Acme Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 I think I hit onto a really nice fit for plate tectonics. The Earth's core is an electro - magnetic field generator. I could not imagine that it wouldn't have variability in it's cycling of current and field. Nothing is going to be constant, especially magnitohydrodynamic generation as it cycles current and field. I thought the Sun's magnetic field could be imposing variation over longer time periods giving the Earth a historic variable thermal cycle to move the tectonic plates. snip... Accurate prediction of observable surface structures is what this thesis brings to the fight. The convection current model has some nice maths but in the last half century produced a disappointing few predictable results. Lets see... magnetohydrodynamics @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water or electrolytes. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically. ... So at your invitation I have re-read the thread and I have little to offer but an honest & thoughtful summary of objections already voiced. What you do not provide in the opening post, or anywhere in this thread that I can find, are the necessary magnetohydrodynamic differential equations or calculations for a Sun imposed effect on Earth's magnetic field. Moreover, you simply dismiss these calculations as 'nice maths' and move on to your speculation. No I can't do these calculations either, but competent geologists and astrophysicists can and do make the calculations and if there were anything to what you have been claiming they would be on it like Occam's razor on a welder's magnet. Contrary to your implications, those folks have a sincere interest & firm knowledge in geology and they're not some herd-mentality buffoons bent on putting stumbling blocks in the way of science. The math is not simply sufficient, it is necessary. 1
arc Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Lets see... magnetohydrodynamics @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics So at your invitation I have re-read the thread and I have little to offer but an honest & thoughtful summary of objections already voiced. What you do not provide in the opening post, or anywhere in this thread that I can find, are the necessary magnetohydrodynamic differential equations or calculations for a Sun imposed effect on Earth's magnetic field. Moreover, you simply dismiss these calculations as 'nice maths' and move on to your speculation. Acme, thank you for stopping in for a look. I'm afraid you have misunderstood that quote; "Accurate prediction of observable surface structures is what this thesis brings to the fight. The convection current model has some nice maths but in the last half century produced a disappointing few predictable results." That quote is referring to mantle convection in regards to its inability to make even the most tenuous prediction of surface geology. I should have said mantle convection model, I believe billiards and I wrangled over this error of mine before, my apologies. I'm a big supporter of Hannes Alfven's Magnetohydrodynamics generation theory. And I am not challenging it at all, my model would be doomed without it. I believe this post below ,#15, expresses my attitude on this accurately. Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:04 AM "The problem I sense in this debate is the current model is stalled at not locating the convection that was originally speculated by Arthur Holmes, and now mantle plume theory has been promoted as the hopeful replacement to validate convection. But if one was to be honest about convection theory you would have to admit the theory started as what seemed a brilliantly simple solution for what were simpler times. Times before plate tectonics, and as time has progressed more has been demanded of it." "I personally believe if Hannes Alfven's Magnetohydrodynamics generation theory MHD, that is the standard model of the Earth's core and field generator, had preceded mantle convection theory (There it is) this outer core thermal cycle I am now promoting would have been obvious considering the earlier work of Austrian Edward Suess (1831-1914) and American James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) who both independently observed mountain structures as the result of contraction. I think the additional evidence 50 years ago that included extensional processes such as the Basin and Range area would have led to formation of this idea maybe 40-50 years ago. Geology has been preoccupied with convection and it is still an unconfirmed mathematical model. Could an over reliance in complex maths have obstructed what would have been observed by simple field work?" No I can't do these calculations either, but competent geologists and astrophysicists can and do make the calculations and if there were anything to what you have been claiming they would be on it like Occam's razor on a welder's magnet. Contrary to your implications, those folks have a sincere interest & firm knowledge in geology and they're not some herd-mentality buffoons bent on putting stumbling blocks in the way of science. The math is not simply sufficient, it is necessary. Ouch! I hope I haven't given that impression. But I do feel there is a rather unanimous expectation of the scientists who post here that little of any value has ever been proposed here by a novice, so nothing of value will ever be proposed, now, or in the future. Add to that, this model is rather far reaching. It encompasses surface and subsurface geology, climate, ocean heat flux and places past glacial and interglacial phenomena all in context to this model. Even PETM events. And no one is interested in reading a 40,000 + word thesis written by an amateur. And on top of all that, I can "occasionally" sense the contempt for proposing an alternate explanation to a very beloved and deeply held opinion shared with "97% of all climate scientists". But I have been true to the science, I have looked for answers where no one else has, or even more so, cared to. And, I have built a model that is remarkably straight forward and unusually simple by any measure used. This is an Idea for a new generation to explore, I sense no one with 20 or 30 years of searching for convection er, mantle convection would like to see this show up in their classroom until after they retire. "The math is not simply sufficient, it is necessary." I would love to be gifted with that ability, but I am not. Yet for all the maths that have been thrown at mantle convection and plume theory, the computer upgrades and all of the time and money spent, there has been little to show for it as to predictions of observations of surface geology for 30+ years of trying. 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." Edited April 30, 2014 by arc
Acme Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Acme, thank you for stopping in for a look. My pleasure. Ouch! I hope I haven't given that impression. But I do feel there is a rather unanimous expectation of the scientists who post here that little of any value has ever been proposed here by a novice, so nothing of value will ever be proposed, now, or in the future. It's a high bar to be sure, but overall I think the experts here give folks a fair shake. Add to that, this model is rather far reaching. It encompasses surface and subsurface geology, climate, ocean heat flux and places past glacial and interglacial phenomena all in context to this model. Even PETM events. And no one is interested in reading a 40,000 + word thesis written by an amateur. This is where the math is a necessity as support. And on top of all that, I can "occasionally" sense the contempt for proposing an alternate explanation to a very beloved and deeply held opinion shared with "97% of all climate scientists". No doubt discussions can get heated. Consensus is as consensus does. Again, it's not blind agreement but a thoughtful review among many competent folks. But I have been true to the science, I have looked for answers where no one else has, or even more so, cared to. And, I have built a model that is remarkably straight forward and unusually simple by any measure used. I don't doubt your integrity and it's clear you have done considerable reading. Be as open to the ideas & feedback of others as you expect them to be open to yours. It's always possible that you may spark a closer look into refining some aspect of a standard model even though it is not supportive of yours. After all is said and done, geology rocks.
