Plate tectonic mechanism ?

[billiards]

Hi billiards, thanks for coming down to my new digs. WOW, I step out of my 14th floor office for one minute and the next thing I know all my stuff is waiting for me in the basement.

Wow it's cold down here.

 

 

 

All that time with all those people working at it, if it was really simpler they would have at least some predictions observations to show for it by now.

Predictions? OK. Let's see. The model predicts where the plates are going to be in millions of years time. Of course we won't be around by then, but it is still predicted. Can your model predict where the plates will be?

 

But let's look a bit more closely for a prediction. In 1969 Dan McKenzie used a simple analytical model to predict that slabs would dip at about 50-60 degrees. Guess what, he was right. If you actually look for them, predictions are there.

 

I'm just one guy who in 1 years time produced a mechanical model that has made more predictions of surface observations than they have in 30+ years.

Except you haven't shown how your theory actually makes said predictions. Only taken some surface observations and moulded a cartoon model around them to make them fit into a nice story. This is how fiction works, not science.

 

Can that be any simpler?

It's simple if you ignore all the details. But if you start looking at the details of your theory it becomes immensely complicated. You can't just cover your eyes to the hard science, only focus on the soft bubbly clouds, and then claim you have a simpler theory. This kind of selective thinking is self-reinforcing, which leads to delusions of grandeur.

Edited January 16, 2014 by billiards

[imatfaal]

Hi billiards, thanks for coming down to my new digs. WOW, I step out of my 14th floor office for one minute and the next thing I know all my stuff is waiting for me in the basement.

.....

 

The basement! I gave strict instructions it was to be thrown out onto the street - ah well, if you're here now you might as well stay...

[arc]

 

The basement! I gave strict instructions it was to be thrown out onto the street - ah well, if you're here now you might as well stay...

 

Ah, but he who controls the central heating controls the world!

[billiards]

Continuing to work through your "long-post".

 

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.

I just don't buy this. Why oh why would the strain get greater the further away you get from the source of displacement? If I put a marble the size of a pea under my mattress it does not swell up to a bulge the size of a pumpkin under my bed sheet. This seems to be what you are suggesting.

[arc]

Predictions? OK. Let's see. The model predicts where the plates are going to be in millions of years time.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached."

So, you take the spreading rates at the divergent boundary and assume it applies to the subduction metrics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc

"Subduction rates vary from ~2 cm (1 inch) per year in the south to 6 cm (~2.5 inches) in the north."

http://www.unc.edu/~leesj/FETCH/GRAB/SEKS_Papers/GM01015CH12.pdf

"~6.2 cm/yr in southern Alaska to ~7.2 cm/yr in the central Aleutians [DeMets et al., 1994]. In the Kuriles and Kamchatka, relative plate motions are ~8–9 cm/yr [DeMets, 1992]"

 

Some trenches are less than there opposing spreading centers.

 

Some Back-Arc basins are inactive or greatly reduced. Does your model explain any of this, mine does.

 

Can your model predict where the plates will be?

 

Except you haven't shown how your theory actually makes said predictions.

 

"The model predicts where the plates are going to be in millions of years time."

So, how does my model solve this mystery? One of the clues is the ocean plates all have different spreading rates. The Pacific being for example 80-120 mm a year while the Atlantic is a much smaller 25 mm a year. Another clue is the plates that are the widest have the largest spreading rates.

Why would this be?

Well, you know by now my model has the crust extending slowly outward from the displacing mantle for millions of years and then slowly subducting into the trenches as the mantle recedes for millions more with the recent divergent boundary infill leveraging the crust into the trenches.

How do these two fit together and 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 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.

 

This, by the way, is why the San Andres Fault is one of the most volatile in the world. That section of sea floor extends all the way across the Pacific to the Mariana Trench where it is anchored. The extreme distance multiplies the non-connected end's movement as shown in the example above. A very small outward movement in mantle will produce divergent boundary and fault movement proportionate to the plates distance from its trench or continental attachment point.

 

 

Except you haven't shown how your theory actually makes said predictions.

 

I just did. And I have more than you are willing to read so I will wait.

 

 

Only taken some surface observations and moulded a cartoon model around them to make them fit into a nice story. This is how fiction works, not science.

 

It's simple if you ignore all the details. But if you start looking at the details of your theory it becomes immensely complicated. You can't just cover your eyes to the hard science, only focus on the soft bubbly clouds, and then claim you have a simpler theory. This kind of selective thinking is self-reinforcing, which leads to delusions of grandeur.

 

I think Earth science has lost its way to a certain extent. All I have done is make very careful field observations, and express what I feel is the most logical answer to the phenomena that I have studied. Do I need to attend a university to learn how to see with my own two eyes? Do you think that siting in front of a computer running endless models can accomplish what I did looking at the real world?

 

"You can't just cover your eyes to the hard science, only focus on the soft bubbly clouds, and then claim you have a simpler theory."

 

Who really is the one who has covered their eyes?

 

"This kind of selective thinking is self-reinforcing, which leads to delusions of grandeur."

 

Oh, and the reason the back arcs very in activity has to do with the size of the plate that is subducting into the adjacent trench.

 

The modern Mediterranean basin of the African plate, lacking a large flexible oceanic crust like the Pacific plate, has less movement during the mantles displacement. But several tens of millions of years ago when the sea floor was much wider it was able to initiate and maintain the back arc basins that now sit dormant behind the island arcs.

 

This allowable movement in that ancient sea floor could facilitate through its anchoring to the African plate the applied tension that pulled the arc’s towards the trenches. As the African continent moved forward, and the sea floor was subducted, its outward movement from the mantles displacement was slowly diminished until the current sea floor can no longer impart any noticeable tension. This illustrates how much of the allowable movement is in the ocean crusts as compared to the continents. The continents are so massive and by some research deep rooted.

 

 

 

Continuing to work through your "long-post".

 

 

I just don't buy this. Why oh why would the strain get greater the further away you get from the source of displacement? If I put a marble the size of a pea under my mattress it does not swell up to a bulge the size of a pumpkin under my bed sheet. This seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

Really! I need to answer this? Haven't you ever bent or shaped very thick materials, there outside radius needs to stretch or they tear, or even break. You mean you can't imagine what the mantle would experience in this situation? The increasing strain applied to the material the farther away from the center you measure?

 

arcPosted 19 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

 

Post#4

Very good points. 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, while others have what appears to be none. 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.

 

Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise. Now what would you expect from the mantle? Do you think it could contain the molecular level expansion forces of the core's liquid iron? The mantle is under extremely high pressures and temperatures especially the deeper you go. Would you think that it would move out a little making a little more room in its interior? Unlikely, I think in either model most would expect the mantle would show a reflex at its outer boundary. But how much? I would think it would resemble the current seafloor spreading metrics.

Edited January 17, 2014 by arc

[billiards]

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

 

"none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached."

 

So, you take the spreading rates at the divergent boundary and assume it applies to the subduction metrics?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc

"Subduction rates vary from ~2 cm (1 inch) per year in the south to 6 cm (~2.5 inches) in the north."[/size]

 

http://www.unc.edu/~leesj/FETCH/GRAB/SEKS_Papers/GM01015CH12.pdf

"~6.2 cm/yr in southern Alaska to ~7.2 cm/yr in the central Aleutians [DeMets et al., 1994]. In the Kuriles and Kamchatka, relative plate motions are ~8–9 cm/yr [DeMets, 1992]"

 

 

Some trenches are less than there opposing spreading centers.

 

Some Back-Arc basins are inactive or greatly reduced. Does your model explain any of this, mine does.

