Plate tectonic mechanism ?

arc · June 24, 2014

Arc, I think I have run out of words for you. I will leave with this very nice post I found by Ophiolite on another thread "spotting pseudo science."

Arc, you fall squarely into the latter camp (my bold in the quote above).

Billiards I'm afraid you have ran out of tactics to avoid my repeated requests that you provide some prediction of observations to back up your assertions that your standard model is the better model. You have yet to fulfill that obligation. I wondered how long you could maintain this charade of yours. It's rather interesting that I have provided so much evidence to support my model while you have not for yours.

I had to badger you to address post #275, and look at the results. Your first attempt was a joke! No, I mean really a joke, I'm still laughing about it. The second was your classic habit of obfuscation through your unique skill of making the simple to understand overly complicated.

So you're only considering earthquakes "which caused significant damage or casualties". In your source it says: "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."

Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue?

Why don't you do a global analysis? so as to increase your confidence in the "correlation"? i.e. to protect yourself from statistical anomalies by including more data --

Many large earthquakes occur that cause little/no damage, why not include those?

Post #275 is completely useless, it is bunk.

Here is a histogram of number of earthquakes per year from a recent catalogue...

You have to be careful with these though, this catalogue deliberately has cut-off magnitudes that "were selected prior to the start of the project (Fig. 1) and were dictated by the time constraints and availability of funds:

1900-1917: Ms≥7.5 worldwide + smaller shallow events in stable continental areas

1918-1959: Ms≥6¼

1960-2009: Ms≥5.5"

http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscgem/overview.php

That's why you see those steps. If you look at the yellow bars, the Mw>=7.5, the trend is not affected by these deliberate cutoffs. There might still be biases in the data though, as older records are more likely to be lost, and record keeping would have been less rigorous than it is today.

And that makes my simple and easy to understand model more complicated and less predictive . . . . Yeah, not what I'm after. But if it works for you :lol:

I've said it before, I use simple field study and analysis. Here's my quote from Ophiolite:

Geology is the study of the Earth: how it formed, how it has changed over time and the processes that promote those changes. If you want the minimum soundbite - geology is about change in the planet. . . . . . . .

I was trained on the basis that fieldwork was an essential ingredient of geology: get out and hit the rocks with a hammer; see the lie of the land; sense the development of the environments and structures.

So I did that and it worked out pretty well for me. How's your way working out for you?

I believe you are going to be dealing with this model for a long time to come. We haven't even discussed the large majority of what this model covers. I have corresponded with my area's former state meteorologist of 19+ years, and as he told me "the idea that recent solar activity is essentially unmatched in the past is HUGE! I want to continue poring over this."

I have a feeling it's going to be interesting for the next few years.

Edited June 24, 2014 by arc

billiards · June 24, 2014

Billiards I'm afraid you have ran out of tactics

I haven't run out of tactics, I've run out of patience.

to avoid my repeated requests that you provide some prediction of observations to back up your assertions that your standard model is the better model.

The problem is that this would not serve the debate. Your model is under scrutiny here, not the standard one. The standard model of plate tectonics links together the palaeo magnetic lineation data, the palaentology data, the volcanology data, the seismic tomography data, the seismic anisotropy data, the seismic earthquake mechanism data, and other geological data. The kinematic theory of plate tectonics predicts where the plates will end up in millions of years. It can also be used to work out basement evolution and predict where oil will be, for example. Geodynamicists have used physics (and guess what they're past the Boussinesq approximation these days) to predict planetary evolution, and they have repeatedly developed models that show plate-tectonic behaviour, with convecting mantles.

I had to badger you to address post #275, and look at the results. Your first attempt was a joke! No, I mean really a joke, I'm still laughing about it. The second was your classic habit of obfuscation through your unique skill of making the simple to understand overly complicated.

What's so difficult to understand? Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue? You still haven't answered that question. You're attempts to ridicule me are not working. Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events. Accept it, change it, move on. Stop being a stubborn donkey.

And that makes my simple and easy to understand model more complicated and less predictive . . . . Yeah, not what I'm after. But if it works for you

You mean if you use decent data your model doesn't work. Welcome to science my friend.

arc · June 25, 2014

I haven't run out of tactics, I've run out of patience.

Apparently not.

The problem is that this would not serve the debate. Your model is under scrutiny here, not the standard one.

Oh, but the standard model is under scrutiny.

Science is about gathering information and comparing it. The value of a product compared to itself is indeterminate. Would you take the word of any salesperson that said; "No! Don't look at any others anywhere else, they are all junk, believe me mine's the best."

I can't believe you would suggest such a thing. The value of anything is determined by comparison to its direct competitor. We want the best that we can determine, not the only one nobody wanted. When you were a kid and they were picking teams, did they choose the worst player first!

You don't want to have your model compared to mine while I want my model compared to yours. Hmm. If we were selling something (and we both are) do you think everyone would trust someone trying to discourage access to other choices? Which product would they suspect was the better product?

The standard model of plate tectonics links together the palaeo magnetic lineation data, the palaentology data, the volcanology data, the seismic tomography data, the seismic anisotropy data, the seismic earthquake mechanism data, and other geological data. The kinematic theory of plate tectonics predicts where the plates will end up in millions of years. It can also be used to work out basement evolution and predict where oil will be, for example. Geodynamicists have used physics (and guess what they're past the Boussinesq approximation these days) to predict planetary evolution, and they have repeatedly developed models that show plate-tectonic behaviour, with convecting mantles.

Wow, that sounds impressive! But I suspect you are trying to hide your convection in the bottom of the barrel to sneak it in there with those other predictive observations. Oh there it is down in the bottom like I thought. Aren't you over selling that mantle convection "predict" part. Oh wait, it doesn't say predict, it says;

"and they have repeatedly developed models that show plate-tectonic behaviour, with convecting mantles"

Shame on you for trying to include that mantle convection in with those predictive observations.

. Why do I think that way? -

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. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape."

Something else doesn't fit here.

What's so difficult to understand? Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue? You still haven't answered that question. You're attempts to ridicule me are not working. Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events. Accept it, change it, move on. Stop being a stubborn donkey.

"Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events"

You're back to your obfuscation again. Shame on you.

OK, I already explained this somewhat, but since you think this somehow goes somewhere because you were desperately trying to salvage your credibility immediately after your now famous post #319 fiasco;

Your earliest earthquake record is 1900. My earliest is 684 AD. Followed by 745 AD and 869 AD. My "catalogue" has 22 earthquakes before 1900 out of a total of 65.

"Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events"

Strange, it looks like like yours is the one biased toward recent events. :blink:

I needed the older data so I could show the correlation between 14C data, the earthquakes and both their relationships to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The correlation in time and intensity is spot on! But I think you noticed that.

This Japanese set is really important because it shows a clear long range historical record from one single "larger than all other" oceanic plates. Umm, your set doesn't.

As I already touched on in post #322;

"There are really no other sources of earthquake data that extend so far back in history, and its the Pacific Plate's size that produces the quantity of larger earthquakes that would undoubtedly be noted by a long lasting literate society."

So, I guess you need the longer explanation. :wacko: As I said also in post #322;

"So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean."

So, I assume you read that. What difference, other than adding to the "bias towards recent events", would including your data contribute? Where do you think you can go with this?

Though not particularly important in this application, the Japanese set is uniform due to the "beam" plate width being the same for every quake. "So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions.

If I was to include data from everywhere else this uniformity would be lost.

What's so difficult to understand? Why don't you use a proper earthquake catalogue? You still haven't answered that question. You're attempts to ridicule me are not working. Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events. Accept it, change it, move on. Stop being a stubborn donkey.

So now you have your answer, its not what you wanted I'm sure of that. Much ado about nothing, except to you. Oh and "move on". And, "Stop being a stubborn donkey" to you too.

So, this is what should happen now. We should both present a solution for a specific geologic phenomena. How about the Himalayan Mountain range. You tell how your model produces this range in the time sequence believed, and I will do the same. Won't that be fun! i can't wait to see your model do that!