Unity+ Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 This is where the math is a necessity as support. I think I posted the math somewhere in this thread. If you want me to, I can post it again. -1
Acme Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 ... This is where the math is a necessity as support. ... I think I posted the math somewhere in this thread. If you want me to, I can post it again. Thank you, no. I read the entire thread and see nothing posted by you or Arc that supports the main thesis.
Unity+ Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Thank you, no. I read the entire thread and see nothing posted by you or Arc that supports the main thesis. I posted an equation that showed the relationship between the frequency of tectonic activity and the distance between the Earth and Sun(since the distance has not constant throughout the year). -1
Acme Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I posted an equation that showed the relationship between the frequency of tectonic activity and the distance between the Earth and Sun(since the distance has not constant throughout the year). Correlation ≠ causation.
arc Posted June 14, 2014 Author Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Thank you, no. I read the entire thread and see nothing posted by you or Arc that supports the main thesis. Correlation ≠ causation. Acme, if I ever acquire a pitbull I will undoubtedly name it after you. Fortunately I need not compile a monumental quantity and quality of evidence required to meet your superior discernment. All that is required of this model is that it provide predictions of observations superior to the models currently in use. And thankfully the bar is really low in that regard. For plate tectonics this sums up the competition nicely; http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics." I believe I've beat the standard model quite handedly in this regard. The standard model's predictions of observations amount to "0" and leave an opportunity to someone interested in the subject to take the lead with a simpler and cleverer model. Hey, don't blame me. They've had a big head start with many players on the field, they should have some predictions to show for it. Now about the climate forcing. The whole anthropologic causation argument going on right now is almost entirely predicated on the notion that the climate began warming when fossil fuel became increasingly used by humans, so the cause of the warming climate must be the human production of atmospheric Co2 from burning carbon fuels. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74977-reasons-not-to-worry-climate-change-debate/page-4 Fine, but then what is? No other natural forcing can adequately account for either the amount nor the quickness of the warming trend we're seeing. It's one thing to say it's something other than man... that "it's natural," but you have to also then demonstrate what that natural agent which is causing the warming really is. We know it's not the sun or from solar cycles. We know it's not volcanoes. We know it's not from ocean currents or things like El Nino. We know it's not changes in land use and we know it's not from waste heat. We know it's not from the albedo effect. We know it's not from ozone. We know it's not from internal variability. No known natural forcing agent fits the fingerprint of the observed warming we've been experiencing. The only thing that does fit the data is human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. I'm all ears if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades, but until you do then the human cause explanation is easily the best one available given how it fits the data and the physics of greenhouse systems. So I have shown solar magnetic synchronisation to climate variability going back 11,400 years. Compare the work below to the claim above that cannot explain any other climate variation but makes a Correlation = causation claim based completely on a lack of information and understanding in regards to the past climate. What caused the Younger Dryas cold period? The Medieval Warm Period and the little Ice age? They don't have a mechanism for all of that climate change but are sure its anthropologic for the present situation. Read this material below and see what this model can do with predicting climate in the past and present. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html “This figure, adapted from the NRC (2002) report Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, comes from data in Alley (2000) and Cuffey and Clow (1997). It shows the clear, abrupt increases in temperature in the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) record at the end of the last glacial period and at the end of the Younger Dryas. The cooling as temperatures returned to the glacial conditions of the Younger Dryas takes place over a longer period in a step-wise fashion.” See also: ftp://mtarchive.geol.iastate.edu/data/2005/stuff/504_papers/Younger-Dryas.pdf Click on images to enlarge Graph A The data from Alley, above, was used to make this graph (B) below by Giorgiogp2 who has no connection to this author or this paper and was provided through Wikipedia Creative Commons. It was compiled from Data source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html, the same source as graph A above. Graph B I took this graph above and reversed it to have the most recent events on the right so it could then be more easily compared to the solar magnetic 14C content data in the graph below, that I had previously used to correlate the unusual climate warming of the later part of the 20th century. 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. Graph C “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.” I then plotted the points of both the solar magnetic flux and temperature in synchronized chronologic order between the two graphs, now referred as D1 and D2. Graph D1, D2 What stands out first is the extremely high magnetic energy at 1 to the left on graph D2, the energy level is higher than even the unusually high solar magnetic level mentioned above and shown as the red vertical line above Pt. 23. Pt. 1 on the left occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas cold period that saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12.9–11.5 ka BP. The high solar magnetic energy of Pt. 1 of D2 correlates to when the temperature climbed out of the Younger Dryas cold period at Pt. 1 of D1. Let’s look at graph A again for additional clarity. As you can see the extreme solar magnetic energy of point 1 occurred simultaneously with the temperature increasing as it climbed out of the Younger Dryes, a remarkable correlation of two extreme events. It should also be noted this rise is as precipitous as the current solar magnetic energy level at a (Red) seen in graph C. Graph C To have these two extreme warming events coincide with proportionate solar magnetic flux is beyond what could be considered coincidence; add to this the lesser but still concurrent events between these two extremes and this evidence should convince even the most reluctant observer that the current model is lacking in its abilities to accurately portray the observable world. The rarity of this high magnetic energy is clear; “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.” Graph D1, D2 The 8.2 Kyr Event at Pt. 3 is very easily seen in graph D2, the energy level decrease from the graph’s 4th highest peak of Pt.2 is clearly shown. “The 8.2 kiloyear event was a sudden decrease in global temperatures . . . .and lasted for the next two to four centuries. Milder than the Younger Dryas cold spell that preceded it, but more severe than the Little Ice Age that would follow, the 8.2 kiloyear cooling was a significant exception to general trends of the Holocene climatic optimum. During the event, atmospheric methane concentration decreased by 80 ppb or 15% emission reduction by cooling and drying at a hemispheric scale.” What is important to understand is the spacing between the