Hamm. A bunch of seemingly unrelated material followed by a claim. Make of it what you will.

 

Arc, please stop referring to "your model" -- I do not have a model -- I suggest you refer to it as "the standard model".

 

Your model (and this time it really is "your model" -- or perhaps we should call it the "proposed model") relies on something called the "plate matrix". The "plate matrix" is responsible for all active tectonics. It is also able to "predict" every surface phenomenon that has ever been observed. It's a bit like god really. If you don't understand how something works, then don't worry, it can be explained by "the plate matrix". It really is a very powerful and useful concept.

 

"The model predicts where the plates are going to be in millions of years time."

 

So, how does my model solve this mystery? One of the clues is the ocean plates all have different spreading rates. The Pacific being for example 80-120 mm a year while the Atlantic is a much smaller 25 mm a year. Another clue is the plates that are the widest have the largest spreading rates.

 

Why would this be?

 

Well, you know by now my model has the crust extending slowly outward from the displacing mantle for millions of years and then slowly subducting into the trenches as the mantle recedes for millions more with the recent divergent boundary infill leveraging the crust into the trenches.

 

How do these two fit together and 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 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.

 

This, by the way, is why the San Andres Fault is one of the most volatile in the world. That section of sea floor extends all the way across the Pacific to the Mariana Trench where it is anchored. The extreme distance multiplies the non-connected end's movement as shown in the example above. A very small outward movement in mantle will produce divergent boundary and fault movement proportionate to the plates distance from its trench or continental attachment point.

Please stop inundating me with copy and paste. I must've read this about 10 times already. It's tiring -- why should I make the effort to write original material if you can't be bothered? It would be nice to see that this discussion is shaping your theory, that your theory is maturing. Not simply hammering home the same tired old material over and over again. This is basically "soap boxing".

 

 

 

I think Earth science has lost its way to a certain extent. All I have done is make very careful field observations, and express what I feel is the most logical answer to the phenomena that I have studied. Do I need to attend a university to learn how to see with my own two eyes? Do you think that siting in front of a computer running endless models can accomplish what I did looking at the real world?

With respect you don't understand the current theories. You know a bit. But you are very selective in what you know. You tend to read the fringe "controversial" literature, the Don Andersons and Doglionis. You read their "criticisms" of current theory and interpret that to mean that EVERYTHING in the Earth science is wrong -- or as you put it "has lost its way". I would LOVE to see what Don Anderson and Doglioni would make of your theory. No offence but I'm pretty sure they would laugh it out of the water.

 

"You can't just cover your eyes to the hard science, only focus on the soft bubbly clouds, and then claim you have a simpler theory."

 

Who really is the one who has covered their eyes?

YOU ARE!!

 

 

 

Oh, and the reason the back arcs very in activity has to do with the size of the plate that is subducting into the adjacent trench.

Really? Seeing as you have claimed this please show the evidence. Please, not a 20,000 word essay. A table. A simple table of subduction zone, back arc deformation, and plate size. And if you're feeling especially keen, a graph, to show the relationship. Seeing as you claim this with such confidence this should be EASY for you to show. Also it would be nice to look at some EVIDENCE for once.

 

If you're looking for some data, try this paper:

Heuret A. et S., Lallemand, 2005. Plate motions, slab dynamics and back-arc deformation. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 149, 31-51

 

 

(Actually I'm teasing you a bit here, I already KNOW that you're wrong. For example along the Aleutian trench the back arc deformation style varies from compressional to extensional. This happens along one subduction zone! Complex isn't it! -- Don't worry though the "plate matrix" has now "predicted" it -- add that one to your list from me.)

 

 

Really! I need to answer this? Haven't you ever bent or shaped very thick materials, there outside radius needs to stretch or they tear, or even break. You mean you can't imagine what the mantle would experience in this situation? The increasing strain applied to the material the farther away from the center you measure?

Come on. How can you really think that strain increases with distance? We've actually been through tis before. If you increase the volume of a sphere by a constant amount, the amount of strain will depend on the size of the initial sphere. For example if you have a sphere of volume V, and you increase its volume by V, then the strain at its surface will be much greater than if you were take a sphere of volume 1000 V and add V to it. This is just obvious, and trivial to prove mathematically. This is the correct analogy to use. Your "bending or shaping of thick materials" is a confusing and misleading analogy. Edited January 18, 2014 by billiards

[Unity+]

Come on. How can you really think that strain increases with distance? We've actually been through tis before. If you increase the volume of a sphere by a constant amount, the amount of strain will depend on the size of the initial sphere. For example if you have a sphere of volume V, and you increase its volume by V, then the strain at its surface will be much greater than if you were take a sphere of volume 1000 V and add V to it. This is just obvious, and trivial to prove mathematically. This is the correct analogy to use. Your "bending or shaping of thick materials" is a confusing and misleading analogy.

What do you mean "strain increases with distance?" I am confused at what you are arguing. Please clarify and I will be able to see what you are arguing.

 

 

 

Your "bending or shaping of thick materials" is a confusing and misleading analogy.

How is it a misleading analogy? Can you clarify this?

If I put a marble the size of a pea under my mattress it does not swell up to a bulge the size of a pumpkin under my bed sheet. This seems to be what you are suggesting.

The problem with this analogy is the stuffing within a mattress is not pressurized like the magma or core within the Earth, by far.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Unity+

[billiards]

What do you mean "strain increases with distance?" I am confused at what you are arguing. Please clarify and I will be able to see what you are arguing.

Arc seems to think a small perturbation in strain at the core mantle boundary will magnify to a large strain at the surface.

 

How is it a misleading analogy? Can you clarify this?

The "bending or shaping of a thick material" reminds me of bending an iron bar -- it probably invokes different images in different minds -- it's not clear, and does not consider the geometry of the problem at hand.

 

The problem with this analogy is the stuffing within a mattress is not pressurized like the magma or core within the Earth, by far.

No, but if you put a marble at the core mantle boundary, you would not expect a mountain at the surface. That's the point. Forget about the mattress, it was an allusion to the fairy tale "the princess and the pea". Edited January 19, 2014 by billiards

[Unity+]

Arc seems to think a small perturbation in strain at the core mantle boundary will magnify to a large strain at the surface.

It depends on the pressure over a certain area. If molecules are more pressurized and have very little expansion then the force of one object will effect the other. I could link articles that state that there is very high pressures in the inner part of the Earth, especially near the core. Such larger pressures make forces acted upon by expansions more influencing on other parts of the Earth.

 

 

The "bending or shaping of a thick material" reminds me of bending an iron bar -- it probably invokes different images in different minds -- it's not clear, and does not seem relevant to the geometry of the problem at hand.

I interpreted the analogy as when something is expanded by an inner-object's expansion then at some point the outer material will eventually begin splitting at certain points, especially when the material is not stretchable past a certain point and the brittleness of certain materials requires less pressure force upon a specific area of a material to make it cause fractures within the material.

 

 

No, but if you put a marble at the core mantle boundary, you would not expect a mountain at the surface. That's the point.

Again, it depends on the many factors that exist, such as pressure as I have brought up many times before.

 

To put this whole debate to rest, here is a specific requirement for the hypothesis to be true.

 

 

As many will know, the Earth's distance from the Sun varies throughout the year. This would affect the strength of the coupling of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic field. This would also cause the energy density to decrease between the coupling of the magnetic fields, therefore causing less energy to be within the coupling of the magnetic fields.