Let's set the groundwork to frame the contest.

Dr. Ollier is a good choice to challenge one's model, he appears to be a critic of both plate tectonics and mantle plumes. But the metrics appear correct compared to other sources.

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

Cliff Ollier (born 1931) is a geologist, geomorphologist, soil scientist, emeritus professor and honorary research fellow, at the School of Earth and Geographical SciencesUniversity of Western Australia. He was formerly at Australian National University, University of New England, Australia, Canberra University, University of Papua New Guinea, and University of Melbourne.

Throughout his career he was a prolific author (as C.D Ollier), and he has contributed to reference works such as The Oxford Companion to the Earth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ANNALS+OF+GEOPHYSICS%2C+SUPPLEMENT+TO+VOL.+49%2C+N.+1%2C+2006&oq=ANNALS+OF+GEOPHYSICS%2C+SUPPLEMENT+TO+VOL.+49%2C+N.+1%2C+2006&aqs=chrome..69i57.2709j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

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

9.2. EXAMPLES

9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains

(As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps). 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.)

9.4. CONCLUSIONS

(Mountains are created by the vertical uplift of former plains, independent of any folding of the rocks underneath. The age of mountains should therefore refer to the age of vertical uplift after planation, not to the last period of folding (if the underlying bedrock happens to be folded). Most uplift occurred in the Plio-Pleistocene, or the very Late Miocene. The Neotectonic Period is demonstrated by the large amount of work listed in table 9.I. Plate tectonics, the ruling theory of the past forty years, has no adequate explanation for the widespread planation in mountain regions, or the remarkably young uplift. Indeed it is based on an association of folding and uplift that is demonstrably untrue. Plate tectonics has no plausible explanation for mountains on passive margins or continental interiors. From now on it is incumbent on those who propose models of mountain formation to do two things: Incorporate planation surfaces into the story (or prove there was no former planation). – Either disprove the Neotectonic Period hypothesis, or show how their proposed mechanisms fit into the time scale of just a few million years). . . . .(Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time. Some unknown process created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift. This is a deviation from uniformitarianism. The mountain building period is relatively short, and not on the same time scale as granite intrusion (which takes tens of millions of years), or plate tectonics which is supposedly continuous over hundreds of millions of years. The same rapid uplift occurs in areas where hypotheses such as mantle plumes are not appropriate. We do not yet know what causes this short, sharp period of uplift, but we can exclude naive mountain-building hypotheses that are on the wrong time scale.) . . .(One of the biggest obstacles to our hypothesis of widespread Plio-Pleistocene mountain building is that the period of time available for the preceding planation is too short. Only further investigation can clarify this point.)

I checked it against;

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

The collision of India into Asia 50 million years ago caused the Indian and Eurasian Plates to crumple up along the collision zone. After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of these two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. The Himalayas, towering as high as 8,854 m above sea level, form the highest continental mountains in the world. Moreover, the neighboring Tibetan Plateau, at an average elevation of about 4,600 m, is higher than all the peaks in the Alps except for Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa, and is well above the summits of most mountains in the United States. . . . The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.

Billiards, use your model come up with a solution to the problems pointed out by Dr. Ollier and I will do the same. Let's see who's model gives the best predictions of observations.

This is going to be fun! Remember westward drift . . . . Good times!

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-14#entry787818

billiards · June 25, 2014

Shame on you for trying to include that mantle convection in with those predictive observations.

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. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape."

That doesn't mean there isn't convection. It just means that convection does not equal plate motion -- i.e. there is some amount of decoupling between the rigid lithosphere and the underlying mantle. Convection in the Earth is a consequence of physics, and there is plenty of maths there for you to read in the literature should you search for it.

Let me ask you a question. Without convection how does anisotropy develop in the mantle?

"Your "catalogue" is incomplete and biased towards recent events"

You're back to your obfuscation again. Shame on you.

Grrrrr. How can you honestly believe that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years, followed by over 40 in the last hundred years? You actually believe there has been double the seismic activity in the last 100 years than in the previous 1200 years combined????? Are you that naive? You are taking the bias in your dataset as your trend!! Come on, please, this is a basic error! It makes me so frustrated to have to have this argument. If you were serious about science you would simply seek out a better dataset -- I could help you -- but alas you are not serious about science, only the propagation of your beloved mechanism.

arc · June 26, 2014

That doesn't mean there isn't convection. It just means that convection does not equal plate motion

And the name of this thread is called Plate Tectonic Mechanism? rather than; "Things that are not Plate Tectonic Mechanism?"

But, such as you finally admit that convection does not produce plate movement. I am happy to see you are finally coming around.

It was not that long ago . . . . . .

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-13#entry786479

billiards

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:29 PM

"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?"

Ah, those were the days of youthful exuberance, anything seemed possible. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, convection driven plate movement. Oh, to be young again!

there is some amount of decoupling between the rigid lithosphere and the underlying mantle. Convection in the Earth is a consequence of physics, and there is plenty of maths there for you to read in the literature should you search for it.

And there is currently no verifiable evidence of convection within the Earth, just conjecture. But I have no problem with you practicing your religion in the privacy of your own mind.

Let me ask you a question. Without convection how does anisotropy develop in the mantle?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe its from the mantle being displaced tens of million of times by a thermal expansion cycle of the outer core.

Grrrrr. How can you honestly believe that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years, followed by over 40 in the last hundred years? You actually believe there has been double the seismic activity in the last 100 years than in the previous 1200 years combined????? Are you that naive? You are taking the bias in your dataset as your trend!! Come on, please, this is a basic error! It makes me so frustrated to have to have this argument. If you were serious about science you would simply seek out a better dataset -- I could help you -- but alas you are not serious about science, only the propagation of your beloved mechanism.

OK, you seem stuck on this. Lets look at that graph you hate so much.

I overlayed the Edo period, it started in 1603 and ended in 1868. What was the Edo period like?

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

"The Edo, or Tokugawa period saw power centralized in the hands of a hereditary shogunate that took control of religion, regulated the entire economy, subordinated the nobility, and set up uniform systems of taxation, government spending and bureaucracies. It avoided international involvement and wars, established a national judiciary and suppressed protest and criticism. The Tokugawa era brought peace, and that brought prosperity to a nation of 31 million."

"In the cities and towns, guilds of merchants and artisans met the growing demand for goods and services. The merchants, while low in status, prospered, especially those with official patronage. Merchants invented credit instruments to transfer money, currency came into common use, and the strengthening credit market encouraged entrepreneurship."

"By 1800 the commercialization of the economy grew rapidly, bringing more and more remote villages into the national economy. Rich farmers appeared who switched from rice to high-profit commercial crops and engaged in local money-lending, trade, and small-scale manufacturing. Some wealthy merchants sought higher social status by using money to marry into the samurai class."

BIlliards, This was a developed economy, with a bureaucratic government that kept records for properties, taxes, debts, census' and every other public transaction a controlling government would administer. Banks, schools, industries and military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Geography

About 73 percent of Japan is forested, mountainous, and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. As a result, the habitable zones, mainly located in coastal areas, have extremely high population densities.

There were 31 million people in that 27% that is the habitable area. Japan is a little smaller than Montana. That would be 31 million people in just over a 1/4 of Montana. Most all in a tsunami zone.

Take a look at that graph again. Now you tell me they wouldn't have had every Earthquake larger than 7.0 recorded. How about just from 1800 to when the first large swarm is recorded at 1854. Do you really think they missed any from 1800 to 1854!

Yes!, they had thousand of earthquakes smaller than 7.0 before, during and after the Edo period, but again, the were smaller than 7.0. Get it! And starting about 1854 quakes greater than 7.0 grew in number as the solar magnetic flux increased! Get it!

As I said also in post #322;

"So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean."

This record is accurate for a HISTORICAL record of earthquakes over 7.0. The Edo period is consistent with the earlier portion of the

record. There appears to be consistency prior to and through the Edo period and they track solar magnetic flux accurately with most quakes occurring at or near large changes in solar magnetic content.