vertical lines such as Pt.3 shows a rather unusually large gap indicating an extended period of low magnetic energy. This would allow the dissipation of planetary thermal content and a substantial drop in average temperatures as the cooling ocean pulls the atmospheric content down. Other pronounce points such as 4-5, 10-11 and 15-16 allowed enough cooling (gaps between lines) to show as such on graph D1. This models ability to explain this correlation gives credence to its accuracy. The surface temperature variation is simply a byproduct of the Earth’s field generator’s responses to the variations in the Sun’s magnetic field generator. The atmosphere is 0.000 001 percent of one earth mass (or 1/1,200,000) and the ocean is 0.022 percent (1/22,000) of one earth mass, they are by large surface area exposure, in direct contact to the remaining 99.978+ percent of the planet’s thermal content. The mantle constitutes about 84% of Earth’s volume with temperatures that range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust. This model simply acknowledges the dominance of the terrestrial mass’ thermal content, and its ability, without measurable content loss, to direct the oceans thermal content in measurable gains or losses. This permits the ocean’s variable thermal content to be a forcing agent of Earth’s climate. Let’s look at something to illustrate this concept. ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005. “Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.” The volumetric heat capacity of the terrestrial Earth should dominate the ocean even more so than the ocean over the atmosphere. The thermal energy at the crust mantle boundary should provide thermal content into the ocean at the mid ocean ridge, driving the thermohaline circulation (THC) that carries this thermal content to the ocean surface. The hypothesis contends that strain energy derived heat content at the crust mantle boundary is a forcing mechanism. That if a thermal content at the boundary was in a fractionally lower level than it is now the deep ocean temperature would be lower than it is now. The reduced heat content of the ocean would then express a lower surface heat flux. And due to this, the solar input would not be able to furnish surface temperatures at current levels which would in turn produce increased snowfall amounts and lower seasonal temperatures. According to the model a very small amplitude increase of the magnetic field generator would produce the currently observed divergent plate boundary movement and impose thermal content into the ocean from the concurrent strain energy released from the mantle’s displacement. The fact that we are currently in an inter-glacial during an ice age period that began 2.6 million years ago suggests that the planet has been in a thermal see-saw with the temperature balance point at close proximity to the forcing agent, where a fractionally small variable is able tip the temperature balance in the opposite direction. The longer periods of the glacial over the much shorter inter-glacial suggests that after an initial fractional ocean temperature decrease the resulting sunlight reflecting snow produces an albedo feedback that quickly reduces the effects of solar thermal radiation. The model requires a small heat content bias increase from strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary to warm the ocean to reverse the glacial mechanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age “The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats.” According to the model, around 2.58 million years ago the Earth’s field generator lowered its energy level from a previous higher level period. Although the field generator output varies continuously, this was a new lower average compared to the previous and brought the Earth into the current Ice Age period. The interglacials, like the one we are in now, show that the field generator can vary enough, even in short time frame increases, to impose thermal content into the ocean/atmosphere in what are consistent periodicities. These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar origins. These are rapid changes in the thermohaline circulation (THC) temperature, and are so small in content compared to the Earth’s terrestrial content that they are inconsequential to it. And even more important, the heat associated to ocean content forcing is determined by the strain energy response to the field generator’s output. The terrestrial volumetric heat is there as a base line temperature. This heat content that periodically warms the ocean/atmosphere through the millennia is produced by the strain energy response to the outward displacing mantle. During this time the tectonic plates are slowly extending and the divergent boundaries are filling with magma. And of course if the boundaries are active due to the solar magnetic forcing we would see a synchronization to any long period records of earthquake activity. Edited June 14, 2014 by arc
iNow Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Just because there were different causes of climate change in the geological past doesn't mean that human activity cannot be the primary cause today. Your basic logic above is inherently flawed.
Acme Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Correlation ≠ causation. Acme, if I ever acquire a pitbull I will undoubtedly name it after you. Woof! Fortunately I need not compile a monumental quantity and quality of evidence required to meet your superior discernment. All that is required of this model is that it provide predictions of observations superior to the models currently in use. And thankfully the bar is really low in that regard. For plate tectonics this sums up the competition nicely; http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics." ... OK. But Doglioni goes on to say: ...A more robust contribution of the Earths rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged. So there is no call or need to invoke anything exotic such as your hypothesized solar magnetic link to account for the discrepancy, rather it is a call and a need to understand and model the effect of Earth's rotation on convection cells.
Unity+ Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 Correlation ≠ causation. This discussion already was established long ago in this topic(by billards). As long as there is a mechanism(which there is) that is established by the thread then it is justified to look into its merit. Just because there were different causes of climate change in the geological past doesn't mean that human activity cannot be the primary cause today. Your basic logic above is inherently flawed. I don't think he is arguing that point. I think he is merely establishing a link between geological activity and climate change. And, of course human activity can have an affect on the environment. Whether its actions are as stated is to be determined by scientific evidence(and doesn't have any relation to the discussion unless referring to higher rates of increased heat on Earth and accounting for such increases in the evidence). So there is no call or need to invoke anything exotic such as your hypothesized solar magnetic link to account for the discrepancy, rather it is a call and a need to understand and model the effect of Earth's rotation on convection cells. I think looking into both would allow a more scientific discussion, if you ask me. -1
Acme Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 This discussion already was established long ago in this topic(by billards). As long as there is a mechanism(which there is) that is established by the thread then it is justified to look into its merit. No, there is not an established mechanism. It is speculation and lacking the math to boot. How many joules of energy are being transferred by the speculated magnetic connection? I think looking into both would allow a more scientific discussion, if you ask me. I have looked into and that's why I have posted to the effect that it does not stand up under scrutiny.