 

As you had stated before, there is also heat lost over a period amount of time. This would mean that in order for this hypothesis to be accurate the thermal energy increase of the Earth's core would have to be larger than the thermal heat released from the Earth. Involving both factors, one requirement of evidence would be to detect an approximate trend of the above. In order to detect the trend, there would have to be an analysis of plate-tectonic(more specifically, Earthquake activity or other forms of plate activity such as volcanic activity) statistical data. If this trend is detected within this type of data consistently throughout each year, then this is starting evidence of the hypothesis.

 

EDIT: I forgot to explain the equations.

 

The first equation is describing the linear expansion of the material that is of focus based on the required expansion, where you take the coefficient of expansion(such as iron) and multiply it by it's original diameter. This is, then, multiplied by the change in temperature. Q2 and Q1 describes the thermal heat of the iron core at different times. The mass of the iron and the specific heat remains in the same range therefore it is not changed.

 

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Temperature.html

 

The equation can also be represented as [math]L=\frac{\alpha L_{1}\left (Q_{2}-Q_{1} \right )}{mC}[/math]

 

EDIT: Of course, what also must be taken into account is solar activity within that year as well. This must be accounted for within the evidence.

 

More specifics of the evidence, if this trend is detected, is to see accurate values from the equations above. Of course, more would have to be added to the evidence, such as equations for pressure upon the crust of the Earth based on the expansion of the iron core. These are still being developed.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Unity+

[billiards]

You keep talking about pressure as though it is some kind of magic bullet. It's note, it's a red herring. You don't even need to consider pressure to evaluate the geometry of the deformation.

 

Pressure will be needed in considering the physics, as thermal expansion is a function of pressure. But I reiterate it will not affect the geometrical argument.

 

If you put a marble at the core-mantle boundary you will not get a mountain at the surface, no matter what the pressure is down there. (and yes presure is large down there -- no need to find a link as i suspect this will be commonly accepted)

[Unity+]

You keep talking about pressure as though it is some kind of magic bullet. It's note, it's a red herring. You don't even need to consider pressure to evaluate the geometry of the deformation.

 

Pressure will be needed in considering the physics, as thermal expansion is a function of pressure. But I reiterate it will not affect the geometrical argument.

 

If you put a marble at the core-mantle boundary you will not get a mountain at the surface, no matter what the pressure is down there. (and yes presure is large down there -- no need to find a link as i suspect this will be commonly accepted)

That is because pressure is a major factor within this. A certain amount of pressure will cause changes within the crust of the Earth due to the expansion of the iron core and other parts of the Earth due to the increase in thermal temperatures.

 

You are also comparing apples to oranges when referring to the amount of expansion occurring to adding a marble to the core-mantle boundary. There is a much larger expansion than the expansion size of a marble, if that is your argument.

 

Also, you just avoided the requirement of the evidence. If such trend is detected within statistical data of plate-tectonic movement then the hypothesis has ground.

 

I keep reiterating about pressure because you keep putting it to the side as a "minor factor" when it is a major factor because if such high pressures are within the Earth then my argument applied earlier about the instability and breaking point applies.

 

I presented a way of proving the hypothesis false. If you show that such a trend is not detected, then the hypothesis officially ends or needs reworking.

[billiards]

That is because pressure is a major factor within this. A certain amount of pressure will cause changes within the crust of the Earth due to the expansion of the iron core and other parts of the Earth due to the increase in thermal temperatures.

This is just sounding like a mantra now. It's a fallacy.

 

You are also comparing apples to oranges when referring to the amount of expansion occurring to adding a marble to the core-mantle boundary. There is a much larger expansion than the expansion size of a marble, if that is your argument.

Missing the point. The point is that the strain will not be magnified at the surface. If we cannot agree on this then we cannot make progress.

 

I keep reiterating about pressure because you keep putting it to the side as a "minor factor" when it is a major factor because if such high pressures are within the Earth then my argument applied earlier about the instability and breaking point applies.

Cognitive dissonance. The whole point is a massive fallacy.

 

Also, you just avoided the requirement of the evidence. If such trend is detected within statistical data of plate-tectonic movement then the hypothesis has ground.

 

I presented a way of proving the hypothesis false. If you show that such a trend is not detected, then the hypothesis officially ends or needs reworking.

Patience. I commend you on taking a scientific approach -- finally! I was going to reply to this separately rather than mix it together with the pressure nonsense. Remember I don't owe you response, though. Don't take it for granted that I will invest my time in you.

 

Edit: also the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (arc in this case -- or one of his supporters). Don't expect me to do the leg work. You show the trend -- don't expect me to.

Edited January 19, 2014 by billiards

[Unity+]

Patience. I commend you on taking a scientific approach -- finally! I was going to reply to this separately rather than mix it together with the pressure nonsense. Remember I don't owe you response, though. Don't take it for granted that I will invest my time in you.

 

Edit: also the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (arc in this case -- or one of his supporters). Don't expect me to do the leg work. You show the trend -- don't expect me to.

I never said it was a burden upon you. I am waiting for results from arc.

 

This is just sounding like a mantra now. It's a fallacy.

 

 

Cognitive dissonance. The whole point is a massive fallacy.

And you didn't present why it is. If you are going to make a claim against a hypothesis, that evidence must lie on you to show or it relies on whether the correlation cannot be made, therefore making the hypothesis inconsistent and enviable.

 

However, you never presented why it was a fallacy. We might have a misunderstanding of what we are trying to say.

 

 

 

Patience. I commend you on taking a scientific approach -- finally! I was going to reply to this separately rather than mix it together with the pressure nonsense.

But the test(whether correlative or not) would show the possibility of such expansion being possible and taking place because of what is predicted to occur. I am also still designing another experiment that could be used for arc's hypothesis that would be definite proof of arc's hypothesis.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Unity+

[Unity+]

*double post*

 

I'll make use of this post:

 

Here is something that would be interesting to know with this hypothesis.

 

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Volcanoes/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Magma-on-the-move

 

 

The superheated molten rock in the mantle doesn’t normally make it through the many kilometres of crust that forms the ground that we walk on. Only in certain areas where the crust is fractured or broken (called fissures) – like at the edge of a tectonic plateboundary – can the molten mantle start to creep through.

The rock in the mantle is less dense than the crust that contains it so it will rise through any gaps. The molten magma is also hotter than the surrounding crust so it will begin to melt some of the solid rocks that surround it.

From a wiki article(I know, a really good source. However, I just wanted to find more time to find a credible article).

 

Magma is less dense than rock and is buoyant due to this density difference. It will seek out any weaknesses in the rock above it to reach the surface.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_magma_rise_towards_the_Earth's_surface?#slide=2

 

Therefore, pressure seems to not be nonsense because it is the main factor in the eruption of volcanoes as well.

 

EDIT: This is also very interesting - http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/earths-magnetic-field-mimics-solar-activity/

 

 

Leif offered us a graph of ‘Dst’ which is a measurement of earth’s horizontal magnetic field – in the plane of the orbits of the solar system’s planets.

From: A Continuous Long-Term Record ofMagnetic-Storm Occurrence and Intensity
Jeffrey J. Love USGS Geomagnetism Program http://geomag.usgs.gov
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202007%20SH54B-03.pdf

Measurements made near the Earth’s equator of

the disturbance of the horizontal magnetic field

made during magnetic storms can be represented

by an equivalent magnetospheric

ring current

in

the magnetosphere. The longitudinal average of

these measurments is the Dst index, a

fundamental measure of magnetic-storm intensity.

My bold
Eyeballing this graph I noticed that the positive and negative components of the Dst index when inverted would correlate quite well with Leif Svalgaard’s solar wind reconstructions and the sunspot record. This may or may not be a novel discovery. I don’t yet know if anyone has spotted it before. Vuk is busy working on this data too, so I hope he calls by with his opinion.

