Geological activity causing climate change (split from reasons not to worry)

[arc]

Fine, but then what is?

 

No other natural forcing can adequately account for either the amount nor the quickness of the warming trend we're seeing. It's one thing to say it's something other than man... that "it's natural," but you have to also then demonstrate what that natural agent which is causing the warming really is.

 

We know it's not the sun or from solar cycles. We know it's not volcanoes. We know it's not from ocean currents or things like El Nino. We know it's not changes in land use and we know it's not from waste heat. We know it's not from the albedo effect. We know it's not from ozone. We know it's not from internal variability. No known natural forcing agent fits the fingerprint of the observed warming we've been experiencing. The only thing that does fit the data is human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

 

I'm all ears if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades, but until you do then the human cause explanation is easily the best one available given how it fits the data and the physics of greenhouse systems.

 

iNow, I think I can answer that challenge. I do have a source that is not currently considered because it is unknown to climate science at this time. It is straight forward and makes accurate predictions. It is the heat from the strain energy released by the mantle at the crust mantle boundary. This heat is released as the mantle is displaced outward producing the currently observed activity at the divergent plate boundaries.

 

This is a variable heat source directly proportionate to the mantle's increase in circumference, which is currently measured at the worlds divergent plate boundaries as tectonic plate movement. I can show it's connection to long term historic temperature changes during geologic periods like the Pliocene and Pleistocene. And I can also track it through the last 1100 years and show how the strain energy source is tied directly to climate temperature change and atmospheric 14C content using USGS graphs. Are you up to a little science outside of current standard model?

[iNow]

While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists.

 

Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around.

 

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/monsoons-are-spinning-earths-plates/

[arc]

I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.

[iNow]

I'm not clear what the request is. Is it that I agree to participate in a sarcastic parody, or that I genuinely work with you to make up new physics because accepting the human impact on climate is too icky feeling?

[arc]

I'm not clear what the request is. Is it that I agree to participate in a sarcastic parody, or that I genuinely work with you to make up new physics because accepting the human impact on climate is too icky feeling?

 

No, not that at all. You asked for "if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades"

I am just saying that I have a better model than the current geodynamics, and it has predictive abilities regarding plate tectonics, the formation of mountain ranges and such. The mechanism behind it is also responsible Earth's climate history, such as when the climate cooled after the Oligocene going into the Miocene. The current model on the Earth's interior does not make predictions of geology, let alone climate.

[iNow]

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

[arc]

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

Thank you iNow for this opportunity to share this.

 

Let me outline this model without the high resolution that will come later. The model is based on the magnetic field generator of the Earth having a variation in current and field. I can document this evidence by several reliable sources, this is one of them.

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Image below courtesy of USGS

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

 

 

Image below modified by this author.

 

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

 

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase that you have pointed out;

 

"that could account for the warming trend we're seeing and that is somehow different than shifts that have taken place through the last several thousand years?"

 

I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

This model is strengthened by the accurate predictions that it makes concerning plate tectonic movement and geologic processes not shown here but are accessible through the links below.

[iNow]

Arc - I'm not seeing details about tectonics, just sunspots (which have been ruled out) and temperature readings. More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm\

 

It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots.

 

 

CJMark - Infowars and Alex Jones are not valid sources. I still remember his crazy ass show when it was on basic cable here like back in the 90s, and you'll not be found credible if that's where you draw your information from or if you continue to cite a ridiculous youtube video.

As for your ice sheet comment... One year does not a trend make. I'm tired, so I'll let someone else sum it up for me:

 

"Some scientsts" in this case do not include Dana Nuccitelli, who blogs cogently in reaction at The Guardian that the 60 percent increase observed in Arctic ice is "technically true, [but] also largely irrelevant." He has no kind words for the analysis in the Daily Mail (and similar report in The Telegraph), and writes "In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming." If you want to keep track of the ice yourself, Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis offers frequent updates.

Edited September 12, 2013 by iNow

[arc]

Arc - I'm not seeing details about tectonics, just sunspots (which have been ruled out) and temperature readings.

 

Sorry iNow,

 

I did not want to throw to much out there at once, it can sometimes hurt more than help.

 

iNow

Posted Today, 09:01 PM

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm\

It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots.