Unity+ Posted June 14, 2014 Posted June 14, 2014 No, there is not an established mechanism. It is speculation and lacking the math to boot. How many joules of energy are being transferred by the speculated magnetic connection? That's what I meant. Also, I am currently trying to work that out(need to take the time do work on it). -1
Essay Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 The interglacials, like the one we are in now, show that the field generator can vary enough, even in short time frame increases, to impose thermal content into the ocean/atmosphere in what are consistent periodicities. These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar origins. ...the heat associated to ocean content forcing is determined by the strain energy response to the field generator’s output. This heat content that periodically warms the ocean/atmosphere through the millennia is produced by the strain energy response to the outward displacing mantle. During this time the tectonic plates are slowly extending and the divergent boundaries are filling with magma. .... And of course if the boundaries are active due to the solar magnetic forcing we would see a synchronization to any long period records of earthquake activity. On what time scale does this supposed "strain energy" affect ocean heating? === You say... "These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar origins." ...suggest!?! So, to ask sarcastically, it's just a big coincidence that orbital "timed events" (Milankovitch forcings) are more than "consistent enough" with "heat content that periodically warms the ocean/atmosphere through the millennia?" === How would your "strain" heat make its way up through the millennial-scale, deep-ocean conveyor? Wouldn't there be plently of evidence for oceans being affected from the bottom up, through your mechanism; rather than being affected through some top down (as with climate) mechanism, for which we actually, iirc, do find evidence? ~ 1
Acme Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Another problem I see with the proposed magnetic force from Sol idea is that it would most certainly impose a torque on the Earth, and yet the Earth's rotation is well accounted for by the usual physics for orbiting bodies.
arc Posted June 15, 2014 Author Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Woof! That's a good boy! I knew your bark was worse than your bite . . . . . . . now let's see if we can get you neutered. OK. But Doglioni goes on to say: So there is no call or need to invoke anything exotic such as your hypothesized solar magnetic link to account for the discrepancy, rather it is a call and a need to understand and model the effect of Earth's rotation on convection cells. Exotic huh, you should see where mantle convection has wandered off to. The decades spent looking for signs of convection and then mantle plumes has lead to a meandering chain of inventing gizmos and whatchamacallits to explain the discrepancies in their models. Here's some of their imaginative solutions; mantle wind, Euler pole jerks, mantle roll, magma tunnels, hidden plate boundaries, lithosphere drift, superplumes, lateral flow, group motions of "hot spots" and my favorite, plume head decapitation. Just because there were different causes of climate change in the geological past doesn't mean that human activity cannot be the primary cause today. Your basic logic above is inherently flawed. I would tend to trust a model that shows a consistent ability to predict not only the time of a climate temperature change, but also the degree. Take for example these two graphs, one is temperature from ice core data. And the other is solar magnetic strength reconstructed from 14C in tree rings. According to the graphs above our current warming seems to be proportionate to the current solar magnetic flux level. Now, that alone would be as much of a convincing argument as that of anyone claiming the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is proportional to the release of anthropogenic Co2, and then claim, it therefore must be the cause. But look what else can be observed in the two graphs. The historical solar magnetic levels are not only concurrent to the historical temperature variation but proportionate to the temperature. When the temperature was lower so was the solar magnetic flux, and when the solar magnetic flux was unusually high the Earth was recorded to be proportionally warmer. Pt. 1 on the left occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas cold period that saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12.9–11.5 ka BP. The high solar magnetic energy of Pt. 1 of D2 correlates to when the temperature climbed out of the Younger Dryas cold period at Pt. 1 of D1. This is no different in correlation then your " anthropogenic Co2 = temperature rise" that is offered as proof of human causation. I am simply showing a much broader and more accurate picture of the correlation and causation connection than your model's data can provide. You should take care to understand the cold events that are shown in those two graphs. The Younger Dryas cold period just before point 1. and the 8.2 Kyr Event at Pt. 3 are very easily seen in graph D2, the 8.2 Kyr's energy level decrease from the graph’s 4th highest peak of Pt.2 is clearly shown. “The 8.2 kiloyear event was a sudden decrease in global temperatures . . . .and lasted for the next two to four centuries. Milder than the Younger Dryas cold spell that preceded it, but more severe than the Little Ice Age that would follow, the 8.2 kiloyear cooling was a significant exception to general trends of the Holocene climatic optimum. During the event, atmospheric methane concentration decreased by 80 ppb or 15% emission reduction by cooling and drying at a hemispheric scale.” This becomes quite sobering when you consider; 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. Graph C “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 warming that we are currently enjoying is likely to end soon and the new norm will probably resemble the earlier cooling events of the holocene, the Younger Dryas, the 8.2 Kyr and the Little Ice Age. Like it says above; it's only been at this level 10% of the time during the last 11,400 years and all of them were shorter. Two hundred or more years of Little Ice Age temperatures won't be too bad if you can keep in mind it could have been the temperature of the other two events. Eventually, before the Holocene is over, it will get warm again. Probably long enough to reforest the Canadian northern territories as far north as it did during the last interglacial. On what time scale does this supposed "strain energy" affect ocean heating? Hi Essay, welcome to my plate tectonic thread. What took you so long! I believe those two posts are iNow's first here also. On what time scale does this supposed "strain energy" affect ocean heating? All the time. Solar magnetic flux is always changing, it is well documented. The Earth's magnetic field is always changing, it is well documented. According to the model these two input a varying amplitude into the outer core's liquid iron causing it to thermally expand. This leads to what is currently observed at the divergent plate boundaries. The outward displacing mantle produces strain energy in response to the expansionary forces. A smaller amount is produced closest to the outer core and increases the farther away from the core you get. It culminates with the most strain energy at the crust mantle boundary where the mantle must displace the greatest degree to the molten outer core's thermal expansion. This is where the magma is produced which will support the tectonic plates and which is then extruded into the divergent plate boundaries as they are separated. You say... "These timed events are consistent enough to suggest solar origins." ...suggest!?! So, to ask sarcastically, it's just a big