"How can you honestly believe that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years, followed by over 40 in the last hundred years? You actually believe there has been double the seismic activity in the last 100 years than in the previous 1200 years combined"

WOW! I never said "that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years", That is some crazy tangent that you have grabbed and ran screaming down the aisles with.

Did you not look at the record at;

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

Here is the Edo period quakes over 7.0, only 10 in total yet thousand of others below 7.0 occurred, Get It! Please note the Death Tolls; DT;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 (capital) in 1854–55. And almost all but a few were under 7.0, GET IT!

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

Why do I get the feeling it is pointless to explain this to you.

Edited June 26, 2014 by arc

billiards · June 30, 2014

And the name of this thread is called Plate Tectonic Mechanism? rather than; "Things that are not Plate Tectonic Mechanism?"

But, such as you finally admit that convection does not produce plate movement. I am happy to see you are finally coming around.

It was not that long ago . . . . . .

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-13#entry786479

billiards

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:29 PM

"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?"

Ah, those were the days of youthful exuberance, anything seemed possible. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, convection driven plate movement. Oh, to be young again!

And there is currently no verifiable evidence of convection within the Earth, just conjecture. But I have no problem with you practicing your religion in the privacy of your own mind.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe its from the mantle being displaced tens of million of times by a thermal expansion cycle of the outer core.

OK, you seem stuck on this. Lets look at that graph you hate so much.

JAPANESE EARTHQUAKES 14 Edo.png

I overlayed the Edo period, it started in 1603 and ended in 1868. What was the Edo period like?

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

"The Edo, or Tokugawa period saw power centralized in the hands of a hereditary shogunate that took control of religion, regulated the entire economy, subordinated the nobility, and set up uniform systems of taxation, government spending and bureaucracies. It avoided international involvement and wars, established a national judiciary and suppressed protest and criticism. The Tokugawa era brought peace, and that brought prosperity to a nation of 31 million."

"In the cities and towns, guilds of merchants and artisans met the growing demand for goods and services. The merchants, while low in status, prospered, especially those with official patronage. Merchants invented credit instruments to transfer money, currency came into common use, and the strengthening credit market encouraged entrepreneurship."

"By 1800 the commercialization of the economy grew rapidly, bringing more and more remote villages into the national economy. Rich farmers appeared who switched from rice to high-profit commercial crops and engaged in local money-lending, trade, and small-scale manufacturing. Some wealthy merchants sought higher social status by using money to marry into the samurai class."

BIlliards, This was a developed economy, with a bureaucratic government that kept records for properties, taxes, debts, census' and every other public transaction a controlling government would administer. Banks, schools, industries and military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Geography

About 73 percent of Japan is forested, mountainous, and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. As a result, the habitable zones, mainly located in coastal areas, have extremely high population densities.

There were 31 million people in that 27% that is the habitable area. Japan is a little smaller than Montana. That would be 31 million people in just over a 1/4 of Montana. Most all in a tsunami zone.

JAPANESE EARTHQUAKES 14 Edo.png

Take a look at that graph again. Now you tell me they wouldn't have had every Earthquake larger than 7.0 recorded. How about just from 1800 to when the first large swarm is recorded at 1854. Do you really think they missed any from 1800 to 1854!

Yes!, they had thousand of earthquakes smaller than 7.0 before, during and after the Edo period, but again, the were smaller than 7.0. Get it! And starting about 1854 quakes greater than 7.0 grew in number as the solar magnetic flux increased! Get it!

As I said also in post #322;

"So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean."

This record is accurate for a HISTORICAL record of earthquakes over 7.0. The Edo period is consistent with the earlier portion of the

record. There appears to be consistency prior to and through the Edo period and they track solar magnetic flux accurately with most quakes occurring at or near large changes in solar magnetic content.

"How can you honestly believe that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years, followed by over 40 in the last hundred years? You actually believe there has been double the seismic activity in the last 100 years than in the previous 1200 years combined"

WOW! I never said "that there were only 22 earthquakes in over 1200 years", That is some crazy tangent that you have grabbed and ran screaming down the aisles with.

Did you not look at the record at;

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

Here is the Edo period quakes over 7.0, only 10 in total yet thousand of others below 7.0 occurred, Get It! Please note the Death Tolls; DT;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 (capital) in 1854–55. And almost all but a few were under 7.0, GET IT!

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

Why do I get the feeling it is pointless to explain this to you.

1) OBVIOUSLY I was implicitly talking about Mw 7.0+ events. Do I REALLY have to say everything explicitly? (GET IT!)

2) It's a funny coincidence that the number of earthquakes in your catalogue suddenly gets much greater around about the time the modern seismometer was invented, isn't it?

3) Where are the mods? Can we have some impartial intervention to sort this mess out please?

arc · July 1, 2014

3) Where are the mods?

IIRC there have been only two mod posts, #2 a question by CaptainPanic and #247 a warning you may recall by swansont; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-13#entry786562

Can we have some impartial intervention to sort this mess out please?

Aw c'mon, fight your own fight. OK, lets take off everything below an 8.0 that didn't have fatalities, starting at the point when seismographs were commonly considered first tested in Japan. I believe that would be #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. So that one would be removed from the list, I'll work on the rest tomorrow after I get home from work.

Ophiolite · July 1, 2014

arc, please clarify: are you maintaining that your data set of earthquakes is sufficiently accurate to derive from it the sort of conclusions you are deriving? (Here is a helpful hint: it isn't.) Now, if you wish this thread to remain in the serious part of the forum I recommend you apply some self critical assessments of your own work and withdraw some of your weaker (i.e. unfounded) claims.

billiards · July 1, 2014

IIRC there have been only two mod posts, #2 a question by CaptainPanic and #247 a warning you may recall by swansont; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-13#entry786562

Aw c'mon, fight your own fight. OK, lets take off everything below an 8.0 that didn't have fatalities, starting at the point when seismographs were commonly considered first tested in Japan. I believe that would be #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. So that one would be removed from the list, I'll work on the rest tomorrow after I get home from work.

Wow this must be the record for your shortest ever post! Good on you, keep it up!

I realise you are trying to apply the same bias to present day events as you believe should exist in the historical record. However the historical record is incomplete for all sorts of reasons. In Japan for example, language is a major barrier, earthquake catalogues in English will not include historical events from records not translated into English. Another simple problem is that ancient records are more likely to have been lost or destroyed. Furthermore, large, deep events with epicentres away from civilisation will not have caused significant damage and so will be less likely to have been recorded -- whereas since the modern seismometer was deployed such events are routinely recorded. These problems combine. Unfortunately the limitations of the data preclude the type of analysis you wish to perform.

arc · July 3, 2014

arc, please clarify: are you maintaining that your data set of earthquakes is sufficiently accurate to derive from it the sort of conclusions you are deriving? (Here is a helpful hint: it isn't.) Now, if you wish this thread to remain in the serious part of the forum I recommend you apply some self critical assessments of your own work and withdraw some of your weaker (i.e. unfounded) claims.

,Ophiolite, I believe it is sufficient. And it does make clear correlations. The earthquakes that I have listed were the complete record that is available at;

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

I felt it was correct to list the entire catalogue due to the fact I was explaining, in what I believe was adequate detail, the models plate movement in relation to what was seen in the record. I thought simply color coding the magnitudes would allow anyone to follow the relationship of the large scale plate movement to the solar magnetic flux. It appears by your involvement at this time that I was insufficient in explaining this.

Edit: This post was not finished but has for some reason unknown to me become posted. I will continue with a followup post. My apologies.

Edited July 3, 2014 by arc

arc · July 3, 2014

,Ophiolite, I believe it is sufficient. And it does make clear correlations. The earthquakes that I have listed were the complete record that is available at;

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

I felt it was correct to list the entire catalogue due to the fact I was explaining, in what I believe was adequate detail, the models plate movement in relation to what was seen in the record. I thought simply color coding the magnitudes would allow anyone to follow the relationship of the large scale plate movement to the solar magnetic flux. It appears by your involvement at this time that I was insufficient in explaining this.

