Volcano erupts near Eyjafjallajoekull in south Iceland
An Icelandic volcano, dormant for 200 years, has erupted, ripping a 1km-long fissure in a field of ice.
The volcano near Eyjafjallajoekull glacier began to erupt just after midnight, sending lava a hundred metres high.
Icelandic airspace has been closed, flights diverted and roads closed. The eruption was about 120km (75 miles) east of the capital, Reykjavik.
What volcanic scientists fear is the fact that this eruption could trigger an eruption of Katla, one of the most dangerous volcanic systems in the world.
Eruptive events in Eyjafjallajökull are often followed by a Katla eruption. The Laki craters and the Eldgjá are part of the same volcanic system. Insta-melt could occur:
At the peak of the 1755 Katla eruption the flood discharge has been estimated between 200,000–400,000 m³/s; for comparison the combined average discharge of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Yangtze rivers is about 290,000 m³/s.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katla
Video of the eruption:
Volcano Eruption in Eyjafjallajökull Iceland 20 Mars 2010.
The volcano near the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier began to erupt shortly after midnight, leading to road closures in the area.
No one was in immediate danger, but 500 people were being moved from the area.
It is almost 200 years since a volcano near Eyjafjallajokull, 120km (75 miles) east of Reykjavik, last erupted. The last volcanic eruption in the area occurred in 1821.
Taken from C-FQWY / TF-SIF DHC-8-314Q Dash 8
Volcanic eruptions at high latitudes have a large cooling effect on climate (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011222.shtml)
Icelandic volcanism has been relatively quiescent during the past few decades duting which apparent warming has taken place. Co-incidence, correlation or cause-and-effect?
I know this is off topic but i dont find a topic where I could post this. A surprising result of algae research. “Devarenne explains, “The fuels derived from B. braunii hydrocarbons are chemically identical to gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Thus, we do not call them biodiesel or bio-gasoline; they are simply diesel and gasoline. To produce these fuels from B. braunii, the hydrocarbons are processed exactly the same as petroleum is processed and thus generates the exact same fuels. Remember, these B. braunii hydrocarbons are a main constituent of petroleum. So there is no difference other than the millions of years petroleum spent underground.” He is almost making a new explanation of the formation of fossil fuels – which in this process wouldn’t be “fossil” at all. Interesting.”
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/03/16/the-algae-that-makes-petroleum-story/
Excellent question, ammonyte. It is thought that the year without a summer, 1816, suffered extra cold conditions because of a large volcanic eruption in 1815, putting aerosols in the air that reflected heat away from Earth. It also put out huge quantities of CO2, as an interesting aside, but not relevant, as CO2 has very little, if anything, to do with global warming or cooling. It seems that CO2 primarily feeds plants, which feed us and the animals that we eat.
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!
(well, eventually, when we get old, sick, or have a very bad accident, but don’t let that stop the doomsayers from saying it…)
Volcanic activity has an increased frequency of occurance & intensity in times of Solar Minimum.
eruption is misspelled in the title…
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
Eruptuon? 😀
[Already been fixed. ~dbs, mod.]
The great climatologist Danny Glover will no doubt procrastinate on how man caused this to happen via co2 emissions…. rollseyes.
More links to the ongoing Eyjafjallajökull Eruption:
http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/03/eruption_started_at_eyjafjalla.php#comments
http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/03/the_2010_fissure_eruption_at_e.php
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/laki.html
So turning off the lights and putting up windmills has not appeased the climate and geological gods at all.
Man is foolish if he thinks he can control and regulate these forces. It’s such a folly.
Volcanic activity in Iceland in second half of 18th century caused major climatic cooling in N Europe which was a contributory factor in the French Revolution – crop failure, let them eat cake – remember all that? Interesting to see how this one develops.
Any bets on who is the first to blame it on AGW?
ammonyte (10:15:37) :
Volcanic eruptions at high latitudes have a large cooling effect on climate (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011222.shtml)
Icelandic volcanism has been relatively quiescent during the past few decades duting which apparent warming has taken place. Co-incidence, correlation or cause-and-effect?
Coincidenece, and in any case there has been no statistically significant cooling for 15 years…
How many carbon credits will Iceland have to buy for the emissions from this eruption?
You pretty much have to assume that this is due to CO2 emissions, because everything is.
Glad I’m not an Icelandic taxpayer at the moment. All that carbon tax to pay for an errant volcano.
Sorry if I am missing something but: what’s so “worrisome” about a Katla eruption? Katla erupts every 40-80 years and has erupted at least 16 times since the year 930.
Coincidenece, and in any case there has been no statistically significant cooling for 15 years…
sorry meant warming…
TimesUK:
“That has to be on the table at the moment,” Dave McGarvie, senior lecturer at the Volcano Dynamics Group of the Open University, said. “And it is a much nastier piece of work.”
Icelanders agree. “This could trigger Katla, which is a vicious volcano that could cause both local and global damage,” Pall Einarsson, from the University of Iceland, said.
Tremors around Eyjafjallajokull were first recorded in early March, but precise prediction of volcanic eruption is difficult, even with the high-tech equipment available to Icelandic geologists.
Now that it has happened the only basis for prediction is history — and that does not look good.
“Eyjafjallajokull has blown three times in the past thousand years,” Dr McGarvie told The Times, “in 920AD, in 1612 and between 1821 and 1823. Each time it set off Katla.” The likelihood of Katla blowing could become clear “in a few weeks or a few months”, he said.
Iceland is built on a volcanic rock on the Atlantic’s mid-oceanic ridge and it has grown used to eruptions. The southern village of Vik, close to the current eruption, has for centuries had an escape plan in which everybody runs up to the church, which is built on high ground. They know that if Katla erupts flooding will follow.