coincidence that orbital "timed events" (Milankovitch forcings) are more than "consistent enough" with "heat content that periodically warms the ocean/atmosphere through the millennia?" I don't want to dump a huge amount of content on you, I will just say this atmospheric phenomena we are discussing is a byproduct of the model's plate tectonic mechanism. The resurfacing, or more exactly, the extensional events like the Basin and Range in the Southwest U.S. coincide with periods of warmer climate, while the mountain building episodes occur during times when there is large scale reduction of mantle displacement. The geologic events are the driver of the planets variable climate. Our planet's recent warming since the early 1800's coincides with the geologic movement predicted by this model. This image below is in regards to the correlation between solar magnetic flux, climate and earthquake activity. Please refer to my blog; http://blogs.scienceforums.net/arc/subversive-content/ This will outline for you the connection between the solar magnetic/geologic/climate connection. You will also find an outline of the model there as well as other surprising ideas in these regards. Edited June 15, 2014 by arc
Essay Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Hi Essay, welcome to my plate tectonic thread. What took you so long! I believe those two posts are iNow's first here also. Perhaps great minds do think alike. For my part, I think I probably looked at this, whenever it started months ago, and decided it was an obvious attempt to grasp at some newly discovered ersatz [and non-anthropogenic] mechanism to explain rapid climate change ...and also that it was not even worth any attempt to untangle the illogicality of the premise. That was then. Now, with the semester over and one class finished, this looked like a long-running topic of interest. I didn't notice which forum this was in, nor realize this was probably that same thread I had not replied to when it started. On what time scale does this supposed "strain energy" affect ocean heating? All the time. Solar magnetic flux is always changing, it is well documented. The Earth's magnetic field is always changing, it is well documented. According to the model these two input a varying amplitude into the outer core's liquid iron causing it to thermally expand. This leads to what is currently observed at the divergent plate boundaries. The outward displacing mantle produces strain energy in response to the expansionary forces. A smaller amount is produced closest to the outer core and increases the farther away from the core you get. It culminates with the most strain energy at the crust mantle boundary where the mantle must displace the greatest degree to the molten outer core's thermal expansion. This is where the magma is produced which will support the tectonic plates and which is then extruded into the divergent plate boundaries as they are separated. You are talking about the sunspot cycles, right; when you speak about solar magnetic flux? That was the only thing that came up when I searched the term. You describe plate tectonics so simply, it seems as if things could change easily; which is why I asked about the time scales. "All the time" is not an answer. It ignores the question about how long it takes for these "solar magnetic" changes to have any effect; any effect such as those "atmospheric phenomena [which are] a byproduct of the model's plate tectonic mechanism." I don't want to dump a huge amount of content on you, I will just say this atmospheric phenomena we are discussing is a byproduct of the model's plate tectonic mechanism. The resurfacing, or more exactly, the extensional events like the Basin and Range in the Southwest U.S. coincide with periods of warmer climate, while the mountain building episodes occur during times when there is large scale reduction of mantle displacement. The geologic events are the driver of the planets variable climate. Our planet's recent warming since the early 1800's coincides with the geologic movement predicted by this model. This image below is in regards to the correlation between solar magnetic flux, climate and earthquake activity. .... Please refer to my blog; This will outline for you the connection between the solar magnetic/geologic/climate connection. You will also find an outline of the model there as well as other surprising ideas in these regards. There is a well-known [though not well-understood] link between the sunspot cycles and climate. It's accounted for in the models; and as INow noted, it doesn't account for recent, increasingly rapid, changes. Also, aside from completely ignoring how GHG theory does explain the recent anomolous changes, you completely ignore the point about Milankovitch Forcings. They have the periods of "40,000- and 100,000-year time scales," which explain millions of years of ice-age changes quite well. Milankovitch cycles can even be found in varved sediments from the Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous epochs, hundreds of millions of years ago. Or are you describing some supplementary mechanism.... No, you're not; are you? === And, all of that aside, you are claiming a link between earthquakes and climate (by way of solar influence on tectonics), so I can see why this ended up in Speculations. I did look up your source, and found a site with many interesting (seemingly relevant) tidbits: http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/whatsnew.html Paleoclimatology Branch of the National Climatic Data Center. To find: What's New for 2005: (plus archives back to 1995) ...they have a link to your cited source. I noticed the last sentence of the Abstract from your source says: 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. "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." BUT... there several other very interesting Abstracts on the same page: http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/whatsnew.html Moberg… Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data …Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 10 February 2005. === & also.... Stable sea surface temperatures in the western Pacific warm pool over the past 1.75 million years de Garidel-Thoron et al., Nature …Vol. 433, No.7023, 20 January 2005. About 850,000 years ago, the period of the glacial cycles changed from 41,000 to 100,000 years. This mid-Pleistocene climate transition has been attributed to global cooling, possibly caused by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. However, evidence for such cooling is currently restricted to the cool upwelling regions in the eastern equatorial oceans, although the tropical warm pools on the western side of the ocean basins are particularly sensitive to changes in radiative forcing. & High-latitude influence on the eastern equatorial Pacific climate in the early Pleistocene epoch Liu and Herbert Nature …Vol. 427, No. 6976, pp. 720 - 723, 19 February 2004. Many records of tropical sea surface temperature and marine productivity exhibit cycles of 23 kyr (orbital precession) and 100 kyr during the past 0.5Myr, whereas high-latitude sea surface temperature records display much more pronounced obliquity cycles at a period of about 41 kyr. Little is known, however, about tropical climate variability before the mid-Pleistocene transition about 900 kyr ago, which marks the change from a climate dominated by 41-kyr cycles (when ice-age cycles and high-latitude sea surface temperature variations were dictated by changes in the Earth’s obliquity) to the more recent 100-kyr cycles of ice ages. Here we analyse alkenones from marine sediments in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean to reconstruct sea surface temperatures and marine productivity over the past 1.8Myr. We find that both records are dominated by the 41-kyr obliquity cycles between 1.8 and 1.2Myr ago, with a relatively small