to your theoretical model. A brief and direct response would be appreciated. Arc, I have highlighted a point connected to my failure to honour my intention of arguing through your hypothesis with you. Honestly, I just can't face the pile of unrelated material you pile into every response without ever answering the original question, or addressing the original point. It leaves me flat and demotivated. As an example, what billirds is looking for in response to his question is something like: The radius should vary between 6,100 km _/- 20 and 6,450 km +/- 15. Anything other than that is not a brief and dirct response and will frustrate the heck out of me. If you can provide that I can try to get involved again. I sincerely want to, but your approach is making it difficult for me. (Billiards, if I have in misinterpreted your expectations please correct me and accept my apology.)
billiards Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Arc, I have highlighted a point connected to my failure to honour my intention of arguing through your hypothesis with you. Honestly, I just can't face the pile of unrelated material you pile into every response without ever answering the original question, or addressing the original point. It leaves me flat and demotivated. As an example, what billirds is looking for in response to his question is something like: The radius should vary between 6,100 km _/- 20 and 6,450 km +/- 15. Anything other than that is not a brief and dirct response and will frustrate the heck out of me. If you can provide that I can try to get involved again. I sincerely want to, but your approach is making it difficult for me. (Billiards, if I have in misinterpreted your expectations please correct me and accept my apology.) Hi Ophiolite, Spot on. If my simple question cannot be answered directly then it will be clear that arc has not thought through his idea thoroughly. This would spell the end of my interest in the thread. Here's hoping for a straight answer.
Moontanman Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 I've following this thread as well, I just don't see the energy flux necessary to do the job, Io was mentioned early on as an example but it is gravitational flexing that causes Io to be to active not magnetic fields... on top of that Earths expansion or contraction can be measured to very small increments, is there is evidence of this expansion/contraction? 1
arc Posted November 11, 2013 Author Posted November 11, 2013 Arc, Please answer my question: Can you please tell us the range in Earth's radius required to explain all the observations. Earth's present radius is approx 6371 km. To be clear I want to know what Earth's radius would be at maximum contraction and maximum expansion according to your theoretical model. A brief and direct response would be appreciated. My apologies billiards that I did not directly answer your question. Maybe 500 km from min to max over 5-10 million years. Your question is difficult to answer because it is difficult to determine. You would like hard numbers and I do not have them. This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information. I believe the compression in the crust that produces the mountain ranges such as the Himalayas would give your best chance at an accurate figure. If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred during the preceding large thermal increase, minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently. This process is not unlike a mechanical jack place on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started. I have only observed and reinterpreted what is already known and available. The Basin and range extension is estimated to have had possibly a 100% extension. According to Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north. This could give a rough estimate for the movement in the Pacific divergent plate boundary that was directly beneath and which provided the traction mechanism to pull the Basin and Range during the displacement. The Atlantic would have been in the same proportion to the Pacific divergent boundary as it is now, let's just say its 1/3 of the 300 km, so 100 km for the Atlantic divergent boundary. Now you need the total stretch imposed on all plates and the other divergent plate boundary metrics. I believe the Basin and Range ended prematurely and the thermal displacement continued on further. It could have been as much as another 100 km or more. So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? This is not like a balloon, going up a lot and then back down. Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered. Arc, I have highlighted a point connected to my failure to honour my intention of arguing through your hypothesis with you. Honestly, I just can't face the pile of unrelated material you pile into every response without ever answering the original question, or addressing the original point. It leaves me flat and demotivated. As an example, what billirds is looking for in response to his question is something like: The radius should vary between 6,100 km _/- 20 and 6,450 km +/- 15. Anything other than that is not a brief and dirct response and will frustrate the heck out of me. If you can provide that I can try to get involved again. I sincerely want to, but your approach is making it difficult for me. (Billiards, if I have in misinterpreted your expectations please correct me and accept my apology.) Ophiolite you need not torture yourself. It is difficult, no impossible for me to provide the quality of data you ask. This contraption is a different world than the one that you know. The standard model is well measured and calculated and if people are satisfied with it then that is good and well. This model only makes accurate predictions, I'm sure eventually someone will take it for what it is and fill in the maths and flesh it out from the bones I have provided. I've following this thread as well, I just don't see the energy flux necessary to do the job, Io was mentioned early on as an example but it is gravitational flexing that causes Io to be to active not magnetic fields... on top of that Earths expansion or contraction can be measured to very small increments, is there is evidence of this expansion/contraction? Hey Moontanman, I wish I had not originally used that Io example. You keep beating me over the head with it and its getting kind of old. I had at the time this other example, which considering it involves a planet and its moons, gives weight to what a massively larger star could provide for a planet. http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.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. 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 caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability. Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence? 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 are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. Their so 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" I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations.