This may be something already known, but I’ve never seen such a close correlation between a measure of Earth’s magnetic changes and the sunspot and solar wind variation before. I’m awaiting responses and further discussion on this WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/22/profiling-the-largest-solar-explosions/#comment-536510

[update] leif has some answers already, he says:

The negative part of Dst is determined by how much southward heliospheric magnetic field there is and that is in turn determined by how much magnetic flux on the surface of the Sun there is, which in turn is determined by how many spots there are.

And:

The positive values of Dst come from the compression of the magnetosphere due to the increased flow pressure when a CME hits. The flow pressure increases when the density increases [and that, in turn, varies inversely with solar wind speed - low speed wind is denser], so no wonder the curves look alike [some of the time]. They must and they do, as we have known for a while. You see, when we understand some things, they make sense.

y great big electric currents in the sky. Now if we can just sort out the effect of those flux tubes from the solar surface which connect with our magnetosphere…

The scientific paper that talks about this is included on the page:

Edited January 19, 2014 by Unity+

[arc]

 

Come on. How can you really think that strain increases with distance? We've actually been through tis before. If you increase the volume of a sphere by a constant amount, the amount of strain will depend on the size of the initial sphere. For example if you have a sphere of volume V, and you increase its volume by V, then the strain at its surface will be much greater than if you were take a sphere of volume 1000 V and add V to it. This is just obvious, and trivial to prove mathematically. This is the correct analogy to use. Your "bending or shaping of thick materials" is a confusing and misleading analogy.

Hi, billiards,

Well, let me ask you this. Do we agree that the defined boundary between mantle and the outer core is determined by; 1. The outer cores volume of molten material and the inner cores volume of its material, 2. The outer/inner cores temperature. 3. The given mass of the mantle that is compressing the outer/inner core.

 

With this outlined, what would you suggest would happen if the temperature of the outer core's material was increased? What would happen if the inner cores temperature increased also? I would also assume the outer core is at a given pressure due to the mass of the mantle. So if the temperature of the outer core or even the inner/outer core was increased where would the room for that extra volume from thermal expansion occur?

 

If this temperature increase occurred in a rather short time frame as my model proposes, then I would assume the mantle would be subjected to expansionary pressures requiring its highly viscous materials to displace outward resulting in strain energy.

 

Maybe you were not aware that the model requires the mantle to follow solar magnetic fluctuation records, seeing that the solar magnetic 14C has changed greatly in short time frames that synchronized with climate, the model suggests a link between the warmer climates during geologic periods of surface extension like the Basin and Range Province that occurred during Miocene.

 

This study below shows such an extensional event in Antarctica, also during the Miocene, but of course suggests a mantle upwelling in regards to plumes as a cause.

 

http://geodynamics.usc.edu/~becker/preprints/frbdm08.pdf

 

"Our study documents two subsequent episodes of deformation occurring from Middle Miocene onward, concurrently with the McMurdo volcanism in the Admiralty Mountains region. The first is dextral transtensional where as the second is purely extensional."

 

And of coarse my model suggests the strain energy enters the ocean through the 80,000 km (49,700 mi) long Mid-Ocean ridge system and is then delivered by the thermohaline circulation of the world ocean.

 

This NASA article about Antarctica warming in the Miocene expresses this nicely.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctica20120617.html

"Scientists began to suspect that high-latitude temperatures during the middle Miocene epoch were warmer than previously believed "

"The climate was suitable to support substantial vegetation -- including stunted trees -- along the edges of the frozen continent."

 

"Along the edges" where all that ocean thermohaline circulation heat is warming the atmosphere.

"the research team found summer temperatures along the Antarctic coast 15 to 20 million years ago were 20 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius) warmer than today, with temperatures reaching as high as 45 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius). Precipitation levels also were found to be several times higher than today."

 

"The peak of this Antarctic greening occurred during the middle Miocene period, between 16.4 and 15.7 million years ago."

 

So there appears to be a correlation between surface extensional events and warmer climate periods. And as I showed in post 227 a correlation to the mountain building period of the Himalayas and the cooling climate.

 

Remember this graph;

 

 

And then in post 229 I again showed the 14C and past 1100 years of climate link. To which you did not respond like always.

 

This outer core expansion that you so adamantly opposed is just the most reasonable solution I can find to the plate movement in my model. The model requires an outward displacement to load the crust with enough gravitational energy to produce a range the size of the Himalayas in a time frame of less than 2 million years!

 

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006

Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period

CLIFF D. OLLIER

School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.)

This model is based on this example. On this extreme amount of energy being required. This event and other mountain ranges should dictate what a tectonic model should provide. Not passive basil drag or ridge push. But an extreme amount of energy in a short period of time.

If someone has a better idea on how to lift the Himalayas in 1.1 - 0.6 MY time frame then lets hear it. All there is now is plume theories and lower energy plate movement models.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.

So again, this outer core or even outer/inner core temperature variation was my best solution for this. Seeing how their is evidence of solar magnetic synchronization to climate temperature, and through that, geologic resurfacing.

Surface observations should dictate theory, not the other way around.

billiards

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:29 PM

Unity+, on 08 Jan 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Yes, but this doesn't provide any point against arc's own hypothesis. All it states is the obvious. You presented the result of the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. If I understand this correctly, you are stating that the movement of plates causes cooling and reheating, which causes the Earth to 'shed' heat. I don't see this as a mechanism, again, and rather as an effect of the mechanism that arc hypothesizes.

"So you would agree that plate tectonics is fundamentally driven by mantle convection?"

 

"It is the requirement due to the laws of thermodynamics that the Earth tends towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with space (i.e. it cools down) that drives plate motion. That is a loose mechanism. The dynamics have not been worked out. But the simplicity of the idea is elegant isn't it?"

 

Simple? Yes. Elegant? That is grossly premature, they can't even make rudimentary connections between convection and surface observations. In all honesty this would be akin to assuming the wind is pushing the plates around.

 

That would be simple and elegant too. Would it not.

 

"Arc presented Doglioni's work which highlights a certain inadequacy of plate tectonics. The net westward lithospheric rotation (e.g. Doglioni, 2004; Becker et al. 2008). If this phenomenon turns out to be true (and I believe it might be) then we still can't explain it, and it really is a bit of a problem. There are ideas floating around, but none that have been numerically tested as far as I am aware. If arc is using this to discredit the standard theory then it would be expected that his theory can do a better job of explaining it. Otherwise his theory is equally discredited."

"So I ask again, arc (if you're there) -- how does your theory explain this net westward lithospheric rotation?"

 

"Otherwise his theory is equally discredited." So you are saying, all I have to do to win this is solve westward drift, since you imply Doglioni's work has discredited the Standard model already, right?

You didn't comment, by the way, about my models solution to the westward drift phenomena. It fits rather well due to the way the mantle recedes, slowly reducing the friction between the mantle and the crust. The crust's movement down is delayed by the resistance in the trenches, its gravitational potential energy growing as the mantle drops away. If there is enough delay and reduction in friction you will get your westward drift as the crust unloads gravitational energy in the path of least resistance. A quite simple solution I think.

 

Dare I say Elegant.

Edited January 20, 2014 by arc

[billiards]

OK I'm checking out for a while. I hope you can keep this going without me.

 

Good luck

[Unity+]

Arc and I are currently looking at the data in relevance to the first part of the evidence, which is required in order to give the hypothesis ground though it will not be complete evidence that the hypothesis is true. The conclusion will be made and posted here(with the data that shows how the conclusion was made and giving why the conclusion is what it is).