contribution from orbital precession, and that early Pleistocene sea surface temperatures varied in the opposite sense to local annual insolation in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. We conclude that during the early Pleistocene epoch, climate variability at our study site must have been determined by high-latitude processes that were driven by orbital obliquity forcing. & Antarctic Timing of Surface Water Changes off Chile and Patagonian Ice Sheet Response. Lamy et al. Science ...Vol. 304, No. 5679, pp.1959-1962, 25 June 2004. Marine sediments from the Chilean continental margin are used to infer millennial-scale changes in southeast Pacific surface ocean water properties and Patagonian ice sheet extent since the last glacial period. Our data show a clear "Antarctic" timing of sea surface temperature changes, which appear systematically linked to meridional displacements in sea ice, westerly winds, and the circumpolar current system. Proxy data for ice sheet changes show a similar pattern as oceanographic variations offshore, but reveal a variable glacier-response time of up to ~1000 years, which may explain some of the current discrepancies among terrestrial records in southern South America. & Insolation-driven changes in atmospheric circulation over the past 116,000 years in subtropical Brazil Cruz et al. Nature …Vol. 434, No. 7029, pp. 63 - 66, 3 March 2005. During the last glacial period, large millennial-scale temperature oscillations-the 'Dansgaard/Oeschger' cycles-were the primary climate signal in Northern Hemisphere climate archives from the high latitudes to the tropics. .... ...are you suggesting the solar magnetic induction causes these Milankovitch cycles, or just that the Milankovitch cycles are not relevant? ~ Edited June 15, 2014 by Essay
Acme Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Woof! That's a good boy! I knew your bark was worse than your bite . . . . . . . now let's see if we can get you neutered. Exotic huh, you should see where mantle convection has wandered off to. The decades spent looking for signs of convection and then mantle plumes has lead to a meandering chain of inventing gizmos and whatchamacallits to explain the discrepancies in their models. Here's some of their imaginative solutions; ...This will outline for you the connection between the solar magnetic/geologic/climate connection. You will also find an outline of the model there as well as other surprising ideas in these regards. Well, I wouldn't bet the farm on the weakness of my bite as evidenced by my bark. So anyway, I follow geology and I'm not unfamiliar with ideas on mantle plumes. For example, one fairly recent hypothesis puts forward evidence that some of them are the result of large space body impacts. As I commented earlier and you may have missed, there could be no significant force transferred magnetically from the Sun to Earth that would not impart a torque on Earth and there is no such effect in evidence. Since you quoted that Italian professor's work, I suggest you write him about your ideas straight away and then let us know how it goes.
arc Posted June 15, 2014 Author Posted June 15, 2014 I think I probably looked at this, whenever it started months ago, and decided it was an obvious attempt to grasp at some newly discovered ersatz [and non-anthropogenic] mechanism to explain rapid climate change ...and also that it was not even worth any attempt to untangle the illogicality of the premise. Hi Essay, people have misinterpreted this model since the very beginning. It is unique in that it combines the the mind numbingly boring geology (I don't think that though, It's my favorite science) with the contentious climate change. "and decided it was an obvious attempt to grasp at some newly discovered ersatz [and non-anthropogenic] mechanism to explain rapid climate change" Congratulations, you responded pretty much like everyone else. People will either like it or hate it base on which side of climate change debate they fall on. But, this is about geology, if it resembles something else it may be a coincidence or of a similar phenomenal origin. If you read this threads beginning you can see it outlines a very original interpretation of geology. There is tremendous evidence of rapid, large scale resurfacing of the earth. This "sudden" movement requires a mechanism that can store energy for millions of years, or even tens of millions of years, in the earths crust. This energy is gravitational potential energy and it will impose millennial scale degrees of compression into the Earth's crust. Below all of this activity is the magma at the crust/mantle boundary created by a strain energy response to the outer core/field generators variable over millennia. So, there is a short outline that should at least give a starting point to discuss your points. You are talking about the sunspot cycles, right; when you speak about solar magnetic flux? That was the only thing that came up when I searched the term. You describe plate tectonics so simply, it seems as if things could change easily; which is why I asked about the time scales. "All the time" is not an answer. It ignores the question about how long it takes for these "solar magnetic" changes to have any effect; any effect such as those "atmospheric phenomena [which are] a byproduct of the model's plate tectonic mechanism." I am using Sunspot data, it contains within its measurements of sunspots an indication of the strength of the Sun's magnetosphere or interplanetary magnetic field. A large part of this model is supported by the 14C tree ring and 10Be data. These sources of data are controlled very accurately by the Sun's continuously changing field strength. Bond had noted a link between 14C content and drift ice debris in seafloor sediments, this is, according to this model, an ocean thermal content directly connected to solar magnetic strength, but how? What would make the ocean cool enough at specific times of low magnetic field strength to allow icebergs to travel an extra distance south. Enough of a distance that the rocks within the berg, in place from its glacial origin, will stand out in defined layers of seafloor sediment where they were dropped in chronologically narrow periods of quasi-1,500 year cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle These 1470 +/- 500 year cycles show in ice core samples as well. So Milankovitch cycles are much wider and probably overlay the Bond cycles in some way. Likely imposing a positive and then at times negative effect on the Bond cycle, but I have tried to stay away from Milankovitch cycles to avoid drowning myself in complexities. I did look up your source, and found a site with many interesting (seemingly relevant) tidbits: http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/whatsnew.html Paleoclimatology Branch of the National Climatic Data Center. To find: What's New for 2005: (plus archives back to 1995) ...they have a link to your cited source. I noticed the last sentence of the Abstract from your source says: 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. "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." ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf "In terms of the causes of the increase in ocean heat content we believe that the long-term trend as seen in these records is due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere [Levitus et al., 2001]. In fact, estimates of the net radiative forcing of the Earth system [Hansen et al., 1997] suggest the possibility that we may be underestimating ocean warming. This is possible since we do not have complete data coverage for the world ocean However, the large decrease in ocean heat content starting around 1980 suggests that internal variability of the Earth system significantly affects Earth’s heat balance on decadal time-scales." This is the difference between this model and existing theories on planetary heating. Sunspots are a solar magnetic phenomena but every conclusion on any planetary thermal forcing in relation to sunspots always defers to "radiative forcing of the Earth system". My model suggests deep ocean heating from the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary imposed in geologically short and long time frame periods. These periods do not just suggest climate or ocean warming, they suggest tectonic movement if the solar magnetic energy needed is available. When you examine features like the Basin and Range; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province "The average crustal thickness of the Basin and Range Province is approximately 30 – 35 km and is comparable to extended continental crust around the world. The crust in conjunction with the upper mantle comprises the lithosphere. The base of the lithosphere beneath the Basin and Range is estimated to be about 60 – 70 km. Opinions vary regarding the total extension of the region, however the median estimate is about 100% total lateral extension. Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north." Then the concurrent climate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Climate "Although a long-term cooling trend was well underway, there is evidence of a warm period during the Miocene when the global climate rivalled that of the Oligocene. The Miocene warming began 21 million years ago and continued until 14 million years ago, when global temperatures took a sharp drop - the Middle Miocene Climate Transition (MMCT). By 8 million years ago, temperatures dropped sharply once again, and the Antarctic ice sheet was already approaching its present-day size and thickness. Greenland may have begun to have large glaciers as early as 7 to 8 million years ago, although the climate for the most part remained warm enough to support forests there well into the Pliocene." You get a sense of the energy released over maybe 7 million +/- years that stretched the Pacific Plate out between two points of resistance, one is the Pacific Plate's edge subducted at the Mariana Trench to the west and the other is the subducted edge of the Pacific Plate under the North American continent to the East. This is evidence of extensional forces that are easily accomplished by mantle displacement of very small degrees. These extensional events coincide with climatic warm periods. Here's another; This study below shows such an extensional event in Antarctica, also during the Miocene, but of course suggests the current standard models reason, mantle upwelling in regards to a plume as a cause. http://geodynamics.u...nts/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 course 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/...ca20120617.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 have shown there is ample evidence of a correlation to the mountain building period of the Himalayas and the cooling climate. This graph below shows this cooling, starting at the end of the Miocene (not shown) beginning at the left side of the top graph, and continuing through the mountain building period; 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 "According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid. They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.)" By the end of the Miocene the core temp began to cool and the mantle slowly contracted putting the crust into compression, starting a long period of subduction. As the crust is increasingly loaded with stored compression from the contracting mantle, due to the resistance in the subduction trenches, the crust begins a period of global mountain building that occurred during the "Early and Middle Pleistocene." The compression continued to bleed off into the trenches until the crust began a slow and low energy period of activity. It's interesting to think the solar magnetic energy cycle that extended the Basin and Range was stored as mass in the crust then converted by gravity to kinetic energy that then lifted the mass of the Himalayas millions + years later.
Unity+ Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) As I commented earlier and you may have missed, there could be no significant force transferred magnetically from the Sun to Earth that would not impart a torque on Earth and there is no such effect in evidence. This would depend on the net force. If the magnetic field's force is less powerful than the already put-in-place gravitational forces, there could be a transfer of energy, but no detectable push/pull by both bodies that could be detected. Edited June 15, 2014 by Unity+ -1
arc Posted June 15, 2014 Author Posted June 15, 2014 Well, I wouldn't bet the farm on the weakness of my bite as evidenced by my bark. So anyway, I follow geology and I'm not unfamiliar with ideas on mantle plumes. For example, one fairly recent hypothesis puts forward evidence that some of them are the result of large space body impacts. Yes, I am aware of these ideas. But, they do lack an overall consistency with observations. They seem to be invented to solve a particular problem and the modified as needed to correct inconsistencies as the arrive. Sort of a Rube Goldberg machine approach to geology. As I commented earlier and you may have missed, there could be no significant force transferred magnetically from the Sun to Earth that would not impart a torque on Earth and there is no such effect in evidence. Since you quoted that Italian professor's work, I suggest you write him about your ideas straight away and then let us know how it goes. Sorry, well I don't suggest there is a magnetic attraction of any kind that would cause drag or any similar effects. This is the induction of a massively smaller planetary magnetic field by a larger solar magnetic field. The magnetic connection between the Earth and its field generator adds a degree of separation between the terrestrial Earth and the solar magnetic field, this may reduce this effect that you imply. Isn't the connection between the fields after all.
Acme Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 ... As I commented earlier and you may have missed, there could be no significant force transferred magnetically from the Sun to Earth that would not impart a torque on Earth and there is no such effect in evidence. Since you quoted that Italian professor's work, I suggest you write him about your ideas straight away and then let us know how it goes. This would depend on the net force. If the magnetic field's force is less powerful than the already put-in-place gravitational forces, there could be a transfer of energy, but no detectable push/pull by both bodies that could be detected. Nonsense. Arc is claiming the Sun's magnetism is driving plate motion and a force with that power would have a significant torque component. Yes, I am aware of these ideas. But, they do lack an overall consistency with observations. They seem to be invented to solve a particular problem and the modified as needed to correct inconsistencies as the arrive. Sort of a Rube Goldberg machine approach to geology. You are mistaken. You can read up on some of what I refer to in Mike Smith's thread Between the two great "Mass Extinction Events" and Serendipity ! starting with my post #23. Sorry, well I don't suggest there is a magnetic attraction of any kind that would cause drag or any similar effects. This is the induction of a massively smaller planetary magnetic field by a larger solar magnetic field. The magnetic connection between the Earth and its field generator adds a degree of separation between the terrestrial Earth and the solar magnetic field, this may reduce this effect that you imply. Isn't the connection between the fields after all. That does not answer my criticism in the least. See my response to Unity+. As I said before, why not write that Italian professor you cite as a reason to construct your idea and ask him what he thinks?