billiards Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Arc, Thanks for giving the most honest reply you could. Based on the fact that you cannot answer a simple and fundamental question, it is evident to me that this theory is not ready, and in all likelihood is false. I kindly advise you to stop wasting your time on this theory. Why? Because: • the theory is no better in any way than the current theory • the theory is worse in many ways to the current theory (not least that it requires a complete development of a mathematical physical model -- i.e. it's current status is "cartoon" -- whereas workers e.g. Paul Tackley have successfully produced plate tectonic Earth's in numerical simulations without the need to invoke your "mechanism".) The list could go on ... Lastly, if you are intent that your theory is right, I suggest you get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Only then will people sit up and take notice. •
arc Posted November 12, 2013 Author Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Arc, Thanks for giving the most honest reply you could. Hmm, seems like there's an insult in there somewhere. Based on the fact that you cannot answer a simple and fundamental question, it is evident to me that this theory is not ready, and in all likelihood is false. I recall I did give you an answer. Maybe its not the one you wanted. It is not a theory by the way, I tell most people I meet face to face it's an idea. This forum views it as a hypothesis. It doesn't matter whether someone who does not fully understand it thinks it's not ready. It can make predictions of observations in circles around the standard model. But to know this you would need to invest the time to read the thesis and more important understand it, which I assume you have not done so and probably never will. From all I have read here on this forum, predictions of observations trump most other evidence. Convection theory has plenty of maths and so does mantle plumb theory and both have very little in the way of accurate predictions. All those years and dollars wasted chasing a still unproven and unseen mantle ghost. I kindly advise you to stop wasting your time on this theory. But why would I stop? This is so much fun seeing someone cut and run. I enjoy this immensely, I have posted on this thread since March 18, and the big issue so far is I post to much information. All the while nobody wants to propose an answer to my interpretation of the 14C graphs that are shown above, you would think if this was so flawed someone would set me straight on that little part. • the theory is no better in any way than the current theory. Now I know for sure you haven't read it. • the theory is worse in many ways to the current theory (not least that it requires a complete development of a mathematical physical model -- i.e. it's current status is "cartoon" -- whereas workers e.g. Paul Tackley have successfully produced plate tectonic Earth's in numerical simulations without the need to invoke your "mechanism".) The list could go on ... It is a credit to it's simplicity, that it can be so understandable to a layperson. No maths required. It is the opposite of plumb that needs maths to verify its accuracy which has to be simplified and adjusted to remain in viability. I went to Mr. Tackley's home page; http://jupiter.ethz.ch/~pjt/ Developing integrated, self-consistent models of plate tectonics and mantle convection- a long-standing problem in geodynamics. Temperature-dependent viscosity by itself leads to a rigid, immobile lithosphere ('single-plate planet')- additional rheological complexities are necessary to allow plates to form. I have developed some of the first 3-D models in which plates form in such a manner. Thermo-chemical convection, including the possibility of deep chemical layering, and the thermo-chemical evolution of Earth and other terrestrial planets. The melting associated with plate tectonics causes mantle differentiation, whereas convection causes mantle mixing, and the complex interaction between these two opposing processes is what determines the planet's evolution. Asthenospheric dynamics and the Yellowstone hotspot. Partial melting in the asthenosphere results in buoyancy sources that can drive flow and cause further melting. This could be an explanation explanation to deep mantle plumes for certain hotspots and other volcanism on Earth. Even if the heat source is a deep plume, these compositional effects will strongly modulate what happens in the melting region. Plume dynamics and plume-lithosphere interaction. Previous mantle plume models usually assume rather small viscosity contrasts and linear rheology, and are often 2-D (axisymmetric). When you allow more realistic rheology and three-dimensionality, things can be quite different, as we have been discovering! Continental collisional dynamics. A planned effort is to model the India:Asia collision. That's a lot of convections and plumbs right there. OK, now I understand, you are in the plumb camp. This model must be a shock to you, coming out of nowhere, so to speak. This model is very simple and accurate in comparison to convection and plumb theory's complexities and their lack of direct cause and effect to surface phenomena. Basil drag and it's cohorts will not build mountain complexes or extensional features like the Basin and Range and will never be shown to do so without extensive ad hoc modifications or "adjustments"of the data. http://www.mantleplumes.org/Zombie.html Zombie Science & Geoscience Don L. Anderson1 & Warren B. Hamilton2 1Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, dla@gps.caltech.edu 2Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden CO 80401, whamilto@mines.edu Rationalizations of the observed characteristics of hypothetical plumes have generated continuously changing predictions regarding fixity, hot-spot motion, age progressions of island chains, heatflow, style of mantle convection, uplift prior to magmatism, temperatures of magmas, and geochemistry. These predictions are rarely successful, so the concepts have been modified to allow as many exceptions, and as many kinds of plumes, as there are "hot spots". The guiding principles are non-physical. The products of plumes are whatever is observed where plumes are postulated. Amendments to the fixed "hot spot" hypothesis now include mantle winds, polar wander, mantle roll, lithosphere drift, lateral flow, magma tunnels, group motions of "hot spots", plume head decapitation and superplumes. Mantle winds are used to explain non-fixity of "hot spots". “Fixed hot spots" may be large regions or long "hot lines" within which volcanoes can pop up anywhere and in any sequence. Plumes are postulated to feed volcanoes thousands of kilometers distant, and they no longer need fit Euler geometry or global reference frames. If age progressions are non-uniform, new co-linear plumes are added. Most “plume tracks” are missing a “plume head”, and most “plume heads” are missing a track. The lack of evidence for “plume heads”, “plume tracks”, high heatflow and precursory uplift is ignored or rationalized. Evidence for the uplift predicted to precede the Siberian flood basalt is assumed to be hidden beneath the west Siberian lowlands, whereas that for Hawaii is assumed to have been subducted. Findings that defy such ad hoc adjustments became official paradoxes: the Lead Paradox, the Helium Paradox, and the Heat Flow Paradox. New observations are labeled surprising, unexpected, counter-intuitive or anomalous. And that is what this model is competing against. I'm not worried in the least. For more great articles on this subject; http://www.mantleplumes.org/WhatTheHell.html http://www.mantleplumes.org/HawaiiBend.html http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/DonCoffinComment.pdf Something I find interesting is when I have discussed this model vs the convection and mantle plumbs theories with several engineers that I have met through my regular work, they could not see how this did not clearly beat the others with just it's simplicity and direct cause and effect. No magic needed. Mantle plumb is a belief and a world unto it's own. Reminds me of the astrology of ancient Babylonia, It becomes real to you in a self reinforcing way. I think there is a lot of circular logic and self deception in it's history. It's the "gold fever" of geodynamics, the answer is always just out of reach. Just keep going its just over the next hill. Lastly, if you are intent that your theory is right, I suggest you get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Only then will people sit up and take notice. No, I cannot do that, I have no credentials so I must totally rely on what I learned in charm school. I have self published this work on line and that is how it will be viewed by most people who see it. I can check the number of visits and it is doing very well. Edited November 12, 2013 by arc
billiards Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Arc, You seem like a nice person, but your science is fatally flawed. This is exactly the problem: It is a credit to it's simplicity, that it can be so understandable to a layperson. No maths required. It is the opposite of plumb that needs maths to verify its accuracy which has to be simplified and adjusted to remain in viability. How do you justify that "no maths [is] required". Surely if you want to TEST your theory you need some model to compare against observations. What you have done so far is come up with a paradigm framework, and are filling in the details with cartoons. This does not mean necessarily that the paradigm you have is wrong, but any cartoons you draw from it are just that -- *cartoons* -- and cartoons do not amount to anything scientific at all. Therefore you have NO evidence in support of your theory. So it leads me to think that in all probability your *idea* is wrong. Not just because there is no firm evidence beyond some random guy on the internet's cartoons, but because it seems to defy thermodynamics and simple geometrical considerations at once. Let me entertain you with the ridiculousness of the geometry here: You are claiming a radius change in the Earth of about 500 km. Let's put some numbers where you failed to do so and say that the minimum and maximum radius of the Earth is 5900 km - 6400 km. What is the volume change between these two states? Simple spherical geometry tells us it is about 2.4 * 10^11 km^3. Now your theory requires that this volume is accommodated by expansion and contraction of the core. But hang on *alarm bells* the volume of the core is only 1.8 * 10^11 km^3 (when the Earth's radius is near enough 6400 km )!!!!!! So even if the core completely disappeared (including the inner core) -- the Earth would not contract enough to meet your theory. ooops 2
Trumptor Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Wow arc, from glossing over this thread I think you've written more in this thread than all the writing I did combined in my undergraduate and graduate studies. That's some dedication. P.S. I'm expecting a ten paragraph reply and some graphs. If not, I'm going to feel left out.