Edit: This post was not finished but has for some reason unknown to me become posted. I will continue with a followup post. My apologies.

The single commonality in all of these earlier events listed is that they were large enough to be noted. Although their magnitudes were calculated hundreds of years later, they became part of the historic record because they killed enough people to be remembered for generations.

The four most important earthquakes in this record regarding this model are the following;

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

The estimated magnitudes for the 1605-1611 set range from 7.9 to 8.1. The 1703 and 1707 events were 8.0 and 8.6 and look able to stand alone in their ability to kill and be remembered within that general time period. They destroyed villages and sent tsunamis down the coastline.

These events occur at very precise times of dramatic change within the 14C solar magnetic record seen on the graph. These are 8.0+ quakes involving large interplate eruptions over wide areas. This model explained in a very simple manner the relationship between the solar magnetic flux and the movement of the Pacific plate. I do not want to repost more content than needed to explain this. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-14#entry803939

The model would expect that the largest quakes would occur during these dramatic changes in solar flux. I have explained many times in this thread that the crust has at any moment a given amount of gravitational potential energy. This energy is put there when the mantle slowly subsides as the core thermally contracts. The crust must increase subduction to release this building compression but can only process it to a certain limit thus requiring it to store the remainder as gravitational potential energy.

The crust must continually adjust as this potential compressive energy loads and unloads through these cycles. As the core thermally expands the mantle is displaced, opening the divergent plate boundaries in a process that actually removes some of that fossil gravitational potential energy stored away over the endless cycles. The convergent boundary trenches along the Pacific plate are subjected to the loading and unloading of this energy more than any other divergent boundary, and this energy is seen at its highest potential in the form of earthquakes at points where the solar magnetic flux sharply changes direction of its content.

You can see this entire process in the graph.

The reduction in solar magnetic content from the #7 - 1611 Sanriku earthquake to the lower level of the #8 1703 Genroku and #9 1707 Hōei earthquakes would initiate the process of loading gravitational potential energy into the crust. Compression would have been slowly building as the solar magnetic content reduced over the following years. That Maunder Minimum is one of, if not the lowest point found in our rather short 11,000 year solar magnetic record.

The longer the stay is at the lowest point the more compression will be loaded into the plate and the adjacent trench. The flat area of the Maunder Minimum was a point of tremendous compression building in the subduction zone.

The #7 earthquake reduced some of the compression in the plate from the initial drop in solar magnetic content, but that flat line at the bottom allowed more to build. What was the final result of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1707_H%C5%8Dei_earthquake

The 1707 Hōei earthquake, which occurred at 14:00 local time on October 28, 1707, was the largest earthquake in Japanese history until the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake surpassed it. It caused moderate to severe damage throughout southwestern Honshu, Shikoku and southeastern Kyūshū. The earthquake, and the resulting destructive tsunami, caused more than 5,000 casualties. This event ruptured all of the segments of the Nankai megathrust simultaneously, the only earthquake known to have done this, with an estimated magnitude of 8.6 M_L. It might also have triggered the last eruption of Mount Fuji 49 days later.

The solar magnetic flux eventually began climbing again, and with it the divergent boundaries received an increasing infill. But the extension of the Pacific plate that opened the divergent boundaries also reduces compression at the Japanese convergent boundaries due to the shear stresses the plate was subjected to from the outward displacing mantle. The faster the rise in solar magnetic flux the greater the shear force, as it is the plates size that determines those changing stresses at the convergent trenches. # 10 would fit this nicely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1771_Great_Yaeyama_Tsunami

The 1771 Great Yaeyama Tsunami (also called 明和の大津波, the Great Tsunami of Meiwa) was caused by theYaeyama Great Earthquake at about 8 A.M. on April 24, 1771, south-southeast of Ishigaki Island, part of the formerRyūkyū Kingdom and now forming part of present day Okinawa, Japan. According to records, 8,439 persons were killed on Ishigaki Island and 2,548 on Miyako Island.

As the Pacific plate was stretched the convergent boundary found some room to slip from the grip of its former compressed angle and released a tsunami as well as the seismic energy.

Well on to the next, # 11 as the solar magnetic content falls into a swarm of earthquakes. These are all at a point of great change in the solar magnetic flux. #12 and #13.

#12-The 1854 Tōkai earthquake was the first of the Ansei Great Earthquakes (1854–1855). It occurred at about 09:00 local time on 23 December 1854. It had a magnitude of 8.4 and caused a damaging tsunami. More than 10,000 buildings were completely destroyed and there were at least 2,000 casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Ansei-Nankai_earthquake

#13- The 1854 Nankai earthquake occurred at about 16:00 local time on 24 December 1854. It had a magnitude of 8.4 and caused a damaging tsunami. More than 30,000 buildings were completely destroyed and there were at least 3,000 casualties.^[1]

It was the second of the three Ansei Great Earthquakes; the 1854 Ansei-Tōkai earthquake of similar size had hit the area the previous morning.

From this point on the solar magnetic energy level climbs faster and higher than it has in most of the last 11,000 years. This period coincides with the climate warming that has followed the increasing solar magnetic energy since the end of The Little Ice Age at around 1850.

This should provide tremendous divergent boundary infill metrics and large shear stresses at the Pacific plate convergent boundaries.

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.”

#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.

#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.

#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

#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

#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.

#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.

#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.

Can the solar magnetic flux climb any higher? The next 20 years will prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Edit: Needed to fix errors in content.

Edited July 3, 2014 by arc

Acme · July 3, 2014

...

These events occur at very precise times of dramatic change within the 14C solar magnetic record seen on the graph. ...

I point out again the error in the author's work that you keep quoting on the C₁₄. He says there's more C₁₄ in the plants because of more cosmic rays hitting plants, but this is not what happens. The C₁₄ is created in the upper atmosphere and the plants respire the C₁₄.

arc · July 4, 2014

I point out again the error in the author's work that you keep quoting on the C₁₄. He says there's more C₁₄ in the plants because of more cosmic rays hitting plants, but this is not what happens. The C₁₄ is created in the upper atmosphere and the plants respire the C₁₄.

Yes, quite awhile agowe discussed a poorly worded paragraph in an otherwise valuable NOAA article;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

It referenced a link that Bond suggests was between periodic seafloor iceberg deposits and 14C content proxies, but I neither quoted nor referred to it in that last post. I fail to see your reasoning at claiming I did or how it relates to the discussion at hand.

Edit: correct content error.

Edited July 4, 2014 by arc

billiards · July 4, 2014

Re/ the earthquake catalogue problem. Arc, burying your head in the sand will not make it go away. But I doubt anyone here who's followed the argument still believes post #275 so I'm happy to let that one settle.

Now, to move on....

Wow, that sounds impressive! But I suspect you are trying to hide your convection in the bottom of the barrel to sneak it in there with those other predictive observations. Oh there it is down in the bottom like I thought. Aren't you over selling that mantle convection "predict" part. Oh wait, it doesn't say predict, it says;

"and they have repeatedly developed models that show plate-tectonic behaviour, with convecting mantles"

Shame on you for trying to include that mantle convection in with those predictive observations.

. Why do I think that way? -

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. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape."

This point is one of confusion for arc, so let's break it down:

1) Does the mantle convect?

Arc has said "no." (My view that it does has caused me to be accused of practicing religion, and had words like "shame on you" thrown at me.)