 

Hey, your still in that old model. But in either model solar magnetic energy levels can very in strength quite independent of solar radiation which has been quite consistent.

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

 

ABSTRACT (Lean 2000): Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity, reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to space based observations. The long-term variations track the envelope of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. Well, there it is. A 0.2 % total increase since 1675.

Sunspots are just the suns visual record of what its field is doing, in this example, increasing the Earth's magnetic field strength and through that, its molten core.

 

OK, let's say we have had a period of fairly continuous magnetic field strength, and the mantle has been slowly extending outward from the thermally expanding outer core's molten iron. The mantles progress is measured by the divergent plate boundaries movement and subsequent infill by the fresh magma created by the strain energy.

 

This variable thermal content changes the ocean temperature through the thermal release of the 80,000 kilometer (49,700 mile) long tectonic rift system that is referred to as the mid-ocean ridge. This system contains the world's largest continuous volcanic mountain range stretching 65,000 kilometers (40,400 mile) and occupies every ocean in the world including the Arctic Ocean sea floor. These volcanic structures rise to more than 3657 meters (12,000 ft.) high and are 1931 kilometers (1,200 miles) wide. While the average ocean crust depth is 8km (5 miles thick.) 1/5 as thick as the continents crust, it is just a mere 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.2 mi), at the point where the sea floor is continually formed by magma flowing into the fissure created by the opposing movement of the ocean crust. This process changes the ocean's volumetric heat capacity and through it the atmospheric thermal content.

 

As the mantle continues to displace, infill will grow as the plates separate until the magnetic field lowers in strength. As the outer core's molten iron contracts the mantle will then move in tandem.

 

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core.

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

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

My theory simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. An increase in amperage will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward expansion. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

 

When the field generator's cycle changes to a lower amperage the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now loading up its raised mass as gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. If the cycles are widely spaced, the extra infill or a long decrease in temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement. The resulting increased crustal compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes.

 

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

Opinions vary regarding the total extension of the region, however the median estimate is about 100% total lateral extension. Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north. Evidence exists to suggest that extension initially began in the southern Basin and Range and propagated north over time.

 

The "extension initially began in the southern Basin and Range and propagated north over time" is the result of that particular latitudinal Pacific Plate section having the widest lateral portion of ocean floor applying the most allowable movement in the southern basin area. The southern area wasn’t actually first it was just the movement was proportionally more the farther south you go.

 

The Miocene Epoch, 23.03 to 5.3 million years ago, was a time of warmer global climates. The earth went from the Oligocene Epoch through the Miocene and into the Pliocene. The Pliocene was followed by the Pleistocene, 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago, as it cooled into a series of Ice Ages. The time line works. The Miocene was a warmer period that was concurrent with the Basin and Range extension. This is when the mantle would be in a long period of slow expansion. The East Pacific Rise is the primary expansion fracture on the earth; it was subducted under North America during a long period of thermal contraction in the middle Miocene. When the core began a subsequent period of increased energy output the expansion fracture would impart the slow gradual expansion into the overriding Basin and Range area, stretching it out to its current dimensions. There is no real kinetic movement in the North American plate or any others during expansion, the mantle has extended and opened the divergent boundaries to magma. The plates do almost all of their kinetic movement during subduction when the mantle is cooling, that puts the plates in compression.

 

I was studying some controversy in regards to mountain formation. There is a great paper that outlines the theory that proposes a more recent and defined era of rapid mountain building on a global scale.

 

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 think the variability of the solar magnetic field can answer this challenge. I believe long and short duration periods of high magnetic field induction have driven various geologic events, the breakup of Pangaea and the subsequent 600 thousand year cataclysmic volcanic event for one. Here is another source.

 

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.

 

The time period is short, geologically a blink of an eye. As if the entire crust was put under compression as the mantle receded.

 

If there hypothesis is correct the mountain building periods have occurred repeatedly over the Earth's history. But the periods in between have to be long enough to allow the former to erode substantially. Periods of cooler planetary thermal content interrupted by periods of increased planetary thermal content.

 

Edited September 12, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

You seem to be missing the point that, relative to the last several hundred thousand years, there has not been a spike in geological activity that account for the spike in global average annual temperatures.