The island’s worst eruption in modern times was in 1783, when the Laki volcano blew its top. The lava shot to heights of 1.4 kilometres and more than 120 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide was released into the atmosphere.
A quarter of the island’s population died in the resulting famine and it transformed the world, creating Britain’s notorious “sand summer”, casting a toxic cloud over Prague, playing havoc with harvests in France — sometimes seen as a contributory factor in the French Revolution — and changing the climate so dramatically that New Jersey recorded its largest snowfall and Egypt one of its most enduring droughts.”
“Iceland prepares for second, more devastating volcanic eruption”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7070239.ece
Follow-up article in the London Times:
Iceland prepares for second, more devastating volcanic eruption
Watch this space it seems.
ammonyte (10:15:37) :
“Volcanic eruptions at high latitudes have a large cooling effect on climate…”
Guess we’ll find out if that Katla system goes off.
This will help enforce cooling, according to Joe Bastardi of Accuweather.
A fissure eruption – that is really worrying. A large fissure eruption is very bad news. The last one (Laki 1783) killed a quarter of the icelandic population and caused several years of atrocious weather and famine around the northern hemisphere.
As one place (or several lately) subducts, some other place must weep the planet’s blood (magma forcing its way through the crust to the surface)..
Some more Icelandic wild Card Volcano surprises:
Based on an assessment of the internal pressure build up, Hekla is ‘due’ to erupt and could do so at any point in time. Grimsvotn is fast approaching pre-2004 pressure levels and so an eruption there within a year or two would not be unexpected.
ammonyte (10:15:37) :
Your reference is only an abstract and says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of the model output due just to high latitude eruptions. The only reference to climate is due to tropical volcanoes. The most important long-term impact is the cooling of the high-latitude NH produced by multiple tropical eruptions, suggesting that positive feedbacks associated with ice and snow cover could lead to long-term climate cooling in the Arctic.
Perhaps you were thinking of a different paper – this paper only looks at models and cites only weak empirical evidence and admits available proxy records are insufficient on their own to clearly assess whether this transition is associated with volcanism.
P oleward A ccumulating L ava E vents always begin after the winter solstice and follow latitudinal lapping directions toward the new longitudinal summer
I’ve got my popcorn ready.
We live in intresting times….
Ah come on folks with the unprecedented globull warming we are having any possible major eruption will have little cooling effect. In fact this eruption may delay the unprecedented warming giving us more time to fight fight climate change.
Luc VC (10:24:48) :
I know this is off topic but i dont find a topic where I could post this. A surprising result of algae research. “Devarenne explains, “The fuels derived from B. braunii hydrocarbons are chemically identical to gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Thus, we do not call them biodiesel or bio-gasoline; they are simply diesel and gasoline. To produce these fuels from B. braunii, the hydrocarbons are processed exactly the same as petroleum is processed and thus generates the exact same fuels. Remember, these B. braunii hydrocarbons are a main constituent of petroleum. So there is no difference other than the millions of years petroleum spent underground.” He is almost making a new explanation of the formation of fossil fuels – which in this process wouldn’t be “fossil” at all. Interesting.”
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/03/16/the-algae-that-makes-petroleum-story/
———
REPLY – watch this space, I just filed an advanced algae biofuel process patent about a week ago.
The US government dumped many $millions into this, and there are a variety of startups, but they all make the same technical errors.
Alternative energy is not fundamentally bad IF the economics are sound. Algae might work, methane from waste is very good, but wind turbines are a disaster. Other stuff like fusion and solar panels are a long way into the future. Build nukes.
After the rash of large quakes around the globe, I wonder if this is the precursor to a massive spreading event? I’m not talking about a massive Al Gore type event, but something that is not expected, such as the plate spreading in fits and starts in a way we don’t expect. Lets face, we’ve only known about the connection of the mid Atlantic ridge to plate movements for about fifty years. There is still a lot we don’t know about the behavior of the tectonic system.
@ Wilson Flood
Interesting that the “let them eat cake” exhortation (which actually predates Marie Antoinette) is a useful piece of advice for the starving sans culottes.
The actual phrase was “let them eat brioche” and brioche requires less wheat to make than bread and thus allows limited supplies of corn to go further.
A difficult point to get across in times of famine – a bit like trying to explain to Al Gore that CO2 is not going to turn the globe into Gobi.
Pip pip!
ron from Texas (10:25:13) :
1816 may be a very poor comparison.
The 1815 eruption was Tambora in Indonesia. This was by no means a high latitude eruption, nor did have an impact long enough to be considered a climate change. The eruption was likely the biggest of the last 10,000 years, but the effect was confined mainly to 1816. 1816 was not that bad a year at lower latitudes, I believe the main effect of the sulphate haze was to push the storm track further south than usual. There were a number of warm days in New England in 1816, it was the killing frosts that devastated the wheat and corn crops. Apple and pear crops did quite well thanks to the lack of insect damage, so there was no freeze during apple blossom time.
http://wermenh.com/1816.html
And to think that the financial world thought it a grand idea to build a huge pile of debt on the sound foundation of the Icelandic banks.
Magnitude 5.6 – CUBA REGION
2010 March 20 18:08:09 UTC
Magnitude 5.3 – GUATEMALA
2010 March 20 21:55:49 UTC
Iceland?
Lots of little seismic events, see “last 48 hours” list, nothing all that big.
Hmmm…Let’s chuck a nuclear weapon in there and see what does {shudder}
Interesting to note that Iceland straddles the mid-Atlantic ridge. The separation of the North American and Eurasian plates is interrupted by Iceland, which would be under terrific strain as the plates continue to separate at several cm/year. Something’s gotta give. My bet is that Iceland will separate into two or more pieces eventually. Take a look at the underwater topography in Google Earth.
tty writes: “A fissure eruption – that is really worrying. A large fissure eruption is very bad news. The last one (Laki 1783) killed a quarter of the icelandic population and caused several years of atrocious weather and famine around the northern hemisphere.”