This was the subject of genuine debate some 50+ years ago. It seemed the mantle was too rigid to convect. However, observations of isostatic rebound (when the land bounces up after the heavy load of ice sheets is removed) showed that the mantle can and does deform as a fluid over long time scales (visco-plastic deformation). Using reasonable parameters, it has been calculated that the Rayleigh number in the mantle is about 1 million times higher than it would need to be to just barely convect -- so in fact, the mantle should convect vigorously! Then we see that the oceanic plates are actually the upper thermal boundary layer of a convecting system. The Earth swallows up its outer thermal boundary layer once it's cooled down -- which is how convecting systems work. We see this at subduction zones. Furthermore, the subducting material causes earthquakes that go down and outline the geometry of the subduction process (so called Benioff zones). In addition seismic tomography shows the cold dense material go down into the mantle at these locations (because cold dense material is anomalously fast). And then there's the gravity. The geoid shows that the integrated column of mantle beneath the subduction zones is dense -- it is negatively buoyant. All this points STRONGLY towards the conclusion that yes the mantle does indeed convect.

In fact, in the very link arc references it says:

Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and downgoing along subduction zones.

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

Which is an indication of how poorly arc understands the very science he is claiming to be revolutionalising! (He uses a reference to fight against something, but that reference in fact fights in the wrong direction, against HIM!)

2) Where does arc go wrong?

Arc seems to think the mantle does not convect because of a bit of text he took out of context. In order to understand the argument it will be necessary for me to provide some background.

2 -- i) Background

There is a genuine problem in the Earth sciences at the moment trying to place plate tectonics in a firm dynamical framework. Mantle convection is certainly going to be a major part of the dynamical framework. Plate tectonics was originally developed as a kinematic theory -- it describes the movement of the plates using geometry rather than physics. We would ideally like to describe the motion of the plates using just physics of the Earth.

Doglioni argues that ridges are not fixed, whereas convection cells should be, and therefore mantle convection alone cannot drive plate tectonics -- he calls for a rotational component to be important.

In fact Doglioni's view that convection cells have to remain fixed is a little outdated, he is considering older generations of convection models. At the moment there are two types of numerical Earth models (from a branch of study called "geodynamics"): (i) those that describe the physics of the system and are allowed to run wild just following the laws of physics built into them, (ii) those that have the plate tectonics hard wired into the model, and run under the conditions imposed by those plate movements. Type (i) models have been able to produce "plate-like" behaviour -- a fine achievement! But no model has yet made anything that looks quite like the Earth.

The fact that we can now generate models that have plate tectonics characteristics shows that we are on the right path. The fact that no model quite looks like Earth suggests that we are missing some inputs (e.g. starting conditions are off, some physical parameters are a bit wrong, perhaps some more physics is need (e.g. phase transition modelling), etc.)

2 -- ii) So why is arc wrong?

Nowhere does anybody ever talk about mantle convection not existing. He's just completely got the wrong end of the stick. He's taken an argument he doesn't understand and somehow used it to jump to an unsupported conclusion. (He has been known to do exactly this with the "plume debate" also.) I can't rationalise that, but I can point it out.

Arc, do you still hold that the mantle does not convect?

Acme · July 4, 2014

Yes, quite awhile agowe discussed a poorly worded paragraph in an otherwise valuable NOAA article;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

It referenced a link that Bond suggests was between periodic seafloor iceberg deposits and 14C content proxies, but I neither quoted nor referred to it in that last post. I fail to see your reasoning at claiming I did or how it relates to the discussion at hand.

Edit: correct content error.

...when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earths magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14 that can be measured in ancient tree rings. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. ...

You just said in that 'last' post:

...These events occur at very precise times of dramatic change within the 14C solar magnetic record seen on the graph. ...

It's not a 'poorly worded' error by Bond, it's a giant blunderous misunderstanding of how cosmic rays interact with the Earth. Most of these rays -as well as other energetic particles that carry the Sun's magnetic field to Earth- are neutralized in the atmosphere and never reach the ground. Since your major premise seems to be that the Sun's magnetic field is inducing a current in the Earth's iron core and heating it, then thinking C₁₄ supports this premise is unfounded. Spare me the usual wall of text rebuttal reasserting your erroneous & unfounded hypothesis and go ahead and get back to answering ophiolite's and billiard's objections.

arc · July 5, 2014

You just said in that 'last' post:

"These events occur at very precise times of dramatic change within the 14C solar magnetic record seen on the graph." ...

There are only two graphs in that post and both are modified by me from an original graph from this site here;

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

The Bond reference that you have alluded to is from this site here;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

That quote;

"Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14 that can be measured in ancient tree rings. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times."

does not appear in my post, the base graph in my post does not appear in this Bond article that the quote above originates.

And back when I agreed with you that it was poorly done by whoever wrote it, I said it was likely a lowly office clerk at NOAA. I do not believe they were quoting Bond directly either, it looks like someone just wanted to edit it down to a smaller size, and did not care if it was woefully inadequate in explaining the subject matter.

I believe I should be able to mention "14C" in a post without it being extraneously associated to far flung sites and poorly edited text by anonymous clerks.

But if that quote bothers you so much and keeps you up at night, why don't you write NOAA and tell them they should . . . . .

And when you get a chance maybe you could explain why the solar magnetic flux, climate temperature and earthquakes are all correlated, in not only timing, but intensity also. The strongest quake in recorded history, up until the 9.0 in 2011, occurred during a 20-30 year period when the solar magnetic flux was at its lowest recorded point called the Maunder Minimum. This was also when The Little Ice Age was in full swing.

So, the model says; as the solar magnetic flux increases the mantle will be displaced, and in turn will open the divergent boundaries, warming the ocean thermohaline and in turn the climate. And when this process is reversed and the solar magnetic flux decreases the mantle subsides, and in turn the divergent boundaries will slow and even stop, and the oceans will cool, pulling the climate down to colder temperatures. During this time the crust is of course being compressed by the previous boundary infill on one side and the convergent trench on the other.

So now you should understand why at that low point of solar magnetic flux there was a low point in climate temperatures while there was also one of the largest earthquakes . . . . . .or it could be just another one of those three way coincidences that are always happening.

#9 on the graph is;

http://en.wikipedia....Åei_earthquake

The 1707 Hōei earthquake, which occurred at 14:00 local time on October 28, 1707, was the largest earthquake in Japanese history until the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake surpassed it. It caused moderate to severe damage throughout southwestern Honshu, Shikoku and southeastern Kyūshū. The earthquake, and the resulting destructive tsunami, caused more than 5,000 casualties. This event ruptured all of the segments of the Nankai megathrust simultaneously, the only earthquake known to have done this, with an estimated magnitude of 8.6 M_L. It might also have triggered the last eruption of Mount Fuji 49 days later.

Edited July 5, 2014 by arc

Ophiolite · July 5, 2014

The strongest quake in recorded history, up until the 9.0 in 2011, occurred during a 20-30 year period when the solar magnetic flux was at its lowest recorded point called the Maunder Minimum. This was also when The Little Ice Age was in full swing.

This quote exemplifies the type of error that myself and others feel you are making, yet which you refuse to address. I shall state it clearly, since our attempts to get you to acknowledge it thus far have been futile.

1. Recorded history began several thousand years ago.

2. Modern techniques for assessing the magnitude of an earthquake began a little over one hundred years ago.

3. Prior to that there is no rigorous method for determining the magnitude of quakes in populated areas.

4. Prior to that there is no method for determining anything about quakes in sparsely or unpopulated areas.

5. You, therefore, cannot reach the conclusion as to the timing of the strongest quake in recorded history for those earlier periods.

arc · July 5, 2014

Re/ the earthquake catalogue problem. Arc, burying your head in the sand will not make it go away. But I doubt anyone here who's followed the argument still believes post #275 so I'm happy to let that one settle.

In case you didn't read my response to Acme I will repost it for you because it explains the observations so perfectly. The model once again makes predictions of observation far better than you have ever seen or could ever hope to make with your convection model.

When you get a chance maybe you could explain why the solar magnetic flux, climate temperature and earthquakes are all correlated, in not only timing, but intensity also. In 1707 the strongest quake in recorded history, up until the 9.0 in 2011, occurred during a 20-30 year period when the solar magnetic flux was at its lowest recorded point called the Maunder Minimum. This was also when The Little Ice Age was in full swing.