Likewise, with sunspots and solar activity.

[arc]

Deleted double post. Curses these glitches.

Edited September 13, 2013 by arc

[arc]

My theory simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. An increase in amperage will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward expansion. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

OK, first off that is one giant Freudian slip. That should have been hypothesis. That is embarrassing. My apologies for appearing presumptuous.

 

 

You seem to be missing the point that, relative to the last several hundred thousand years, there has not been a spike in geological activity that account for the spike in global average annual temperatures.

Likewise, with sunspots and solar activity.

 

iNow, Thanks for coming down to speculations, I was worried our talk had ended.

 

You will not see a spike in geological activity that accounts for sudden global average annual temperatures. These two thermal contents are way out of proportion and timing to each other. Lets look at a comparison for a better perspective.

 

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

 

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

 

Let's look at something to illustrate this concept.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There is really no "spike in geological activity that account for the spike in global average annual temperatures" The heat content that warms the ocean/atmosphere is produced by the strain energy response to the outward displacing mantle. During this time the tectonic plates are slowly extending and the divergent boundaries are filling with magma. The large scale movement in the global plate matrix occurs during the other half when the field generator has lowered it's output and the climate is cooler. This is when the mantle recedes because the outer core's contraction from reduced amperage, this then begins loading gravitational potential energy into the crust. This raised mass is what slowly leverages the crust into the trenches, displaced laterally by the most recent ridge infill.

Edited September 13, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

You will not see a spike in geological activity that accounts for sudden global average annual temperatures.

I agree, and that basically aligns with my original point and ends this little side discussion.

[arc]

I agree, and that basically aligns with my original point and ends this little side discussion.

 

I'm sorry to hear you say that. I can understand this change in standard model can be upsetting to some people. But I cannot help if it is so accurate to the observations. Isn't that what science is all about, finding the simplest explanation that produces the best explanation. I started out in geology as a hobby, now I am trying to tell people about a very simple process that yields very accurate answers. And it seems to upset people. Very strange indeed. But I take encouragement it's resilience, it looks to have had no weaknesses to exploit.

Edited September 13, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

What makes you think you've upset me? What a strange thing for you to say.

[arc]

What makes you think you've upset me? What a strange thing for you to say.

 

 

I agree, and that basically aligns with my original point and ends this little side discussion.

A quick exit using dismissive comments belies anxiety.

[iNow]

Read into it what you will. I am neither upset nor anxious. You can choose to accept that I'm telling you the truth or not, but you're not exactly convincing me that it's worth wasting any more time on this topic. Have fun.

[arc]

Read into it what you will. I am neither upset nor anxious. You can choose to accept that I'm telling you the truth or not, but you're not exactly convincing me that it's worth wasting any more time on this topic. Have fun.

 

I invited you to discuss this model, not to discuss your data and causation's relating to the current standard model. I have stated here at SFN previously that those results match the data.

 

ARC

Posted 15 June 2013 - 11:29 PM

Hello Essay, Thank you for replying. I take all your points and agree things will possibly be quite bad in the future. I am a fan of history, but I would never say I am a historian. My personal take on this climate change situation is the scientific data is correct for their observations, everything adds up.

 

I am convinced there is warming to the degree that is understood to be happening. I agree that under the current model anthropological forcing is responsible. But I also have a very accurate model that appears to me to be superior to the current geodynamics model. It explains in simple, easy to understand processes what the current model does not.

 

Again, you asked; I'm all ears if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades, but until you do then the human cause explanation is easily the best one available given how it fits the data and the physics of greenhouse systems.

 

This model is exactly that. I have shown very reasonable evidence that you did not once acknowledge. You instead only recounted data of the current model. Which wasn't what I had invited you to discuss.

 

It is difficult to explain the technical details to someone who only wants to scan your post to counter claim using a competing model.

 

iNow

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

Arc - I'm not seeing details about tectonics, just sunspots (which have been ruled out) and temperature readings. More here:http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm\

It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots.

 

ARC

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:16 PM

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength.

 

I'm glade you were paying attention, It's so much easier to discuss.