The famine was due to lavas rich in fluor that deposited in the grass and poisoned most cattle.
Iceland is volcanic as a result of being an above sea level expression of the Atlantic mid-ocean spreading ridge, which runs the length of the North and South Atlantic Ocean.
40,000 miles of mid-ocean spreading ridges are present the world over.
These spreading ridges are active, dynamic, and easy to recognize, although many stretches are hard to reach because they are deep below sea level.
There is nothing subtle about mid-ocean spreading ridges, Iceland being a prime example.
On the other hand, so-called “subduction” zones are anything but easy to recognize, nowhere close to 40,000 miles have been identified, and a number of scientists question their existence, altogether.
Study Iceland and study the physical markers of the Chile earthquake.
The pieces of evidence don’t add-up to support the status quo opinion of the geology community.
CO2 shouldn’t even be a concern… re: 1783 Laki eruption…. the eruption was slow and no deaths were attributed to it, but this was the result of the noxious gases… “… crops and pastures yellowed and died. Soon livestock began to sicken… More than 75% of the island’s sheep and horses and 50% of its cattle succumbed to poisoning or starvation… fish migrated temporarily from the polluted coastal waters. In the resulting famine, 10000 people- roughly 1/5 of Iceland’s population- starved”
In Europe….. ” In Scotland (crops) became brown and withered…across Europe… many plants became dried blackened. Insects fared badly, and aphids and other species were exterminated in huge numbers. People fared little better… Recent research of parish records in Britian has revealed a higher than normal death rate” Raging Planet Bill McGuire 2002
CO2 should be the least of our concerns if a major event was to happen.
ron from Texas (10:25:13) :
It is thought that the year without a summer, 1816, suffered extra cold conditions because of a large volcanic eruption in 1815, putting aerosols in the air that reflected heat away from Earth. It also put out huge quantities of CO2, as an interesting aside, but not relevant, as CO2 has very little, if anything, to do with global warming or cooling.
———————-
“huge quantities” is not very precise. That’s why scientists use measures like “tons of CO2”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.
But the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was “super colossal”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
Perhaps it, by itself, put enough CO2 into the atmosphere in 1815 to compare to recent human contributions – 1 ppm ? 0.5 ppm ? 0.25 ppm ?
It doesn’t really show up in the CO2 record, since measurements weren’t as precise back then:
http://www.stuffintheair.com/images/Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations.png
Interesting aside: CO2 is the main driver of recent global warming, since the small delta radiative forcing effect accumulates year after year after year, whereas the cooling effect of large volcanoes is a single pulse, that dies down in a few years:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/global_warming_update4.php
Similarly, the periodic forcings of the tiny Sun variations in TSI have no longterm effect. Only the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere have a non-pulse, non-periodic effect on the planets temperature in the 100 to 500 year time frame of interest.
Anyone…
What implications if any, of large fresh water injections on Arctic and NH thermo/haline flow structures?
ammonyte (10:15:37) :
Paul (11:13:10) :
You might want to refer to a primer on Icelandic volcanism before jumping to conclusions. See:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9X-4MBCBP7-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1260109448&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=50e290e1f9fda8313d1c4fc3c87448f3
Note that nearly 80% of Icelandic volcanism is basaltic, which isn’t unexpected given it’s association with the Mid-Atlantic ridge spreading center. It is important to distinguish this type of eruption from intermediate & acidic types in that it is rarely explosive & would have a very low chance of introducing stratospheric SO2 & effecting weather / climate. Note from the news release & video that the eruption is coming from a 1 km long fissure – a very typical style for a basaltic eruption, so it is likely it falls within the 80% – so don’t hold your breath this will effect the climate.
As for a katla, a quick scan of the web indicates it is also dominantly a basaltic volcano :
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/en/volcanoes/europe/iceland/katla/
However, there are also indication of explosive modes of eruption :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katla
“It is thought that Katla is the source of the Vedde Ash (tephra dated to 10,600 years BP[2]) found at a number of sites including Norway, Scotland and North Atlantic cores.”
So, Katla appears to be a potentially unique beast, with multiple modes of eruptions – that could potentially be more interesting from an eruptive standpoint, as far as climate / weather goes.
In the short term, based on what we are seeing reported right now, nothing to get too fired up about wx-wise at this point.
Luboš Motl (10:57:43) :
Sorry if I am missing something but: what’s so “worrisome” about a Katla eruption? Katla erupts every 40-80 years and has erupted at least 16 times since the year 930.
Because Katla is a serious “party spoiler” with the potential Global effects.
Because of the size of it’s caldera an eruptive event could be quite a beast.
The Laki craters and the Eldgjá are part of the same volcanic system, so it can be regarded as one of the most powerful in the world. It is thought that Katla is the source of the Vedde Ash (tephra dated to 10,600 years found at a number of sites including Norway, Scotland and North Atlantic cores.
An eruption could trigger another “year without a summer” and reduce drops over a very large area, including Western Europe, North Africa, Egypt, India and the USA.
Another aspect is the fact that this volcanic system releases large amounts of poisonous hydrofluoric acid/sulfur-dioxide that left people dead in the fields from England, Holland, Belgium, France, Germany and even Poland.
In short, this volcanic system, if it erupts big time has the potential to poison the entire NH for several years.
We are all going to die !
I live in Scotland. Preparing to pack car and drive south.
There is a robust correlation between Icelandic earthquakes and financial crises.