[billiards]

all I have to do to win this is solve westward drift, since you imply Doglioni's work has discredited the Standard model already, right?

Hi arc,

 

No I didn't say his work had discredited the standard theory. He has worked on a small anomaly that requires dynamics to explain it. Absolute plate motion is beyond the original tenet of the founding forefathers of plate tectonics, who described plate motion in terms of relative velocities with other plates (a so-called no-net rotation frame). Things have moved on since then and we have recognised that there is a net rotation of the lithosphere. It is workers like Doglioni who are helping to push things along .. towards a full dynamic description of plate tectonics, in an absolute plate motion reference frame.

 

You are interpreting the above to mean that the standard model is debunked. But that's a bit like saying that Newtonian physics is debunked because now we have Einstein. And then, to make matters worse, rather than trying to understand the new theory of Einstein, coming along and proposing an altogether new theory to replace the now debunked Newton!

 

Anyhow, I only reply to inform you that with just the tiniest search of the literature I have found a wealth of work which pertains to explain the westward lithospheric rotation, some of which is authored by Doglioni himself! Hopefully you will read at least one (and prefereabl all and more) of these papers. But for the lazy I will summarise: the net westward lithospheric rotation is explained by lateral variations in upper mantle viscosity -- predominantly the order of magnitude viscosity difference in the upper mantle beneath oceans and beneath cratons. If you put these into a model you get the 2 cm/yr net westward lithospheric drift.

 

e.g.,

 

Ricard, Y., Doglioni, C., & Sabadini, R. (1991). Differential rotation between lithosphere and mantle: A consequence of lateral mantle viscosity variations. Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 96(B5), 8407. doi:10.1029/91JB00204

 

Zhong, S. (2001). Role of ocean-continent contrast and continental keels on plate motion, net rotation of lithosphere, and the geoid. Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 106(B1), 703. doi:10.1029/2000JB900364

 

Becker, T. W. (2006). On the effect of temperature and strain-rate dependent viscosity on global mantle flow, net rotation, and plate-driving forces. Geophysical Journal International, 167, 943–957.

[arc]

Hi arc,

 

No I didn't say his work had discredited the standard theory. He has worked on a small anomaly that requires dynamics to explain it. Absolute plate motion is beyond the original tenet of the founding forefathers of plate tectonics, who described plate motion in terms of relative velocities with other plates (a so-called no-net rotation frame). Things have moved on since then and we have recognised that there is a net rotation of the lithosphere. It is workers like Doglioni who are helping to push things along .. towards a full dynamic description of plate tectonics, in an absolute plate motion reference frame.

 

You are interpreting the above to mean that the standard model is debunked. But that's a bit like saying that Newtonian physics is debunked because now we have Einstein. And then, to make matters worse, rather than trying to understand the new theory of Einstein, coming along and proposing an altogether new theory to replace the now debunked Newton!

 

Anyhow, I only reply to inform you that with just the tiniest search of the literature I have found a wealth of work which pertains to explain the westward lithospheric rotation, some of which is authored by Doglioni himself! Hopefully you will read at least one (and prefereabl all and more) of these papers. But for the lazy I will summarise: the net westward lithospheric rotation is explained by lateral variations in upper mantle viscosity -- predominantly the order of magnitude viscosity difference in the upper mantle beneath oceans and beneath cratons. If you put these into a model you get the 2 cm/yr net westward lithospheric drift.

 

e.g.,

 

Ricard, Y., Doglioni, C., & Sabadini, R. (1991). Differential rotation between lithosphere and mantle: A consequence of lateral mantle viscosity variations. Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 96(B5), 8407. doi:10.1029/91JB00204

 

Zhong, S. (2001). Role of ocean-continent contrast and continental keels on plate motion, net rotation of lithosphere, and the geoid. Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics, 106(B1), 703. doi:10.1029/2000JB900364

 

Becker, T. W. (2006). On the effect of temperature and strain-rate dependent viscosity on global mantle flow, net rotation, and plate-driving forces. Geophysical Journal International, 167, 943–957.

 

Hi billiards,

 

I shouldn't have said discredited, maybe "strongly challenged it's ability to perform its duties"

[Johnny Electriglide]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

Similar argumants have been cropping up a long time and been debunked.

[arc]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

Similar argumants have been cropping up a long time and been debunked.

 

Hey Mike, I went to your link but I didn't see anything that specifically related to my plate tectonic thread. Was there something specific I was supposed to find.

[arc]

 

Hey Mike, I went to your link but I didn't see anything that specifically related to my plate tectonic thread. Was there something specific I was supposed to find.

 

Well, while I wait for him to answer I'll take this opportunity to post something I've been sitting on for several months now.

 

This model I have made isn't just about plate tectonics; it is really about solar magnetic induction forcing of planetary thermal and geodynamics. The tectonic plate movement of the Earth is just a byproduct of these phenomena. I have been using a graph furnished by the USGS to explain the many different ideas on this subject.

 

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

 

 

This is a graph of solar magnetic strength going back 1,100 years. It is derived by measuring the carbon 14 content in tree rings. I have used it in the past to correlate specific solar magnetic levels to climate periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

 

I have now used it to correlate the outward displacement of the mantle by solar magnetic derived induction of the Earth's outer core. The evidence for this is seen in the modified graph below. The extremely small outward thermal expansion derived displacement of the core/mantle should occur within a narrow time frame response that aligns to the specific solar magnetic flux increase. This movement should be detected as seismic events at the margins of the largest plate.

 

Click on image to view larger

To do this I overlayed the chronologic records of Japanese earthquake records from;

 

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

 

As you can see the earthquake activity intensifies when the solar magnetic flux begins to increase in intensity at around 1850.

The solar magnetic data runs out at 1950 due to the delay in measuring solar flux by 14C content in tree rings even though the graph was created 50 years later in 2000.

 

As you can also see the earthquakes continue past the last 14C proxy data point on the graph and continue to the present. This additional measure of solar magnetic intensity that is driving these most recent quakes (approximately 30 since 1950) can be found at this link.;

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

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

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

"Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations."

"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."

 

This has been a very short period of unusually high solar magnetic energy and it correlates very precisely to these continuous seismic releases of energy. This is only solar magnetic energy that is referenced to in the article and graph, the solar thermal aspect has remained relatively unchanged and is not a factor in this model.

 

For a more thorough explanation of this remarkable example of this solar magnetic forcing of surface geology that includes the Japanese records in numerical order; please go to;

 

http://www.4shared.com/web/preview/doc/ApcvWEgMba

14C Synchronization to Japanese Earthquake records

Edited April 13, 2014 by arc

[Ant Sinclair]

Suspicious Observers and BPEarthwatch (youtube channels) have been giving geo-seismic activity predictions based on sun activity for ages now. SuspiciousObservers is my favourite Space/Earth weather channel.

[arc]

Ant, thanks for your comment.

 

What makes this particular observation of Japanese earthquakes important to this thread is my model predicted its occurrence. That this particular tectonic plate would begin its intense seismic activity at that particular time.

 

I have posted at different times the description below in one form or another.

 

arc

Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:57 PM

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 sea floor 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."

 

And this is what is seen in the graph below.

The Pacific Plate's proportional advantage over the Atlantic's, as seen in the example above, allows it to be not only a more sensitive detector of mantle displacement, but to actually magnify the amount of movement possible. This is in contrast to most other convergent boundaries around the world that lack the large expanse and convergent boundary like that of the Pacific. Their smaller expanses produce proportionally smaller amplification.

 

So while the other plates are also moved by the outward displacing mantle, the Pacific will produce the highest amount of energy at its convergent boundaries, allowing not only many more seismic events to be felt, but even more so for them to be of a destructive level.