 

Again, it is difficult to explain the technical details to someone who only wants to scan your post to counter claim using a competing model. Sincere questions lead to fruitful discussions.

 

ARC

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:36 PM

I see you are still over there in the standard model of earth's geodynamics, that will not work to understand this phenomena. You will need to acquaint yourself to a new model to see what is behind the Earth's climate history and how it relates to the geologic movements of the continents. It's not complex for what it can do in predicting historic and current geology and climate . It does require a willingness to explore the model, to discuss the simple mechanisms that produce the results that are observed. You up for it.

The offer is still open.

Edited September 14, 2013 by arc

[Ophiolite]

Arc, clearly you have done an extensive amount of research on this idea. To properly address it I shall have to devote many hours (totalling, I should imagine, man-weeks of effort) to thoroughly considering your argument and exploring the relevance of your cited evidence. I am not willing to do this until and unless you assure me that you will be willing to abandon this hypothesis if I demonstrate with clear, evidence based argument, that it is flawed. Are you willing to give me that assurance?

[arc]

Arc, clearly you have done an extensive amount of research on this idea. To properly address it I shall have to devote many hours (totalling, I should imagine, man-weeks of effort) to thoroughly considering your argument and exploring the relevance of your cited evidence. I am not willing to do this until and unless you assure me that you will be willing to abandon this hypothesis if I demonstrate with clear, evidence based argument, that it is flawed. Are you willing to give me that assurance?

 

Ophiolite, I have waited almost six months to here you say that. There is no one else I would prefer to do this. I must warn you though, this is hard to get out of your head once you start applying it to phenomena. I find few dead ends with this, in fact, I have not found any due to it's simplicity. You know almost at the start in whether it looks promising or not. It flows like water into a glass, it is well adapted to Occam's Razor.

 

I am sure I have made some (probably many) technical errors with the field generator and you will be quite amused by my befuddlement , but I believe it will be many more years, probably decades, until a truly accurate model is revealed. But this idea is mostly about the simple mechanism that results, and the chain of events related to it.

 

So, yes I will accept your gracious offer with no conditions other than that we may discuss the flaws in a full and timely manner before abandoning that portion or the entire concept. I am just a simple man, I believe this concept in the hands of a true expert like yourself will produce results far greater than I could ever have imagined.

[Unity+]

I'm not clear what the request is. Is it that I agree to participate in a sarcastic parody, or that I genuinely work with you to make up new physics because accepting the human impact on climate is too icky feeling?

I do not see arc driving his argument towards the goal of calming human emotion, rather arguing against a human-caused climate change. Please state which information has been "made up" before making such claims. Your argument is too vague to go off of.

While plate movements can impact climate, their movements haven't shifted proportional to the changes we're seeing in global average annual temperatures. Specifically, the plate movements result in increased earthquakes and volcanism, both of which have, in fact, been accounted for by climate scientists.

 

Further, much of what we're seeing right now with plate movements appear to be influenced by the changing climate, not the other way around.

 

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/monsoons-are-spinning-earths-plates/

Though you may not be able to answer this question, but what does the source mean by "long-term"? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years? Millions of years? They give information of the conclusion, but fail to present the statistical data that shows the "link" between the two. I tried checking the source that they presented regarding the claim, but couldn't find the actual statistical data. If you could present this, that would be good.

 

Also, there are many factors involved within Climate Change. Volcanic eruptions, the change in the environment, whether human or natural changes involved. Simply to make a claim based off of even this amount of data is hard to make a conclusion or a closed link between human activity and Earth's so-called impending doom without change of habit.

 

I agree that over time the Earth changes due to the differences of habitat changes, again whether caused by animals or humans, but simply to put it on humans to be the all-ending cause needs more evidence.

Arc - I'm not seeing details about tectonics, just sunspots (which have been ruled out) and temperature readings. More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm\

 

It's not the sun, nor it's magnetic changes, nor its spots.

 

 

CJMark - Infowars and Alex Jones are not valid sources. I still remember his crazy ass show when it was on basic cable here like back in the 90s, and you'll not be found credible if that's where you draw your information from or if you continue to cite a ridiculous youtube video.