arc Posted June 16, 2014 Author Posted June 16, 2014 Nonsense. Arc is claiming the Sun's magnetism is driving plate motion and a force with that power would have a significant torque component. Acme, I think you are confused about the way this model's mechanism operates. I believe the proportions of energy that you think are at play here are not as great as you might think. The model contends that the current divergent boundary metrics are the result of a strain energy response to the outer cores thermal expansion. The mantle is 2,900 kilometres (1,800 mi) thick, that constitutes about 84% of Earth's volume. The Earth is 40075.16 kilometers in circumference with divergent boundary metrics measured in millimeters per year. The Pacific mid ocean ridge is the largest at 80-120 mm per year and the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. The total lateral displacement of the Basin and Range extension varied from 60 – 300 km over 7+/- million years. Just 42 mm a year of displacement at the Basin and Range area over a period of 7 million years time will give you the 300 km of displacement. Seems a reasonable figure compared to current Pacific at 80-120 mm per year and the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. The energy in molecular level thermal expansion is immense. But the thermal expansion energy displacing the divergent plate boundaries is not taking place in the mantle. The mantle is being outwardly displaced by the cores thermal expansion due to the increase of current and field by induction. The thermal expansion energy of core is multiplied by the thickness of the mantle similar to the inverse square law. The thermal expansion of the core's liquid iron and the inner core as well will move outward with no regard to the mass of the mantle trying to compress it. It will not be stopped. The maths for this are beyond my humble skills. But I have found a link with what I believe are the maths needed to calculate the mantle displacement and surface strain. I'm looking for some guidance HELP! by the capable forum members present. http://solidmechanics.org/text/Chapter4_3/Chapter4_3.htm Applied Mechanics of solids by Allan F. Bower Solutions to simple boundary and initial value problems 4.3 Spherically symmetric solution to quasi-static large strain elasticity problems 4.3.1 Summary of governing equations of finite elasticity in Cartesian components This section is intended to illustrate the nature of solutions to elasticity problems with large shape changes. 4.3.2 Simplified equations for incompressible spherically symmetric solids "A representative spherically symmetric problem is illustrated in the picture. We consider a hollow, spherical solid, which is subjected to spherically symmetric loading (i.e. internal body forces, as well as tractions or displacements applied to the surface, are independent of and , and act in the radial direction only)". 4.3.3 Pressurized hollow sphere made from an incompressible rubber As an example, consider a pressurized hollow rubber shell, as shown in the picture. Assume that Before deformation, the sphere has inner radius A and outer radius B After deformation, the sphere has inner radius a and outer radius b The solid is made from an incompressible Mooney-Rivlin solid, with strain energy potential Due to copyright limits I cannot post more than this but it looks to me to be the correct calculations for this model. It should require a very small amplitudinal change in intensity to initiate the needed thermal expansion of the core. The mantle will provide the mechanical advantage to multiply the very small thermal expansion at the core into the larger mantle surface displacement at the crust/mantle boundary while creating the hydraulic magma to displace the crust and fill the divergent plate boundaries. 1
Acme Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Acme, I think you are confused about the way this model's mechanism operates. ... Yes well, I think it is you that is confused. Inasmuch as you seem to regularly ignore all objections in this thread and simply repeat your unsubstantiated assertions, I'll just leave you to your own devices.
arc Posted June 17, 2014 Author Posted June 17, 2014 Yes well, I think it is you that is confused. Inasmuch as you seem to regularly ignore all objections in this thread and simply repeat your unsubstantiated assertions, I'll just leave you to your own devices. Acme, I feel there is a distinct lack of objectivity with many members whose post on this thread. Ideally the challenges should be of a purely scientific merit and to that you have been true. But others have brought their personal prejudices as poorly disguised critical analysis. To be honest I really can't take seriously anything people say until they will offer up an alternative explanation for just a few of the many predictions of observations that I have posted for well over a year on this thread. You may feel I owe you some detailed answer to your query but you are mistaken, I will answer what I can and owe you nothing more. Your assertion of the importance of your question to this model is yours not mine. I weigh criticisms of this model against the answers it delivers, which far exceed those of the standard models. Can you offer an alternative answer to why the divergent plate boundaries have different metrics of infill? This model explains it with ease. Mountain building appears to have occurred in very short time frames at distinct periods in Earth's history, do you have a answer for that? This model does. The list is long and yet these are clearly avoided as if they don't exist while a question such as yours is proffered as critical to this models viability. This model is far reaching and interconnected with evidence that crosses between geology, climate, and solar magnetic phenomena. The list is long of what this model can answer and I will leave it to you to convince me of your questions importance in the totality of this models predictive abilities. For example; This member seems quite bothered by this threads concept. iNow, on 11 Sept 2013 - 2:03 PM, said: '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?' So I did some research base on this model's plate dynamics and found what the model predicted, that Japanese records showed earthquakes tracking solar magnetic and climate histories. So there it is, climate variability is following solar magnetic flux very closely. And earthquakes occur specific to solar magnetic flux strength and increase proportionally "since the industrial age" while the climate warms proportionally also at the same rate. Three distinct phenomena all connected together. Should I dismiss this as coincidence based on your analysis; Acme, on 13 Jun 2014 - 08:41 AM, said: "Thank you, no. I read the entire thread and see nothing posted by you or Arc that supports the main thesis." REALLY!
Recommended Posts