Edited snippet from thread start:
”…. 1755 Katla eruption the flood discharge …. estimated between 200,000–400,000 m³/s; …. discharge of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Yangtze rivers is about 290,000 m³/s.”
Just to give y’all a feel for how huge that flood was:
First note the Amazon is the ”mother of all rivers”, cfs-wise; and that 300K m3/S = 10,780K cfs.
I rafted the Colorado River thru Grand Canyon when it was running right around 10K cfs (highest cfs in Grand Canyon after Glen Canyon dam was built = 92K cfs in 1983).
That means the 1755 Katla flood was approximately ONE-THOUSAND times the cfs in the Grand Canyon when I rowed it. Astounding. . . .
Curiousgeorge: “My bet is that Iceland will separate into two or more pieces eventually.”
Sure let’s bet… My bet is that baring a significant plate motion change, Iceland will simply remain a single main island with a constant surface as it has done for millions of years. The magma that is added through the mid Atlantic rift will be compensated by the cooling and resulting sinking of the oceanic lithosphere on both side of the rift. Of course locally, erosion and sedimentation will alter the coastline…
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:37:43) :
…but wind turbines are a disaster.
In more ways than one. Wind turbines interfere with radar — both NORAD and the FAA have filed for and received “stop-work” court orders against several dozen planned sites because they’ll compromise air traffic safety.
Not looking good for DoE, which has been chirping that wind turbines will be supplying 20% of US energy needs in the near future.
Ummmmm — there’s also a pretty gloomy way of interpreting that prediction…
+63° 38′ 0.00″, -19° 36′ 0.00 for Eyjafjallajoekull in google Earth.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull.ogg
for pronunciation
Curiousgeorge (11:46:47) :
Guys, if you dont know anything about geology, please don’t speculate. This is what gives ammo to websites like RC against WUWT. The last thing we need to be doing is spreading dis-information out in cyber-space.
Iceland was formed by dominantly basaltic volcanism associated with extension at the plate boundary. This is what is expected at divergent plate boundaries. Iceland is not “holding back” the divergent plate boundaries causing “terrific strain” (which by the way is also wrong – it would be “terrific stress” – strain is deformation, stress is a force) – it is formed as a result of the boundary. The volcanism will continue as the plates spread & will “fill in the gaps” caused by the extension – so no reason to believe Iceland will split in 2. Here’s a good graphical image showing you how as the plates spread, new crust is formed, with the youngest crust at the spreading center & getting progressively older away from the center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif
All we are seeing in Iceland is “new crust”. No reason to believe this wont continue. No reason to believe Iceland will be split in 2. No reason to believe it is creating some sore of lock on the plate boundary.
FYI – Situations where you will see crust broken into 2 parts happens as new rift zones open up in continental crust & new oceanic crust is formed in between – such as what is going on in East Africa present day, or when North Am / South Am rifted away from Africa / Europe starting in the Triassic – but this is a completely different situation than we are seeing in Iceland.
John Phillips (12:06:48) said:
Hmmm, so the recent Icelandic banking collapse/financial meltdown precipitated the earthquakes … 🙂
James F. Evans, subduction zones are perfectly known by their seismicity, volcanism, tomography, rates of plate convergence measurements etc… inform yourself instead of spreading utter bS.
Rupert (11:41:24) :
@ Wilson Flood
Interesting that the “let them eat cake” exhortation (which actually predates Marie Antoinette) is a useful piece of advice for the starving sans culottes.
The actual phrase was “let them eat brioche” and brioche requires less wheat to make than bread and thus allows limited supplies of corn to go further.
Another apologist for the French aristocracy!
Sure, take a gratuitous shot at Robespierre. Don’t you ever give up? Louis XVI is dead. Get over it.
Sonicfrog (11:37:54) :
“We” (being geologists) know a lot more than you think. Given the physics of the forces involved, mass balance considerations, modern GPS measurements (which can track current plate movements), and the geologic record of plate motions, there is no data to support the idea that the plates might suddenly “accelerate”.
Again, please stop idle speculation unless you have some good reason to post a hypothesis – or at least post it as a question, like “Does anyone know if there is data to support sudden & rapid acceleration of plate movements?” Your idea reads like some CO2 alarmist on RC. Sorry to be harsh, but live by the sword, die by the sword. The sword we live by on WUWT is the sword of good science, not alarmism.
P oleward A ccumulating L ava E vents always begin after the winter solstice and follow longitudinal lapping directions toward the new latitudinal summer (oops)
Dear Anu,
When you write
“Similarly, the periodic forcings of the tiny Sun variations in TSI have no longterm effect. Only the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere have a non-pulse, non-periodic effect on the planets temperature in the 100 to 500 year time frame of interest.” you are being patently ridiculous.
The most important earth bound conditions affecting temperatures are the heights of atmospheric layers. The taller atmospheric layers are then the smaller the rate that radiation is released into space. Contrarily, the shorter that the atmospheric layers are then the higher the rate that radiation is released into space. This is as fundament to accounting for why Lindzen and Choi obtained their results as higher latitude volcanic activity -induced by a Heavier Sun- is to increasing the density of the magnetosphere and thus the increasing radiative releases mark by the higher stratospheric temperatures recorded by Chrisy and Spencer.
As a matter of the simple fact of physics, the warmer temperatures are on earth then the higher the concentration of particular atmospheric gases can be. These physical processes also explain why their is a feedback lag of 800 years between the onset of cold and a fall of in CO2. While oceans are cooling they are still releasing water vapor and this slows the filtering of CO2. (the vikings were chased from Greenland ~ 700 years ago….During the 20th century we clogged our oceans with junk that trawlers can clean up and this detritus is interfering with the absorption of CO2 by the Oceans)
It will surprise the CO2 is AGW community to know that during tall atmospheric conditions (true global warming) CO2 is much less likely to be found near the top…It is just too heavy.