As for your ice sheet comment... One year does not a trend make. I'm tired, so I'll let someone else sum it up for me:

 

 

You must be careful with your sources as well. I read much of the site's information and saw bias in merely one paragraph of the page:

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

NASA argues against the source you presented, which either means NASA is wrong, or the presented source really needs to rethink its argument. Of course, you can read the article and see if I misinterpret my own sources, but that is up to your discretion.

 

 

In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

 

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Unity+

[iNow]

Though you may not be able to answer this question, but what does the source mean by "long-term"? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years? Millions of years? They give information of the conclusion, but fail to present the statistical data that shows the "link" between the two.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

there are many factors involved within Climate Change. Volcanic eruptions, the change in the environment, whether human or natural changes involved. Simply to make a claim based off of even this amount of data is hard to make a conclusion or a closed link between human activity and Earth's so-called impending doom without change of habit.

It's been accounted for by climatologists, which was my point. It's hardly based on one study as you're here now suggesting.

[KrisMiss]

I am going to admit up front that im still a novice in this field, but my general observations on this thread run along this line....

 

I tend to agree with arc.

 

I know it's popular right now to blame people for the warming period at this time in the earth's existence (especially in political circles) But the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods as long as it has existed. For example the "mini Ice Age" during the medieval dark ages. are you saying that their technology had the power to influence the earths temperature then? Then how can you think we have the power to influence it now to that extent? A single volcanic eruption blows more pollution into the air than humans have since we've been on the planet.

 

A warmer period preceded that time, and another and so on back. Just because we don't have as much RECORDED data like we do in this day and age absolutely doesn't mean it never happened. In fact, im pretty sure geological evidence and events in the past support this completely.

 

I think it may be arrogant on our part to assume that the planet really pays that much attention to us in the long run. Think out of the box for a second and look at the big picture.

 

I am of the opinion that nature can take care of itself. We put our current time on the planet and put it under a microscope because it is all we know. The pollution we cause now only hurts us. Even after a nuclear weapon, the planet will heal. Completely. It will not be in our lifetime, but that just reiterates my point that we only hurt ourselves, not the planet.

 

Earth was here long before we developed, and things were a hell of a lot more volatile geographically, atmospherically, etc. (think formation of the planet and the eons after when poisionous gasses, land mass movenet, volcanic super volcanoes, Pangea, etc. were around all the time. Earth will be here long after we are gone (or leave).

 

 

So, all that being said (lol, thanks for bearing with me) i think arc may definetly be on to something here. I think the theory very plausible that the movement of the planet itself is responsible for our current "warming period". What else has the power to affect it on such a large scale? Not only right now, but since earth's creation.

 

i don't have as much background in this subject as the participants in this thread, but when i step back and take a look, i definitely feel this is a truly viable theory, probably the most convincing one i've come across.

lol, i hope that made sense!

[iNow]

Just because humans are the primary cause now does not mean they are always the primary cause. Look at the argument you just made in another context. You're saying that since forest fires happen naturally humans cannot start them. Looked at this way, it's plainly ludicrous and self-evidently false, yet that's the position you've just taken on climate.

 

Just because humans can create forest fires doesn't mean forest fires never happened until humans came along. That's seriously specious reasoning. Just because something often happens due to natural causes doesn't mean human activity cannot also impact that system.

 

Like most people who do not accept the human impact on climate, your logic is flawed.

 

The planet will be fine. Earth will still be here when we're long gone. The open question is whether or not we will be able to survive the changes we're causing... whether or not the droughts will kill us off, or the massive shifts in extreme weather. The question is whether or not we and the countless many other species that have been experiencing a mass extinction event these last several decades will still be around if we continue to ignore the simply physics of what we're doing to climate by digging up million year old carbon deposits, burning it, and releasing it into the atmosphere.

 

Arc is mistaken. There has not been a corresponding increase in seismic activity that maps to either the rapidity or the magnitude of the temperature changes we are experiencing. If he were not mistaken and he actually had a valid point that were not so easily shot down with even a bit of remedial scrutity, he'd be a very rich and famous man winning Nobel prizes for his idea. I don't expect we'll be seeing him in Norway any time soon.

Edited September 15, 2013 by iNow

[KrisMiss]

you just made my point. The planet WILL be fine. Like i said in my post, the only ones we are hurting our ourselves.