So, the model says; as the solar magnetic flux increases the mantle will be displaced, and in turn will open the divergent boundaries, warming the ocean thermohaline and in turn the climate. And when this process is reversed and the solar magnetic flux decreases the mantle subsides, and in turn the divergent boundaries will slow and even stop, and the oceans will cool, pulling the climate down to colder temperatures. During this time the crust is of course being compressed by the previous boundary infill on one side and the convergent trench on the other.

So now you should understand why at that low point of solar magnetic flux there was a low point in climate temperatures while there was also one of the largest earthquakes . . . . . .or it could be just another one of those three way coincidences that are always happening.

#9 on the graph is;

http://en.wikipedia....Åei_earthquake

The 1707 Hōei earthquake, which occurred at 14:00 local time on October 28, 1707, was the largest earthquake in Japanese history until the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake surpassed it. It caused moderate to severe damage throughout southwestern Honshu, Shikoku and southeastern Kyūshū. The earthquake, and the resulting destructive tsunami, caused more than 5,000 casualties. This event ruptured all of the segments of the Nankai megathrust simultaneously, the only earthquake known to have done this, with an estimated magnitude of 8.6 M_L. It might also have triggered the last eruption of Mount Fuji 49 days later.

"This point is one of confusion for arc, so let's break it down:"

"1) Does the mantle convect?"

I can't believe you spent all that time talking about convection. Well, let's see your predictions of observations. You don't have any and so all that was just wasted babble. You are talking about something that would require direct observational proof of convection in the mantle, or a series of very accurate predictions of observations that shows convection as the most likely cause. You have neither.

How long are you going to go on with this charade. You talk the big talk but have nothing to show as direct observational evidence, your only hope is to have some predictions of observations like my model has made above and throughout this entire thread. Right now all you are operating on are lab experiments and computer models that you optimistically hope will show results. You are largely operating on hope. You have faith that you are on the right path, that you will prevail and find the truth . . . .

You need some predictions of observations, its that simple. All that talking is not fooling anyone.

"Re/ the earthquake catalogue problem. Arc, burying your head in the sand will not make it go away. But I doubt anyone here who's followed the argument still believes post #275 so I'm happy to let that one settle."

Nobody is buying your shtick, they can see for themselves the simple associations that run throughout my model, the easy to understand cause and effects.

Please explain with your immense understanding of mantle convection, as I also have asked this of Acme, why does the solar magnetic flux, climate temperature and earthquakes all correlate. Not only in timing, but intensity also. The strongest quake in recorded history, up until the 9.0 in 2011, occurred during a 20-30 year period when the solar magnetic flux was at its lowest recorded point called the Maunder Minimum. This was also when The Little Ice Age was in full swing.

I'm sure you have an answer for this because your mantle convection model is so accurate.

Look at those graphs again, I'm picturing your expression is like Dracula's when someone sticks a cross in front of his face. :lol:

From that Maunder Minimum up to the most recent point in 2011 when the 9.0 occurred the solar magnetic flux was at an unusual rapid increase. The massive earthquake in 1707 from the long accumulating compression in the crust was right before the beginning of this warming trend, and as the solar magnetic content sharply increased, as noted, the climate warming increased in same, moving the climate out of the LIA at around 1850 where a short reduction of solar magnetic content was met with two 8.0 + quakes. Then still sharper increased divergent boundary movement from greater solar magnetic flux facilitating additional thermal content into the ocean. You cannot have the sharp increase in solar magnetic energy without the increase in the strain energy that produced this warming.

And yes there are many large quakes over 8.0, which would be expected from such rapid divergent boundary movement from across the Pacific.

And;

But I guess your model says this is all just a coincidence.

billiards · July 5, 2014

A couple of important points here:

1.

When you get a chance maybe you could explain why the solar magnetic flux, climate temperature and earthquakes are all correlated, in not only timing, but intensity also. In 1707 the strongest quake in recorded history, up until the 9.0 in 2011, occurred during a 20-30 year period when the solar magnetic flux was at its lowest recorded point called the Maunder Minimum. This was also when The Little Ice Age was in full swing.

You still haven't shown the correlation exists.

i) You have not answered about how you deal with the sampling bias in the earthquake data.

ii) You haven't done any statistics to show that a correlation exists above (for example) 95% significance level.

So you better get to work if you are to keep trumpeting this idea.

2.

"1) Does the mantle convect?"

I can't believe you spent all that time talking about convection. Well, let's see your predictions of observations. You don't have any and so all that was just wasted babble. You are talking about something that would require direct observational proof of convection in the mantle, or a series of very accurate predictions of observations that shows convection as the most likely cause. You have neither.

The question was does the mantle convect. All that "waffle" and "wasted babble" was strong evidence in favour of the hypothesis that it does.

You think the mantle does not convect. Now please, present evidence that it does not convect.

The first point (1) is important because you claim it to be your "strongest evidence" in favour of your hypothesis. Essentially, the evidence looks very very fragile so this does not bode well for your theory.

The second point (2) is important because it highlights the very real limitations of your knowledge. You do not understand exactly what it is you think you are arguing against. This puts the very premise of your theory on very shaky foundations.

Look at those graphs again, I'm picturing your expression is like Dracula's when someone sticks a cross in front of his face.

A charming thought. I guess ignorance really is bliss.

arc · July 5, 2014

A couple of important points here:

You still haven't shown the correlation exists.

Seems rather strange that I have presented a model that makes more predictions of observations than any other plate tectonic hypothesis, and yet you are unable or unwilling to recognize this discrepancy. You appear to have a blind spot as big as a tectonic plate to any solution other than convection.

The question was does the mantle convect. All that "waffle" and "wasted babble" was strong evidence in favour of the hypothesis that it does.

You think the mantle does not convect. Now please, present evidence that it does not convect.

And again; the name of this thread is "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" not "Things that are not the Plate Tectonic Mechanism". If we let one "theory" with no verifiable observations in here we can't stop the next one. You are living in the past, when the only real difference between the plate mechanism contenders was that one idea had more popular support than the others, but none of them made any predictions of observations. A sad testament to having few alternatives to choose from.

So you better get to work if you are to keep trumpeting this idea.

This thread has 12,243 views, do you think it would have that many if it was about mantle convection?

My weebly sites are at 1,300+ each, again I doubt convection would garner that amount attention.

The first point (1) is important because you claim it to be your "strongest evidence" in favour of your hypothesis. Essentially, the evidence looks very very fragile so this does not bode well for your theory.

And so says the purveyor of no verifiable observations. Its always great when a regular guy like me can "turn the world upside down" of some guy like you. This idea is not going away, you are stuck with it for a long time. Here, eventually where you work, everywhere. The cat is out of the bag, get use to it.

"You think the mantle does not convect. Now please, present evidence that it does not convect".

You miss the point, rather completely, I don't care if it does or doesn't, it is not germane to my models operation other than that I use it to point out how poorly the current model describes the observable world.

The second point (2) is important because it highlights the very real limitations of your knowledge. You do not understand exactly what it is you think you are arguing against. This puts the very premise of your theory on very shaky foundations.

"You do not understand exactly what it is you think you are arguing against."

Yes well, that is an advantage to the creative processes of some of us. People tend to herd together, go with the flow. You think your work was getting you somewhere, but you were being carried along by the current of everyone else in your field. You are rather submerged in that environment. Everyone you talk to about your work has been processed or filtered by that group. It's hard to let your problem solving creativity stray very far under those conditions.

Which leads us back to that hope, faith and optimism that takes the place of verifiable observations.

Ophiolite · July 5, 2014

Seems rather strange that I have presented a model that makes more predictions of observations than any other plate tectonic hypothesis, and yet you are unable or unwilling to recognize this discrepancy. You appear to have a blind spot as big as a tectonic plate to any solution other than convection.

Point 1: Please cease the snide references that pick at the intellect of the others in the discussion.

Point 2: You have presented a model based on faulty data, on misinterpretations of good data, while ignoring any contrary data. You have, thus far, failed to properly address any criticisms. Your response has typically been to repost the same graphs and make the same statements. When will we receive a proper response?