Niels Bohr….CO2 is not a black body…entropy will change the radiation and it will be released and directed in all directions by atmospheric currents and subjected to Earth’s Radiative Budget.
Bad science will kill billions if truth continues to be suppressed.
“Richard Sharpe (12:24:14) :
Hmmm, so the recent Icelandic banking collapse/financial meltdown precipitated the earthquakes … :-)”
Richard, it is the recent voters rejection of the anglo-european financial deal that may have activated the volcanoe. Never pass on an opportunity to spew guilt on people… LOL
Anu (11:59:14),
Ron from Texas is right. CO2 has very little to do with global warming or cooling. Whatever small effect it may have is unproven, and even if eventually proven, the fact is that whatever small effect CO2 might have is so insignificant that it can be disregarded.
We know this because as CO2 has risen by a full one-third, the planet’s temperature has not risen even one degree, and it is arguable whether CO2 has much to do with that mild increase, or whether that slight warming is due to the planet’s natural rebound from the Little Ice Age. Further, for extended periods the planet has cooled even as the very minor trace gas CO2 steadily rises. The wild-eyed pointing to the presumed effects of beneficial CO2 have been debunked repeatedly: polar ice cover is well within normal historical parameters. And global precipitation is entirely normal. And the sea level is not rising any faster than normal. And the deep ocean is not heating up, etc., etc.
In fact, none of the alarming runaway global warming predictions have occurred. As Dr Trenberth admits, it is a travesty that their predicted events are not happening. In any other branch of the hard sciences, such repeated failures would completely discredit a conjecture like CO2=CAGW.
But money — and the prospect of ever more funding — keeps the AGW conjecture alive. The problem is that the money diverted into the repeatedly debunked global warming scare is starving deserving sciences of needed funding.
Instead of using the public’s tax money for worthwhile science, it is wasted on self-serving empires of AGW shills in order to perpetuate their jobs, to ratchet up their compensation, to generate endless grants, and to buy new toys like supercomputers, whose models can not accurately predict the climate. In return, we get silliness like the statement from your link:
It must be fun for these climate scientists to divvy up $2 billion a year, and emit fantastic statements like that. They don’t mention that the models are programmed by people with a preconceived AGW conclusion. The fact that models are almost always wrong means the garbage going in is wrong.
And what does the average taxpayer get for their money? They get models that can’t accurately predict, a rent-seeking clique of back scratching scientists who conspire to keep skeptical scientists marginalized, and who travel to exotic locales on all expense paid junkets to promote scary scenarios that the planet itself is falsifying.
That is not what the public wants or needs. The public is paying for science, but getting a pseudo-science agenda instead. And that’s the scam.
James F. Evans (11:57:22) :
“On the other hand, so-called “subduction” zones are anything but easy to recognize, nowhere close to 40,000 miles have been identified, and a number of scientists question their existence, altogether.”
What ????
Please site a source where geologists question the presence of subduction zones.
Hard to identify? I think not.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadati-Benioff_zone
All you have to do is monitor the seismic activity of any subduction zone & you will see it “imaged” based on the focal positions of earthquakes. See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kuril_Benioff_zone.JPG
And yes, we can tell the direction each plate is sliding relative to each other based on focal mechanism analysis of first motions. See:
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/beachball.html
… am I sounding like a broken record? Don’t post ideas if you have no idea what you are talking about – or least post it as a question for those who may know the answer.
… I think I have some idea how Leif feels when the blog gets on solar topics.
If it’s “up there” and I didn’t see it, mea culpa, but does anyone with a background in geology have a good link to actual, ongoing, volcanic/seismic data for this area of Iceland? Like the USGS site for ‘Redoubt’ a short while ago.
Antonio San (12:32:53) :
Antonio San (12:08:41) :
Thank you for your unsolicited help in controling the geologic BS !
I’m not buying all this mumbo jumbo from people who claim they know what they are talking about. I’ve examined the historic record and it is clear that the only mechanism for controlling volcanoes is virgin tossing. Yet I have not seen one of you mention it. Are you trying to rewrite history? Make the Medieval Virgin Tossing Period disappear?
Seriously, thanks for the explanations, very informative.
rbateman. re volcanic an solar minima: i thought so and earthquakes as well?
Now, hold on a minute. In the first place new crust at the spreading ridges has to vanish back into the mantle somewhere or the Earth is growing larger by the day. Second, subduction zones are anything but subtle–have a look at island archipelagos, acuate deep trenches, and the earthquakes associated with them. I don’t know of any geophysicist who doubts the existance of subduction zones.
High latitude stratovolcanoes are believed to affect the Arctic Oscillation. Iceland volcanoes are shield volcanoes related to ocean plate spreading – stratovolcanoes are related to the subduction of oceanic plates beneath continental plate margins.
The type of melt generated by he two are very different. Stratovolcanoes melts are rich in silica and H2O, which subducts with oceanic plate and allows the melt to be more silica rich and more viscous. All this leads to much more explosive events as the viscous magma plugs up the vents and the H2O causes the magma to explode when the magma breaches these blockages – thus allowing ash and gas to to rise into the stratosphere, where it can affect climate.
Basaltic magmas, like those of icelandic volcanoes have low H2O content and are less viscous. As the accompanying photo shows the magma forms beautiful fountains rising hundreds of feet (not 10’s of thousands), and while it might have local impacts on atmospheric gas content, it does not generally have any far reaching hemispheric or global climate impacts.
If the shield caldera were to collapse, there could be some explosive consequences, but that would depend on how much water enters the magma chamber and how extensive such a collapse would be.
In other words, sit back, watch the show and enjoy your pop corn.