 

This evidence shown above allows this model to tie a specific time period to a specific high level of solar magnetic energy to a specific period of increased seismic activity to a specific period of climate warming. All having been a result of the models clear and predicted mechanism of mantle displacement by solar magnetic energy heating the outer cores molten iron. This mechanism is seen in the evidence of a short time frame response between all of the observed phenomena mentioned. They all appear to start and then to proceed almost simultaneously.

 

I have put my work on a secure content sharing site.

You can view the Japanese Earthquake data here;

http://www.4shared.com/web/preview/doc/ApcvWEgMba

 

And you can view 11,400 years of solar magnetic forcing of climate here;

http://www.4shared.com/web/preview/doc/qXJVR08ece

 

I do my own research and read whatever peer reviewed material I can find online to write my own content, I also extensively use USGS, NASA and NOAA materials to support it. And I have avoided third party resources and sites to avoid biased materials.

 

 

[arc]

Can you demonstrate there has been a significant shift in tectonic dynamics since the industrial age, a shift that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?

 

This post above was a challenge made to my Plate Tectonic model from a thread in which I offered a solution to a challenge made to another poster in Climate Science. It was split off to speculations and became; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/

 

At the time I was using a smaller example of solar magnetic 14C proxy data, but my model still was able to go to the end without a direct challenge to its clear and simple example of solar magnetic climate forcing. I now have the exact data to answer the above challenge.

 

I'm glad to say I can now answer this challenge in the most complete way possible.

 

Can you demonstrate there has been a significant shift in tectonic dynamics since the industrial age, a shift that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?

 

14C Synchronization to Japanese Earthquake records

Direct evidence of solar magnetic inductance of planetary magnetic field through synchronized seismic records of crustal boundaries using 14C proxy measurements.

 

This model intends to show that there is a measured change in volume of the Earth’s core/outer core complex due to solar magnetic flux. This change is due to thermal expansion from a variable rate of inductance between the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields.

The Earth’s magnetic field has a variable rate of intensity, this model simply correlates the field’s variability to the outer core’s thermal displacement. 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 core’s molten iron increases in temperature from increased current the liquid iron will expand.

A measured thermal expansion or contraction in the molten iron of the Earth’s outer core would produce a short time frame signal, or more exact, an almost immediate response of movement in the outer mantle and crust. As the mantle displaces inward or outward from the core’s thermal expansion or contraction the crust will respond with lateral movements of divergent boundary or convergent boundary metrics. This lateral movement in the crust will vary in each plate, based on each plate’s relative size, or more accurately, its width in relation to the plate’s direction of movement.

This is simply due to the plate’s proportion to the total circumference of the Earth; the plates will move a percentage of that total gain or loss of circumference based on the plate’s relative width to that total.

As an example of this phenomena, imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable while the other end is a short distance away unconnected. Now we 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 why the San Andreas Fault is one of the most volatile in the world. That section of sea floor extends all the way across the Pacific to the Mariana Trench where it is anchored. The extreme distance multiplies the non-connected end’s movement as shown in the example above. A very small outward movement in mantle will produce divergent boundary and fault movement proportionate to the plates distance from its trench or continental attachment point.

And this is also why there is so much seismic activity in Japan. And it is Japan that will allow this model to show a record of the change in the Sun’s magnetic field and its inductance of the Earth’s core.

The graph below is courtesy of USGS.

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

This is a USGS graph from August 2000 showing carbon-14 content in tree rings going back in time 1,100 years. This is not a temperature proxy but a solar magnetic field energy level proxy, it is a count of the concentration, or lack thereof, of carbon-14 that has been measured in a chronological sampling of the individual seasonal rings of trees of similar growth characteristics. The tree ring content is at a specific value that is a measure of the atmospheric 14C.

The graph below is courtesy of USGS and is modified by this author.

Fig. 1. Graph reference number (GRN) Group 1-(A, B, C) occurred prior to 900 AD and do not appear on graph proper. It is reasonable to assume that the magnetic flux was increasing due to the portion that is observable, and would be consistent with what 14C levels would approximate taking into account that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was yet to occur and the 14C content that is observable in the graph tracks quite accurately the temperature flux that is historically recorded, e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Fortunately we have other sources for that missing data of solar magnetic strength. The graph below has an additional 50 years of solar magnetic content from 10Be concentrations from ice cores that can place Group 1-C and give a reasonable prediction that solar magnetic content was at still lower levels at Group 1-B and most likely also Group 1-A.

E. Bard, G. M. Raisbeck, F. Yiou, and J. Jouzel, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 150, 453 (1997).

FIG. 2 (color). Time series of the sunspot number as reconstructed from 10Be concentrations in ice cores from Antarctica (red) and Greenland (green). The corresponding profiles are bounded by the actual reconstruction results (upper envelope to shaded areas) and by the reconstructed values corrected at low values of the SN (sunspots)(solid curves) by taking into account the residual level of solar activity in the limit of vanishing SN). The thick black curve shows the observed group sunspot number since 1610 and the thin blue curve gives the (scaled) 14C concentration in tree rings, corrected for the variation of the geomagnetic field]. The horizontal bars with attached arrows indicate the times of great minima and maxima: Dalton minimum (Dm), Maunder minimum (Mm), Spo¨rer minimum (Sm), Wolf minimum (Wm), Oort minimum (Om), and medieval maximum (MM). The temporal lag of 14C with respect to the sunspot number is due to the long attenuation time for 14C.

Fig. 3. With additional data from Fig. 2

This model intends to show that a thermal expansion and contraction in the Earth’s core would produce a short time frame signal, or more exact, an almost immediate response of the outer mantle and crust. This model would expect the compression from contraction and shear forces from expansion would impose stresses at divergent and convergent boundary areas.

This model expects these forces would show as seismic events along the Pacific plate’s boundaries. It would be likely that a seismic event would occur when the stresses from expansion or contraction changed modes. And it would also be expected that during periods of unusually high magnetic flux lasting for extended periods, as seen to the right side of the graph, it would produce almost continuous seismic activity as the Pacific plate is exposed to the almost continual shear stresses.

We are fortunate that the Japanese have kept very accurate records of their seismic history. The record is listed below, each having a Graph Reference Number (GRN) corresponding chronologically to the graph. The list contains all seismic events considered to be greater than 7.0 or which caused significant damage or casualties.

Fig 1. As you can see the seismic activity is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, this is not temperature shown here, it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating an increase in magnetic field strength. The 14C content is inverted. It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, its content is inverted compared to the observed seismic activity seen in the Japanese records.

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.

As you can clearly see the extreme solar magnetic flux activity is directly corresponding to the seismic activity. And most of the other events correspond to changes in the direction of magnetic flux.

The Japanese records began before the Medieval Warm Period and the lack of seismic events during the MWP seem to indicate stabilization in the core/mantle thermal content. The solar magnetic flux may be high enough to maintain the crust in a stable configuration with lower energy divergent or convergent seismic movement.

Remember this graph does not show actual movement, temperature, or any other content other than solar magnetic flux shown by proxy of 14C content in tree rings. The earthquake source material only lists earthquakes 7.0 and greater, and this does not eliminate the likelihood that there was a continuous occurrence of lower than 7.0 seismic events.

I have checked other sources for these events and they are not easily located. If they did not kill people and cause tsunamis they may not have been recorded. I need to find a copy of; Catalogue of Historical Data on Japanese Earthquakes.

The extreme magnetic flux shown on the right of Fig. 1 that correlates to almost continuous seismic activity can be further clarified in graph below;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

Fig.4

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.”

Fig 1.