arc Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 Arc, You seem like a nice person, but your science is fatally flawed. This is exactly the problem: How do you justify that "no maths [is] required". Surely if you want to TEST your theory you need some model to compare against observations. What you have done so far is come up with a paradigm framework, and are filling in the details with cartoons. This does not mean necessarily that the paradigm you have is wrong, but any cartoons you draw from it are just that -- *cartoons* -- and cartoons do not amount to anything scientific at all. Therefore you have NO evidence in support of your theory. So it leads me to think that in all probability your *idea* is wrong. Not just because there is no firm evidence beyond some random guy on the internet's cartoons, but because it seems to defy thermodynamics and simple geometrical considerations at once. Let me entertain you with the ridiculousness of the geometry here: You are claiming a radius change in the Earth of about 500 km. Let's put some numbers where you failed to do so and say that the minimum and maximum radius of the Earth is 5900 km - 6400 km. What is the volume change between these two states? Simple spherical geometry tells us it is about 2.4 * 10^11 km^3. Now your theory requires that this volume is accommodated by expansion and contraction of the core. But hang on *alarm bells* the volume of the core is only 1.8 * 10^11 km^3 (when the Earth's radius is near enough 6400 km )!!!!!! So even if the core completely disappeared (including the inner core) -- the Earth would not contract enough to meet your theory. ooops Hold on there cowboy, you better round up your horses and put em back in the barn. You didn't read that entire post did you? I knew if I set that number out there you would grab it and run. Let's take a look at what you didn't care to read. My apologies billiards that I did not directly answer your question. Maybe 500 km from min to max over 5-10 million years. Your question is difficult to answer because it is difficult to determine. You would like hard numbers and I do not have them. This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information. I believe the compression in the crust that produces the mountain ranges such as the Himalayas would give your best chance at an accurate figure. If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred during the preceding large thermal increase, minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently. This process is not unlike a mechanical jack place on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started. I have only observed and reinterpreted what is already known and available. The Basin and range extension is estimated to have had possibly a 100% extension. According to Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north. This could give a rough estimate for the movement in the Pacific divergent plate boundary that was directly beneath and which provided the traction mechanism to pull the Basin and Range during the displacement. The Atlantic would have been in the same proportion to the Pacific divergent boundary as it is now, let's just say its 1/3 of the 300 km, so 100 km for the Atlantic divergent boundary. Now you need the total stretch imposed on all plates and the other divergent plate boundary metrics. I believe the Basin and Range ended prematurely and the thermal displacement continued on further. It could have been as much as another 100 km or more. So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? This is not like a balloon, going up a lot and then back down. Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered. "Total lateral displacement" . . . . . "varies from 60 – 300 km" . . . . . . "So, the total could be as great as 500 km." . . . . . . "reduction of circumference." "You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? " So, I gave you lateral displacement. I didn't say it was radius, and if you would have read what I knew you wouldn't, you would have seen it. You would have figured out that 500 km +/- in relation to 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) out of the Earth’s circumference is 80 km of radius ~. "But here's the rub" "This process is not unlike a mechanical jack placed on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started." "this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting" Which means that 80 km +/- change cannot happen either, and I can only guess at the amount that it actually does change, 5-? I don't know, just like a lot of things in plume theory. ( I speld it rit this time) "Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered." So, you see it gains and loses in a cycle, but at some point it loses enough to convert the plates mass to gravitational potential energy, which will then overcome the trenches rates of resistance and require the movement of rock into mountain complexes. It is really that simple. "If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred" '"minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently." This is really probably the easiest way to figure it out. But I'm not that smart. "This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information." I know a dirty trick, but a good one. There's no such thing as too much information. I bet it's real clear now. ooops right back atchya How do you justify that "no maths [is] required". Surely if you want to TEST your theory you need some model to compare against observations. What you have done so far is come up with a paradigm framework, and are filling in the details with cartoons. This does not mean necessarily that the paradigm you have is wrong, but any cartoons you draw from it are just that -- *cartoons* -- and cartoons do not amount to anything scientific at all. Therefore you have NO evidence in support of your theory. For right now this has worked rather well for me. This is a thesis from a guy who works in construction everyday and comes home to do battle with guys like you, what could be funner. I really can't take this to the next level, that is for someone a lot smarter than I. It will need the professional overhaul, take out the junk, fill in the holes. I can explain this fairly accurately in a mechanical sense and for just doing that right now I personally do not need the maths. Like I told Ophiolite, I just supplied a framework, the bare bones, well a partial skeleton maybe. Let me put it this way, I've made it this far without getting into any real trouble here at SFN. 1