Ric Werme (11:28:46) :
ammonyte (10:15:37) :
Volcanic eruptions at high latitudes have a large cooling effect on climate (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011222.shtml)
Your reference is only an abstract and says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of the model output due just to high latitude eruptions. The only reference to climate is due to tropical volcanoes. The most important long-term impact is the cooling of the high-latitude NH produced by multiple tropical eruptions, suggesting that positive feedbacks associated with ice and snow cover could lead to long-term climate cooling in the Arctic.
_________________________________________
I too am only looking at the abstract, but I think the key word is “explosive.” This adjective typically describes eruptions of felsic volcanoes above subduction zones, and cooling is an intuitively reasonable result of the ash the eruption throws high into the atmosphere.
Mafic volcanoes at spreading ridges (Iceland) and hotspots (Hawaii) may erupt spectacularly, but with relatively little ash. Oceanic warming, rather than global cooling, seems to be the result of the heat flow. An outstanding example might have occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, when a spike in ocean temperature may have resulted from massive eruption in the area of present-day Iceland.
HereticFringe (10:26:37) :
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!
(well, eventually, when we get old, sick, or have a very bad accident, but don’t let that stop the doomsayers from saying it…)
rbateman (10:27:36) :
Volcanic activity has an increased frequency of occurance & intensity in times of Solar Minimum.
~
OMG, Heretic-Fringe, hey great name btw.
rbateman, then why can’t we see the lag time? Hasn’t there been enough of these extended max. solar periods with their corresponding extended min. solar periods, to start ah..seeing lag times, in modern times?
Is this now the question and answer period?
Having a hard time putting this question together.
When it comes to the sun, we have it broken down into largescale sturctures, magnetic butterfly diagrams, movements towards and away from the equator, rotational, etc..
When it comes to Earth do we similarily, plot movements of seismic activity? Yes, I know seismic monitors in real time. Numbers all over the place. Ring of Fire, subductions zones, fastest plate, etc. I know but.
Is there movement towards or away from the poles.?
Chaiten is still rumbling away also;
http://geology.com/volcanoes/chaiten/
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february272010/chile_ez.php
Anu (11:59:14) : “Only the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere have a non-pulse, non-periodic effect on the planets temperature in the 100 to 500 year time frame of interest.” ………………..
…….Ah, Yes, that inexorable, devastating rise of 3 molecules in 10 Thousand …..to 4 whole molecules in 10 Thousand… shocking! Devastating. I’m melting already. We must obliterate all trace of Capitalism, implement Socialism, divide up US wealth among world nations, and everyone will bike to their new job dragging a plow at the (local) organic farm. Once we repent our climate sins with a vow of poverty, will the mother ship swoop in from its hiding place behind the moon?
Kevin Kilty (13:35:19) :
Now, hold on a minute. In the first place new crust at the spreading ridges has to vanish back into the mantle somewhere or the Earth is growing larger by the day.
You know I think that might be what he was talking about. There’s a… I hesitate to call it a theory or even a hypothesis, but a belief that the earth has actually grown from something smaller to something bigger. I saw a few youtube videos about it a while back, which claimed that mountains are like giant wrinkles and stretchmarks. They never get around to explaining where the extra mass comes from…
kadaka (11:43:41) :
“Iceland?
Lots of little seismic events, see “last 48 hours” list, nothing all that big.”
Icelandic Richter 2.5 earthquakes don’t show up on the USGS earthquake site.
For anyone wanting to watch earthquakes in Iceland ‘live’ see their great met office site at: http://en.vedur.is/
Click on the earthquake map.
For those interested the largest quake in the swarm was only a 3.1, and that was a week ago. We’d all been looking for a 4 or a 5 as a kickoff, but all that seemed to happen is a gentle cracking as the small quakes registered shallower and shallower. I’m no vulcanologist but I hazard a guess that it is the fluidity of the magma which is the reason.
Subduction zones – here is one example http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3277943g-maps.html . The dots represent earthquakes and depth. They represent the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate subducting under New Zealand. Why, yes, I am a geologist.
Just to add to Jeff L’s comments, people should realise that there are a whole range of different volcanoes and types of eruption around the world with the primary difference between them being the type of rock that is being extruded.
Put very loosely:
Mid Ocean Ridge eruptions tend to be of Basic rock types derived from the mantle which lack large amounts of silcate type minerals – primarily quartz and feldspars.
Continental eruptions such as those along the subduction zones of the Pacific rim or places like the mediterranean tend to tend to be of Acidic rock types derived from the melting of continental crust. These are much higher in silicate minerals.
The effect of the prescence and absence of silicate minerals is primarily seen in the viscosty of the magma.
A basic mineralogy produces a relatively low vicosity magma which is more likely to flow – hence the spectacular lava flows seen in Hawaii and Iceland. This tends to predicate against explosive eruptions.
An acidic mineralogy produces a relatively high viscosity magma. This allows for the build up of pressure within the upper magma chamber rather than allowing it to be released. The primary cause of this is the inability of volcanic gases to escape from the silicate magmas. Pressure continues to build until there is a failure of the overlying rock whch results in an explosive release of the gases, magma and associated semi molten rock. This is the effect seen at Vesuvius and Mt St Helens.
So although it is possible to have explosive events in basic vocanic regimes, it is generally fairly unlikely.
Ice is melting! This must have an impact on climate!
Ecotretas
I visited iceland last summer, and walked in the evacuated Thorsmork area.
So far luckily only a 500 m long fissure vent, not covered by permanent ice, erupted on the saddle pass halfway between Eyjafjalla and Katla volcanoes .
Judging from the observed seismicity the volcanic activity is on the Eyjafjalla volcano and not Katla, the Eyjafallajoekull icecap is smaller, but still hazardous if the main volcano erupts.
http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/272638/Hoera%2C_IJsland_warmt_op
So far this is a small eruption and will not have any effect on the climate.