And again; the name of this thread is "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" not "Things that are not the Plate Tectonic Mechanism". If we let one "theory" with no verifiable observations in here we can't stop the next one. You are living in the past, when the only real difference between the plate mechanism contenders was that one idea had more popular support than the others, but none of them made any predictions of observations.

Blatant nonsense that is trivially disposed of. Here is a single example:

Bercovici, D. "The generation of plate tectonics from mantle convection." Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205 (2003) 107-121

It took me under thirty seconds to find that. There are oodles of them out there, but my impression is that you have either failed to find them, or ignored them, or misunderstood them.

This thread has 12,243 views, do you think it would have that many if it was about mantle convection?

About 2,000 of them have to be mine, so I don't find the number impressive. Excuse me being personal, but I hope to change your perspective. What you have done here is what you have done with important data: you look at it and you impose your own interpretation on it.

The numerous views could be down to many people being amazed at the spectacle of someone being so wrong. They may be the result of Billiards, Acme, yourself, myself and others paying frequent visits. There are umpteen explanations for the number, but you choose just one of them. That is not science.

And so says the purveyor of no verifiable observations. Its always great when a regular guy like me can "turn the world upside down" of some guy like you. This idea is not going away, you are stuck with it for a long time. Here, eventually where you work, everywhere. The cat is out of the bag, get use to it.

Seriously? You haven't turned anyone's world upside down. No one here is in any way convinced by, or threatened by your speculation. Why? Because you have failed to provide sound supporting evidence and have failed to respond to criticisms. The cat, like the Emperor, is stark naked.

Yes well, that is an advantage to the creative processes of some of us. People tend to herd together, go with the flow. You think your work was getting you somewhere, but you were being carried along by the current of everyone else in your field. You are rather submerged in that environment. Everyone you talk to about your work has been processed or filtered by that group. It's hard to let your problem solving creativity stray very far under those conditions

If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants. Isaac Newton

Step out of that hole you are digging and benefit from a collaborative effort. That begins by pertinent responses to criticisms.

billiards · July 6, 2014

Seems rather strange that I have presented a model that makes more predictions of observations than any other plate tectonic hypothesis

Arc, YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ANYTHING. The emperor is STARK naked. You keep reposting the same tired old material that has holes in it -- if you will allow me to borrow your phrase -- "the size of tectonic plates". I have tried to help you to see these holes, I have even tried to make suggestion on how you can improve your presentation and analysis. But all I ever get in return is reactionary, overtly defensive, often aggressive backlash, followed by a torrent of the same tired old error ridden material.

Its always great when a regular guy like me can "turn the world upside down" of some guy like you.

I guess it's a shame that that hasn't happened then.

This idea is not going away, you are stuck with it for a long time. Here, eventually where you work, everywhere. The cat is out of the bag, get use to it.

I look forward to your paper in Nature magazine. Until that day happens I think you should keep these ARROGANT thoughts to yourself.

Edited July 6, 2014 by billiards

arc · July 8, 2014

OK, I've been doing some reading and have found some interesting information. But first I think some background is important to mention. This model has been very accurate at describing Earth's surface geology. One of the best examples of this is its ability to furnish the needed energy to move the tectonic plates through many different examples of plate movement. From a specific mountain building period that occurred in the last 5 million years to the Basin and Range extension that preceded it possibly 12-15 million years ago.

It's mechanism can be shown to give a rather practical explanation to these events and also explain why and how they occur during specific cycles that relate to solar magnetic flux and climate history. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-14#entry803939

My claim that the model would indicate a specific link of these cycles to Japanese earthquakes has been loudly and contentiously rejected.

I followed with what I feel was a rather good response;

OK, so lets look at what I've said:

The model explains that the largest plates, due to the mantle displacement, move proportionally more than the smaller plates because;

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.

So, I am only interested in the convergent boundary earthquake metrics of the largest plate because it would amplify the mantle displacement greater than any other plate of lesser proportions. The plate size is analogous to the beam that holds the needle on a seismograph, the longer the beam (plate) the more movement will be recorded. So a smaller mantle displacement metric would be amplified into more movement and likely as a quake in Japan but not in, say, the mediterranean.

The degree of energy loading into all divergent plate boundaries will be proportionate to the plates width.

But, don't confuse this necessarily with the size of the quakes. It would seem logical that the more beam you have (plate width) the greater the severity of earthquakes. But I feel that measurement is more dependent on the conditions in the specific divergent boundary itself, plate angle and other boundary conditions.

After all, the mediterranean region has many strong quakes but lacks the long flexible ocean plate that telegraphs nicely. The mediterranean has the weight of the Alps to resist the movement of the smaller ocean plate that is connected to Africa. Europe and the Alps hold the subducted plate allowing large amounts of energy to build up, there is just not the mechanical advantage to telegraph the mantle displacement metrics that show in the Japanese records as many quakes due to more divergent plate boundary movement.

Could there be a boundary somewhere that has the large plate but little trench resistance where you could see a lot of proportionate movement without the large energy storage that culminates as bigger earthquakes? I doubt it, I think the subduction at these larger plates result in conditions of greater proportions, the Mariana Trench as an example.

There are really no other sources of earthquake data that extend so far back in history, and its the Pacific Plate's size that produces the quantity of larger earthquakes that would undoubtedly be noted by a long lasting literate society.

JAPANESE EARTHQUAKES 13.png

And you can clearly see that the earthquakes relate to the 14C energy levels rather well.

This data describes the mechanism in a specific mechanical way, a behaviour that I believe is easily understandable.

But this did little to quell the protests.

This model describes plate movement for mountains, the formation of divergent and convergent boundaries, planation and many other geologic phenomena very well and its simple mechanics dictate that there should be a change in proportion that follows the solar magnetic record and a synchronization to climate variability. Again it is not a very complex system to understand.

I could describe its simple functions and rates of movement per plate size to a bunch of third graders using a balloon covered with various widths of wet tissue. The tissues will displace along their dry edge (divergent boundary) proportionate to their width, and the wet edge (convergent boundary) will show compression or tension proportionate to the plate width during the balloons slight inflation or deflation. Its really that simple to understand.

The solar magnetic record and the model's specific mechanics indicates that there should be a noticeable change in the plate's momentum due to the mantle's displacement, and massive killer earthquakes would be the logical historic marker that people would record with multiple accounts. The Pacific plate being the largest is uniquely suited to show proportionally greater movement than any other plate on earth. This means that a specific amount of mantle displacement that would show as a 8.0 in Japan might not be over a 2.0 in a much smaller plate somewhere else.

The Japanese records are specific to the Pacific Plate's kinetic energy level during seismic events, and the model would predict these would be timed to the solar magnetic record. As the mantle was displaced outward or inward the convergent boundary would experience the change in the plates as degrees and proportions of gravitational potential energy that is always present.

I believe this is shown rather well in the record as massive earthquakes that occur in conjunction with sudden and specific changes of solar magnetic flux.

All of the 8.0 quakes appear in red.

# 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.

# 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.
# 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.
# 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.

Again this was rejected, primarily I was told, due to the perceived unreliability of historic records.

I countered this by showing that the specific set above occurred during the very stable and well ordered Edo Period that I supported with proper evidence of a society as capable of recording these catastrophic event as would its contemporary European counterparts.

http://en.wikipedia....istory_of_Japan

"The Edo, or Tokugawa period saw power centralized in the hands of a hereditary shogunate that took control of religion, regulated the entire economy, subordinated the nobility, and set up uniform systems of taxation, government spending and bureaucracies. It avoided international involvement and wars, established a national judiciary and suppressed protest and criticism. The Tokugawa era brought peace, and that brought prosperity to a nation of 31 million."

"In the cities and towns, guilds of merchants and artisans met the growing demand for goods and services. The merchants, while low in status, prospered, especially those with official patronage. Merchants invented credit instruments to transfer money, currency came into common use, and the strengthening credit market encouraged entrepreneurship."