These records obtained from;

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

“This is a list of earthquakes in Japan with a magnitude of 7.0 or above or which caused significant damage or casualties. As indicated below, magnitude is measured on the Richter magnitude scale (ML) or the moment magnitude scale (Mw), or the surface wave magnitude scale (Ms) for very old earthquakes. The present list is not exhaustive and reliable and precise magnitude data is scarce for earthquakes that occurred prior to the development of modern measuring instruments.”

GRN 6 – 1605 AD, GRN 8 – 1703 AD, GRN 9 – 1707 AD and GRN 11 – 1792 AD, all occurred at points of major directional change of either increasing or decreasing magnetic flux. GRN 2 – 1293 AD and GRN 4 – 1498 AD occur at smaller directional changes, leaving just 3, 5, 7 and 10 occurring during minor increases or decreases in magnetic flux content.

This is remarkable that all but 4 out of the 62 documented seismic events occurred during very pronounce points of solar magnetic flux. GRN’s 20 – 62 all occur in a very compressed chronologic period.

Referring to area A; there is clear synchronization of events 20-30 with the observed increasing solar magnetic energy. Seismic event GRN 20 begins a period of chronologic synchronization to the 14C proxy timeline and continues to the last 14C data at around GRN 30 at 1950.

This is remarkable evidence of a direct volumetric link between solar magnetic energy levels and crustal displacement as outlined in the model. This is concurrent to the already outlined link to atmospheric forcing by strain energy and resulting production of magma at the crust/mantle boundary area.

Graph reference number (GRN) Group 1-(A, B, C) occurred prior to 900 AD and do not appear on graph Fig. 1 proper.

(A) (GRN) Group 1; November 29, 684 (Gregorian calendar) November 26, 684 (Julian calendar) 8.4 MK (Kawasumi scale) Known as the Hakuhou Nankai earthquake, 32.8°N 134.3°E, References variously estimated the quake as having a magnitude of 8.0 to 8.4

(B) (GRN) Group 1; June 5, 745(G) June 1, 745(J), 7.9 MK, occurred at Minoh 34.8°N 135.5°E, Some references describe the quake as occurring on June 9

© (GRN) Group 1; July 13, 869(G) July 9, 869(J), ~9.0 MK, Name: 869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake, 38.5°N 143.8°E The resulting tsunami caused extensive flooding of the Sendai plain, destroying the town of Tagajō.

The following earthquakes appear on the graph Fig 1.

(GRN) 2; – May 27, 1293(G) May 20, 1293(J) 7.1–7.5, Name: 1293 Kamakura earthquake, location: 35.2°N 139.4°E, It possibly triggered a tsunami (though not all experts agree) and the death toll (DT) has been reported as 23,024.

(GRN) 3; – August 3, 1361(G) July 26, 1361(J) 8.25~8.5 M, Name: Shōhei earthquake, location: 33.0°N 135.0°E

(GRN) 4; – September 20, 1498(G) September 11, 1498(J),8.6 MK, Name: 1498 Meiō Nankaidō earthquake, location: 34.0°N 138.1°E, It had a magnitude estimated at 8.6 MS and triggered a large tsunami. The death toll associated with this event is uncertain, but 31,000 casualties were reported.

(GRN) 5; – January 18, 1586, 7.9 MK Name: Tensho or Ise Bay earthquake, some islands in Ise Bay reportedly disappeared.

(GRN) 6; – February 3, 1605, 7.9 MK, Name: 1605 Keichō Nankaidō earthquake, location: 33.5°N 138.5°E, DT. 5,000+, It had an estimated magnitude of 7.9 on the surface wave magnitude scale and triggered a devastating tsunami that resulted in thousands of deaths in the Nankai and Tōkai regions of Japan.

(GRN) 7; – December 2, 1611, 8.1 M, Name: 1611 Keicho Sanriku earthquake, location: 39.0°N 144.4°E, DT. 2,000+ epicenter off the Sanriku coast in Iwate Prefecture.

(GRN) 8; – December 31, 1703, 8 ML, Name: 1703 Genroku earthquake, DT. 5,233 This earthquake shook Edo and killed an estimated 2,300 people. The earthquake is thought to have been an interplate earthquake. This earthquake then resulted in a tsunami reported to have caused more than 100,000 fatalities.

(GRN) 9; – October 28, 1707, 8.6 ML, Name: 1707 Hōei earthquake, Off the Kii Peninsula, DT. 5,000+ Struck both the Nankaidō and Tokai regions, causing moderate to severe damage throughout southwestern Honshu, Shikoku and southeastern Kyūshū.

(GRN) 10; – April 24, 1771, 7.4 MK, Name: 1771 Great Yaeyama Tsunami, location: 24.0°N 124.3°E, DT 13,486

(GRN) 11; – May 21, 1792, 6.4 MK, Name: 1792 Unzen earthquake and tsunami, location: 32.8°N 130.3°E, DT 15,448, changing of the Ariake Sea coastline, in the center of Mount Unzen, Kumamoto Prefecture and the Amakusa Islands were affected by the tsunami.

(GRN) 12; – December 23, 1854, 8.4 MK, Name: 1854 Ansei-Tōkai earthquake, location: Suruga Bay, DT. 2,000

(GRN) 13; – December 24, 1854, 8.4 MK, Name: Ansei-Nankai earthquake, location: Nankai Trough, DT. 10,000+.

(GRN) 14; – November 11, 1855, 6.9 MK, Name: Ansei Edo earthquake, DT. 6,641, One hundred and twenty earthquakes and tremors in total were felt in Edo in 1854–55.

(GRN) 15; – April 9, 1858, 7.0-7.1 Name: Hietsu earthquake, location: Atotsugawa Fault, DT.200–300

(GRN) 16; – July 28, 1889, 6.3 M, Name: 1889 Kumamoto earthquake, location: Tatsuda fault, First major earthquake after the establishment of the Seismological Society of Japan in 1880.

(GRN) 17; – October 28, 1891, 8.0 ML, Name: 1891 Mino-Owari earthquake, location: Neodani Faultline, DT. 7,273

(GRN) 18; – June 20, 1894, 6.6 ML, Name: Meiji Tokyo earthquake, location: Tokyo Bay.

(GRN) 19; – June 15, 1896, 8.5 ML, Name: Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, DT. 22,000+.

(GRN) 20; – September 1, 1923, 8.3 ML, Name: 1923 Great Kantō earthquake, location: Izu Ōshi, DT. 142,800

(GRN) 21; – May 23, 1925, 6.8 ML, Name: 1925 Kita Tajima earthquake, DT. 428 Epicenter (35.6 degrees north latitude, 134.8 degrees east longitude) Maruyama River estuary.

(GRN) 22; – March 27, 1927, 7.6 ML, Name: 1927 Kita Tango earthquake, location: Tango Peninsula in Kyoto Prefecture, DT. 3,020

(GRN) 23; – November 26, 1930, 7.3 Ms, Name: 1930 North Izu earthquake, location: Izu Peninsula, DT. 272

(GRN) 24; – March 2, 1933, 8.4 Mw, Name: 1933 Sanriku earthquake, location: 290 km (180 mi) east of the city of Kamaishi, Iwate, DT. 3,000+

(GRN) 25; – November 3, 1936, 7.2 Ms, Name: 1936 Miyagi earthquake, location: Miyagi-ken-oki Jishin offshore Miyagi.