In order for that to happen it must grow dramaticly in size. But we have to wait and see what is going to happen. We are only in the beginning of the eruption and it may grow in size, and there is always the possibility that it will be followed by a large explosive eruption from Katla.
It is a little exciting to follow this eruption since the last one of the Volcano was 1823, and also it is an oppurtunity to study the relationship between Eyjafjallajökull and Katla and possibly study the development and how it may finally trigger an eruption at Katla.
Jeff L (12:47:26): … I think I have some idea how Leif feels when the blog gets on solar topics.
I sincerely subscribe to your point of view. I have two questions:
1. What is the probability of a Katla eruption given that we have a Eyjafjallajoekull eruption?
2. What is the average delay between a Eyjafjallajoekull eruption and a Katla eruption? Is it a matter of days or are we talking years?
Best Regards,
Invariant
kadaka (11:43:41) :
Iceland?
Lots of little seismic events, see “last 48 hours” list, nothing all that big.
You mean nothing all that big YET?
Question for Richard Tyndall,
I found your comparison of mid ocean ridge volcanos vs. subduction zone volcanos quite interesting and it seems to be a very good analysis. (In fact, I once worked on a project for making penetration resistant safe walls and a key ingredient was use of high silica or quartz type aggregate as these were so viscous, a burn bar could not get though them quickly.) Any way, the other thing a subduction quate wil have is sedimetary rock that is thrown into the earth’s grinding machine. These will contain water, carbonates, sulphates and other types of rocks producing massive amounts of gas. From what I understand, Indonesia is at the intersection of three plates that manages to produce a lot of gas in very viscous rock so its no coincidence that 2 of the most explosive volcanic events in the last 200 years have occurred there.
Bruce of Newcastle, there have been a lot of earthquake swarms at Eyjafjallajökull during March. In the last 48 hours it has not been so much intense activity. But the magma had probably worked its way up during the March activity, but the small amount of EQ: s just before the eruption suggest that it didn´t have to fight so hard to finally crack the surface. You can find the earlier seismic activity here at Michel´s site. http://islande2010.mbnet.fr/2010/03/eyjafjallajokull-levolution-des-dernieres-heures/
“Jeff L (12:35:35) :
Sonicfrog (11:37:54) :
“We” (being geologists) know a lot more than you think. Given the physics of the forces involved, mass balance considerations, modern GPS measurements (which can track current plate movements), and the geologic record of plate motions, there is no data to support the idea that the plates might suddenly “accelerate”. ”
But that’s what geologists said for over 50 years when they denied the plate tectonic hypothesis. It was only due to military research in the 50’s and 60’s that such data became available in order for plate tectonic theory to be polished and accepted.
I suspect we do not know as much as we think about whats going on below us. So much funding is being used to support the climate modelists to prove the AGW hypothesis, and research funded by the military is not always in the public domain.
That said, people do seem a bit too quick to embrace their favourite end of the world scenario, and the science supporting it. Events in 2010 must be doing wonders for 2012 DVD sales.
Icelanders agree. “This could trigger Katla, which is a vicious volcano that could cause both local and global damage,” Pall Einarsson, from the University of Iceland, said.
In my opinion, this statement and more the same from the MSM have the science wrong. The media express the fear that this may “trigger” Katla. Are they confusing two related events? Maybe this is the prelude to an eruption of Katla, but from my limited understanding of geology, it would be wrong to claim that the one eruption “caused” or triggered the second.
You see,,, the Eruptuons fasten onto the Manmade CO2 molecules, and spin ever faster and faster in their orbits, eventually causing cataclysmic eruptions!
It’s all our fault! The Mayans were right!
This story should be fun to watch!
Invariant (14:47:02) :
I won’t BS you – I have degrees in both geology & geophysics & have a good understanding of the big picture geology of Iceland, but the questions you pose would require a much better understanding of the minutia of Iceland geology to answer – although I am guessing the answers are “out there” somewhere in cyber space – seeing that we have multiple references to these linkages in the initial post – hopefully someone has actually done that research & cataloged the results
Is there a good description of events the last time this happened in 1821 (or there abouts)?
Supporting Lubos’ point:
Katla Eruptions
1999, 1955, 1918, 1860, 1823, 1755-56, 1721, 1660-61, 1625, 1612, 1580, 1450 ± 50 yr, 1440, 1416, 1357 ± 3, 1311, 1262, 1245, 1177 ± 2, 1150 ± 50, 934 AD ± 2, 920 AD, 270 AD ± 12, 850 BC ± 50, 1220 BC ± 12, 1450 BC ± 40
It’s business as usual for GeoGaia folks, so get used to it.
One BBC documentary suggested Iceland would eventually become a new continent, which I find fascinating.
It could bring in quite a few tourists if it lasts – it must be really spectacular to see this kind of eruption live.
As for the energy driving volcanic eruptions, sorry, this geologist does not buy plate tectonics, but supports the PLasma Model – where the Earth is best described as a leaky electrical capacitor in which electric charge builds up over time, and in order to requilibrate with its plasma environment, ends up producing short circuits, here as a more viscous plasma eruption.
Energy source? Study the THEMIS mission data – 100,000’s amperes of electrical currents entering the Earth via Space Tornadoes – discovered sep 2009. Causes auroras to flare.
LOL – you gotta feel sorry for the Icelandic at the moment. First their economy collapses, now it looks like their country’s going to be covered in molten lava. Tough break.
Invariant (14:47:02):
Answer question nr 1: I don´t know, but I can refer to the historic records including the two most recent eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull, 1612 and 1821-1823. During 1612 eruption Katla also erupted, and the 1821-1823 eruption was followed by a Katla eruption later in the same year 1823. But remember that those are only the two most recent eruptions and it is not sure it will behave the same this time.