Unity+ Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Arc, You seem like a nice person, but your science is fatally flawed. This is exactly the problem: How do you justify that "no maths [is] required". Surely if you want to TEST your theory you need some model to compare against observations. What you have done so far is come up with a paradigm framework, and are filling in the details with cartoons. This does not mean necessarily that the paradigm you have is wrong, but any cartoons you draw from it are just that -- *cartoons* -- and cartoons do not amount to anything scientific at all. Therefore you have NO evidence in support of your theory. So it leads me to think that in all probability your *idea* is wrong. Not just because there is no firm evidence beyond some random guy on the internet's cartoons, but because it seems to defy thermodynamics and simple geometrical considerations at once. Let me entertain you with the ridiculousness of the geometry here: You are claiming a radius change in the Earth of about 500 km. Let's put some numbers where you failed to do so and say that the minimum and maximum radius of the Earth is 5900 km - 6400 km. What is the volume change between these two states? Simple spherical geometry tells us it is about 2.4 * 10^11 km^3. Now your theory requires that this volume is accommodated by expansion and contraction of the core. But hang on *alarm bells* the volume of the core is only 1.8 * 10^11 km^3 (when the Earth's radius is near enough 6400 km )!!!!!! So even if the core completely disappeared (including the inner core) -- the Earth would not contract enough to meet your theory. ooops Couldn't you account for the expansion and contraction as changes in the temperature of the core? How do you justify that "no maths [is] required". Surely if you want to TEST your theory you need some model to compare against observations. What you have done so far is come up with a paradigm framework, and are filling in the details with cartoons. This does not mean necessarily that the paradigm you have is wrong, but any cartoons you draw from it are just that -- *cartoons* -- and cartoons do not amount to anything scientific at all. Therefore you have NO evidence in support of your theory. A developing hypothesis would require the mathematics later on, but the concept is the most important part of the development of a hypothesis. In order to develop the mathematics, you need the concept in the first place. Edited November 13, 2013 by Unity+ 1
arc Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 Wow arc, from glossing over this thread I think you've written more in this thread than all the writing I did combined in my undergraduate and graduate studies. That's some dedication. Thank you Trumptor, it's a real labor of love. P.S. I'm expecting a ten paragraph reply and some graphs. If not, I'm going to feel left out. Copy and past coming up!
billiards Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 For right now this has worked rather well for me. This is a thesis from a guy who works in construction everyday and comes home to do battle with guys like you, what could be funner. I really can't take this to the next level, that is for someone a lot smarter than I. It will need the professional overhaul, take out the junk, fill in the holes. I can explain this fairly accurately in a mechanical sense and for just doing that right now I personally do not need the maths. Like I told Ophiolite, I just supplied a framework, the bare bones, well a partial skeleton maybe. Let me put it this way, I've made it this far without getting into any real trouble here at SFN. Yawn. Arc, if you had simply answered my question *with a straight answer* all this would have been avoided. I'm afraid I can't keep up with your ramblings. My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong. At the end of the day I say this ... believe what you want to believe ... I for one am in search of a more believable truth.
Unity+ Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Yawn. Arc, if you had simply answered my question *with a straight answer* all this would have been avoided. I'm afraid I can't keep up with your ramblings. My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong. At the end of the day I say this ... believe what you want to believe ... I for one am in search of a more believable truth. I don't see where you pointed out that it was wrong. Yes, I would agree that there isn't a mathematical basis, but that in its entirety is not a point that proves it wrong. And I don't see where there is a difference between a believable and unbelievable truth. The only difference is one may not make as much sense as another, but still it is a truth. Edited November 13, 2013 by Unity+ 1
billiards Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 1) I don't see where you pointed out that it was wrong. Yes, I would agree that there isn't a mathematical basis, but that in its entirety is not a point that proves it wrong. 2) And I don't see where there is a difference between a believable and unbelievable truth. The only difference is one may not make as much sense as another, but still it is a truth. 1) So it must be right then? 2) The truth is the truth. We just believe what we want to believe. Some of us look harder for the truth than others before we settle. -1
Unity+ Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) 1) So it must be right then? 2) The truth is the truth. We just believe what we want to believe. Some of us look harder for the truth than others before we settle. I would have to say this discussion is getting off topic, but an answer to the questions: I never said it was right. I never said it was wrong either. Until any real flaws are addressed, it is a hypothesis to be proven right or wrong. Don't forget, it just takes one piece of evidence to break down an entire hypothesis. The amount of difficulty for retrieving something doesn't make it anymore right or wrong. Sometimes, looking harder can make us see things that just aren't there. Edited November 13, 2013 by Unity+ 2
Recommended Posts