"By 1800 the commercialization of the economy grew rapidly, bringing more and more remote villages into the national economy. Rich farmers appeared who switched from rice to high-profit commercial crops and engaged in local money-lending, trade, and small-scale manufacturing. Some wealthy merchants sought higher social status by using money to marry into the samurai class."

This was a developed economy, with a bureaucratic government that kept records for properties, taxes, debts, census' and every other public transaction a controlling government would administer. Banks, schools, industries and military.

http://en.wikipedia....Japan#Geography

About 73 percent of Japan is forested, mountainous, and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. As a result, the habitable zones, mainly located in coastal areas, have extremely high population densities.

There were 31 million people in that 27% that is the habitable area. Japan is a little smaller than Montana. That would be 31 million people in just over a 1/4 of Montana. Most all in a tsunami zone.

Again rejected.

As I said up top, I found an interesting paper;

http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/763/1/02Ishibashi.pdf

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004

Status of historical seismology in Japan

Katsuhiko Ishibashi

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Faculty of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

3. Periodization of Japanese history and historical documents

Page 345.

"During the Edo period of long-term peace and stability, economic and cultural developments of Japan created mountains of primary documents, not only in the ruling class but also among the commoners of burgeoning cities and taxed villages. These documents include official histories, records and diaries of the Tokugawa shogunate; histories, chronicles, records and diaries of 250-or-so regional lords; numerous records memoranda, letters and diaries by urban merchants and leading farmers in villages; and private writings of various kinds among the ruling warrior class."

"Because of national isolation under the Tokugawa shogunate, Japan had little contact with the West except for The Netherlands for more than two centuries during the Edo period and left behind the progress of modern science and technology. Instead however, bibliography, historiography, national and local history had been highly developed, many Ancient and Medieval documents were transcribed or published in wood-block prints, and thus rather plentiful high-quality data had been prepared for the historical research that followed the Meiji Restoration."

So this debate is between; the contemporary accounts of the massive earthquakes of this society, of "highly developed bibliography, historiography, national and local history" that became misplaced and/or outright lost and destroyed.

Or, was this period, as my model portrays, a time of lower plate energies that were interrupted at specific and pronounce times of sudden mantle displacement driven by, and specifically timed to, the solar magnetic record.

The ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004, Status of historical seismology in Japan

continued with this interesting revelation;

Page 357.

"There are, however, serious problems in these books. One is that probably the collection is not complete, especially for the Edo period. Hence,Usami, for example, is very enthusiastic in further searching for buried historical materials and publishing them."

It appears they are perplexed by the lack of records of seismic events of recordable scales. The massive earthquakes that should occur throughout this period that would be present in the records. Were they somehow lost? Or did they just not occur?

Take those twelve 8.0+ earthquakes that appear from 1850 to present and place them at the same intervals over the Edo Period, does it seem strange that they have all disappeared. All those massive events that cause tsunamis and deaths and whose records have somehow been lost or misplaced.

Seems odd then that the ones my model says should be there are there.

7. Some recent results of historical seismology in Japan

7.1. Recurrence history of great interplate earthquakes along the Nankai trough

Page 361.

The 1707 Ho’ei and 1854 Ansei earthquakes took place in the Edo period causing widespread severe disasters due to strong ground motions and tsunamis , and an enormous number of records has been preserved.

That is a remarkable statement in regards to event #9 on the graph above, in 1707 an enormous number of records were not only made but preserved to the present. Yet where are just a few of the records of those many more missing massive earthquakes? Why did they, though individually scattered around all parts of the territory also, disappear en masse.

I'm afraid I will decline your invitation to change my position on this matter. My model again appears to be accurately portraying the natural world. Your position does not appear to be supported by the available information. The odds that the records of a few have survived in quantity, even en masse while others have disappeared en masse in a developed society seems off hand statistically unlikely.

To say they were real and claim just unrecorded seems tantamount to claiming London's record of approximately 8 or so major fires since the 1100's is under reported. And that there were actually at least four times as many but the records have been lost or misplaced because, well, you know how disorganized those Brits are.

arc · December 26, 2014

BASICS:

Convergent margins: where one plate goes under another and is "destroyed". Subduction zone is the three dimensional picture of a convergent margin. The plate goes down sinking into the mantle, it isn't destroyed, it just goes underground (deep).

MAJOR IMPORTANCE:

1) Subduction is the primary mode of mantle convection. Plumes (if they exist) are of secondary importance.

2) Subduction drives plate tectonics.

3) Subduction controls the chemical and thermal evolution of the planet. -- positive spinoff: conditions for life, minerals for industry and our enjoyment -- negative spinoff: killer volcanoes and earthquakes.

PROBLEM:

Dynamics of subduction not understood. You can solve this one, then you get massive kudos. Effectively you turn plate tectonics from a kinematic theory to a dynamic theory. Nobel prize in geology (if it existed) coming your way.

DISCUSSION:

I strongly believe that if we understand subduction zones, then we can find the key to understanding plate tectonics. Mid ocean ridges are important too, but less so. Plumes are probably not that important either, although will help explain some anomalies.

I wanted to post on this thread when it was originally started. But it would have been considered thread high jacking because I will use my model as a solution. The thread now looks to have been sitting idle long enough that I would like to take a crack at it here.

The key to subduction zones can be derived very easily using this model. This is a minimalists approach.

This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods. An increase in energy 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 produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

These tension relieving mechanisms are the mid ocean ridges located where the crust could not sustain itself against the shear forces displacing it from beneath.

Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.

As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents.

As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge. Then when the cycle changed to a cooler outer core the new material would leverage the opposite edge of the adjoining crust further under the overriding section.

As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale laminations of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before.

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

An associated class of inclusions called eclogites, consists of rocks corresponding compositionally to oceanic crust (basalt) that has metamorphosed under deep mantle conditions. Isotopic studies reveal that many eclogite inclusions are samples of ancient oceanic crust subducted billions of years ago to depths exceeding 150 km (90 mi) into the deep kimberlite diamond areas. They remained fixed there within the drifting tectonic plates until carried to the surface by deep-rooted magmatic eruptions.

If peridotite and eclogite inclusions are of the same temporal origin, then peridotite must have also originated from spreading sea floor ridges billions of years ago, or from mantle affected by subduction of oceanic crust. During the early years of Earth's existence, when the planet was much hotter, greater degrees of melting at spreading oceanic ridges generated oceanic lithosphere with thick crust, much thicker than 20 km (12 mi), and a highly depleted mantle. Such a lithosphere would not sink deeply or subduct, because of its buoyancy and the removal of denser melt that in turn increased the density of the residual mantle. Accordingly, cratonic mantle roots are probably composed of buoyantly subducted slabs of a highly depleted oceanic lithosphere. These deep mantle roots increase the stability, anchoring and survivability of cratons; this makes them much less susceptible to tectonic thickening by collisions or destruction by sediment subduction.

The greater depth and heat in combination with whatever water and minerals that were brought with the crust were processed into gradually more complex petrologic examples. These first layers of ocean crust that were raised from below out of that ancient ocean have long since eroded away as the newer igneous rocks came up under them from the depths below.

The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.

The “key” to subduction in our contemporary geology can be deduced by carefully examining the observable evidence.

The Atlantic oceanic plates are connected to their adjoining continents. We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against.

The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well.

The shear forces that the outward displacing mantle applies to the plates are what cause the plates to fracture. Then as these cycles continue they will establish convergent boundaries.

billiards · January 2, 2015

Hi arc, happy new year

I see there is no new material here (except the cartoons), and therefore there is nothing much left to say.

With regards to subduction, do you not agree that this is indeed mantle convection in action ...? Therefore if your model includes subduction, ergo it includes mantle convection. Yet the whole point of your model (I thought) was that mantle convection was not necessary for plate tectonics. Have you not hit a contradiction? How do you reconcile it?

Sign In

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Unity+

billiards

billiards

Posted Images

Important Information