(GRN) 26; – September 10, 1943, 7.2 ML, Name: 1943 Tottori earthquake, location: offshore from Ketaka District, DT. 1,083

(GRN) 27; – December 7, 1944, 8.1 Mw, Name: 1944 Tōnankai earthquake location: 34.0°N 137.1°E, DT. 1,223

(GRN) 28; – January 13, 1945, 6.8 ML, Name: 1945 Mikawa earthquake, location: Mikawa Bay, (34°42.1′N 137°6.8′E at a depth of eleven kilometers), DT. 1180 +

(GRN) 29; – December 20, 1946, 8.1 Mw, Name: 1946 Nankaidō earthquake, location: Nankai Trough, DT. 1,362

(GRN) 3O; – June 28, 1948, 7.1 Mw, Name: 1948 Fukui earthquake, location: 36゜10.3′N　136゜17.4′E near Maruoka, Fukui, DT. 3,769 A major earthquake in Fukui Prefecture, Japan.

(GRN) 31; – March 4, 1952, 8.1 Mw, Name: 1952 Hokkaido earthquake, location: Hokkaido Jishin 42.3°N 144.9°E 28

(GRN) 32; – June 16, 1964, 7.6 Mw, Name: 1964 Niigata earthquake, location: Niigata Jishin 50 km north of Niigata, DT. 26

(GRN) 33; – April 1, 1968, 7.5 Mw, Name: 1968 Hyūga-nada earthquake, location: Hyūga-nada Sea.

(GRN) 34; – May 16, 1968,8.2 Mw, Name: 1968 Tokachi earthquake, location: Offshore of Misawa, Japan, DT. 52

(GRN) 35; – May 9, 1974, 6.5 Ms, Name: 1974 Izu Peninsula earthquake, location: Jishin near Izu Peninsula, DT. 25

(GRN) 36; – June 12, 1978, 7.7 Ms, Name: 1978 Miyagi earthquake, location: Miyagi-ken-oki jishin just offshore Miyagi Prefecture, DT. 28

(GRN) 37; – July 12, 1993, 7.7 Mw, Name: 1993 Hokkaidō earthquake, location: Hokkaidō Nansei Oki Jishin 42.851°N 139.197°E, DT. 202

(GRN) 38; – December 28, 1994,7.7 Mw, Name: 1994 offshore Sanriku earthquake, location: Sanriku-haruka-oki Jishin 40.451°N 143.491°E, DT. 3

(GRN) 39; – January 17, 1995, Name: 7.2 Mw Great Hanshin earthquake, location: (Hanshin-Awaji Daishinsai ) northern end of Awaji Island, DT. 6,434

(GRN) 40; – May 4, 1998 , 7.5 Mw, Name: 1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake, location: Ishigakijima nanpō-oki jishin 22.30°N 125.30°E, DT. 0 The epicentre was in the Philippine Sea and far off the coast (260km from Ishigaki Island, Japan, 400 km from Basco, Philippines, and 425 km from Hualian, Taiwan).

(GRN) 41; – March 24, 2001, 6.7 Mw, Name: 2001 Geiyo earthquake, location: Nisen-ichi-nen Gēyo Jishin 34.083°N 128.020°E, DT. 2

(GRN) 42; – September 25, 2003, 8.3 Mw, Name: 2003 Hokkaidō earthquake, Hokkaidō Jishin 41.78°N 143.86°E, DT. 1

(GRN) 43; – October 23, 2004, 6.9 Mw, Name: 2004 Chūetsu earthquake, location: Ojiya, Niigata, DT. 40

(GRN) 44; – March 20, 2005, 7.0 Mw, Name: 2005 Fukuoka earthquake, location: In the Genkai Sea about 6 km (3.7 mi) northwest of Genkai Island at the mouth of Fukuoka Harbor, DT. I

(GRN) 45; – August 16, 2005,7.2 Mw, Name: 2005 Miyagi earthquake, location: Miyagi-ken Oki Jishin about 55 km (34 mi) due east of the Oshika Peninsula in Miyagi Prefecture.

(GRN) 46; – November 15, 2006,8.3 Mw, Name: 2006 Kuril Islands earthquake, location: Chishima Rettō Oki Jishin, about 160 km (99 mi) due east of the southern tip of Simushir in the Kuril Islands.

(GRN) 47; – January 13, 2007, 8.1 Mw, Name: 2007 Kuril Islands earthquake, location: 46°28.8′N 154°04.48′E

(GRN) 48; – March 25, 2007, 6.9 Mw, Name: 2007 Noto earthquake, location: about 11 km (6.8 mi) due west of the southern end of the town of Wajima .

(GRN) 49; – July 16, 2007,6.6 Mw, Name: 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake, location: Niigata-ken Chūetsu Oki Jishin, about 29 km (18 mi) west of Niigata, DT. 11

(GRN) 50; – June 14, 2008, 6.9 Mw, Name: 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, location: Iwate Miyagi Nairiku Jishin, about 1 km (0.62 mi) east of Narusawa Onsen in northwest Iwate Prefecture, DT. 12

(GRN) 51; – August 9, 2009, 6.9-7.1 Mw, Name: 2009 Izu Islands earthquake, location: 33.144°N, 138.040°E, depth 303.1 km.

(GRN) 52; – August 11, 2009, 6.5-6.6 Mw, Tokai Area Earthquake, location 33.8°N, 138.50°E, depth 20.0 km. DT. I

(GRN) 53; – February 26, 2010, 7.0 Mw, Name: Ryūkyū Islands earthquake, location: 25.902°N, 128.417°E, depth 22.0 km, DT. 1

(GRN) 54; – December 21, 2010, 7.4 Mw, Name: Bonin Islands earthquake, location: 26.866°N, 143.739°E, depth 14.9 km.

(GRN) 55; – March 9, 2011, 7.2 Mw, Name: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake foreshock, location: Tōhokuchihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin (Higashi Nihon Dai-Shinsai) 38.424°N, 142.836°E, depth 32 km.

(GRN) 56; – March 11, 2011,05:46:23 UTC, (14:46 JST), 9.0 Mw, Name: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake, location: Tōhokuchihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin, (Higashi Nihon Dai-Shinsai), 38.510°N, 142.792°E, depth 24.4 km, 15,883 deaths, confirmed.

(GRN) 57; – March 11, 2011, 06:25:50 UTC, 7.1 Mw, Name: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake aftershock, location: Tōhokuchihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin (Higashi Nihon Dai-Shinsai), 38.106°N, 144.553°E, depth 19.7 km.

(GRN) 58; – April 7, 2011, 23:30:00 JST, 7.1 Mw, Name: 2011 Miyagi earthquake aftershock, location: 38.253°N, 141.640°E, depth 49 km, DT. 4

(GRN) 59; – April 11, 2011, 17:16:13 JST, 7.1 Mw, Name: 2011 Fukushima earthquake aftershock, location: Fukushima-ken Hamadori Jishin 37.007°N, 140.477°E, depth 10 km, DT. 6

(GRN) 60; – July 10, 2011, 10:57:12 JST, 7.0 Mw, Name: 2011 Fukushima earthquake aftershock, location: 38.040°N, 143.287°E, depth 49 km, DT. 0. Quake was centered c. 242 km SW of Hachijo-jima.

(GRN) 61; – January 1, 2012, 14:27:54 JST, 6.8 Mw, Name: Izu Islands, Japan, location: 31.416°N, 138.155°E, depth 348.5 km. 242 km (150 miles) SW of Hachijo-jima, Izu Islands, Japan.

(GRN) 62; – December 7, 2012, 17:18:24 JST, 7.3 Mw, Name: 2012 Kamaishi earthquake, location: 37.700°N, 144.600°E, depth 32.0 km, 293 km (182 miles) SE of Kamaishi, Japan, 492 km (306 miles) ENE of Tokyo, Japan.