See Katla and Eyjafjallajökull records at Global Volcanism Program:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1702-03=
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1702-02=
Answer question nr 2: I don´t know, but I imagine it could be between a few weeks and a few years ( as in the case of 1823 when Eyjafjallajökull had been active in 2 years before the Katla eruption ). Most likly there will be several signs before possible Katla eruptions. Likely there will be increased seismic activity and ground uplift focused on Katla. There are a lot of monitoring so I don´t think we will be surprised by a Katla eruption.
But we can´t know for sure how these volcanoes behave together. 😉
pft, let’s be a tad more nuanced when you claim: “But that’s what geologists said for over 50 years when they denied the plate tectonic hypothesis’.
1) there were “fixists” and “mobilists” among geologists at the trun of the 20 century
2) many alpine geologists such as Argand had mapped large thrust faults and thus were already convinced of important lateral movements versus vertical ones
3) Wegener work included many geological, paleontological observations
4) it was a geophysicist Sir Harold Jeffreys who calculated continents could not drift on SIMA. He was right but later on it was found that plates actually include a rigid upper portion of the upper mantle and the same calculation would show plates could move on the low velocity zone about 100km depth.
5) ironically, geophysicists used equipements like sensitive magnetometers -as you pointed out rightly, developed for military purpose first- and made key discoveries (Vine and Matthews, symetry on each side of the rift…).
6) yet many geologists had problems with the dogmatic rigid plate boundaries definition, especially when geological mapping was showing clear plate boundaries complex deformations, arcs, festoned mountain ranges etc… these issues, I believe, have been resolved.
Iceland volcno risk assessment report.
Nice read:
http://www.hrv.is/media/files/Volcanic%20risk_ web.pdf
“anticlimactic (15:18:20) :
One BBC documentary suggested Iceland would eventually become a new continent, which I find fascinating. ”
Don’t be over fascinated though. Iceland is a still an emerged piece of oceanic lithosphere -i.e. basalt MORB- as opposed to an isolated piece of continental lithosphere i.e. granitic, acid rocks.
http://www.ismennt.is/vefir/earth/mhcur/keya.htm
Volcanic Eruptions and Solar Activity
Stothers, R. B. (1989), Volcanic Eruptions and Solar Activity, J. Geophys. Res., 94(B12), 17,371–17,381.
Abstract: The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, as contained in two recent eruption catalogs, is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ∼11 and ∼80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). The weak quasi-biennial solar cycle is not obviously seen in the eruption data, nor are the two slow lunar tidal cycles of 8.85 and 18.6 years. Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland, covering the years 553–1972, reveals several very long periods that range from ∼80 to ∼350 years and are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and carbon 14 records. Mechanisms to explain the Sun-volcano link probably involve induced changes in the basic state of the atmosphere. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the Earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.
Link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1989/JB094iB12p17371.shtml
ABOUT POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY UPON SEISMIC AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITIES: LONG-TERM FORECAST
*Khain V.E., **Khalilov E.N.
Abstract: It has been determined that in the period of solar activity increase (11-year
cycles) there increase seismic and volcanic activities in the compression zone of
Earth and at the same time there decreases the activity in the tension zones of Earth.
On the basis of the discovered stable 11-year and 22-year cyclicalities in the seismic
and volcanic activities and their high correlation with solar activity there has been
made the long-term forecast until 2018. The next maximum of seismic and volcanic
activity with very high amplitude for the compression zones of Earth is forecasted for
the period 2012-2015.
Link: http://www.khalilov.biz/pdf/About%20possible%20influence%20of%20solar%20activity%20upon%20seismic%20and%20volcanic%20activities%203.pdf
The only “damage” might be to human constructs. There will be no damage to the earth, since this is part of the daily processes which created the world we live in.
Bruce of Newcastle (14:12:29) :
Icelandic Richter 2.5 earthquakes don’t show up on the USGS earthquake site.
Technically true, as from the USGS site I linked to when you click for the 48 hours list you get sent to this auto-generated Icelandic Meteorological Office page that does show the little ones as well.
Their met office must be having a fun time right now, clicking on any listing on that list throws an “Internal server error,” they might be horribly overloaded with demand. Too bad, I wanted to check on those auto-generated Negative magnitude events. On 2010-03-20 at 00:03:09.8 there was a Negative 9.0 event, might be related to the fissure.
Thanks Jeff.
I found this in cyber space:
“Eyjafjallajökull’s most recent eruption, December 1821 to January 1823, was followed by an eruption of Katla in June and July 1823. ”
http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/eyjafjallajokull-and-katla-restless-neighbours/
If I should try to guess based on my gut feeling, the answers will be:
1. Probability is large as the last 3 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull has been followed by Katla eruptions.
2. The last time it took 2 years, so it may take at least a couple of months.
But I am certainly not an expert at all.
🙂
pft (14:57:14) :
“But that’s what geologists said for over 50 years when they denied the plate tectonic hypothesis. It was only due to military research in the 50’s and 60’s that such data became available in order for plate tectonic theory to be polished and accepted.”
Well, that’s not exactly the correct history. See link for a better accounting the history of plate tectonics:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html
Of course, the key here was there was DATA supporting the hypothesis clear back to Wegner in 1912 (nearly 100 years ago! – see details in the paper) But the the science was immature & the geoscientists of the day could not explain a mechanism to drive plate motions or it conflicted with their world view, so they dismissed it. This has so many similarities to the AGW debate – climate science is really not much older than geologic science was at the same time & many scientists are rejecting data not consistent with AGW out of hand because it doesn’t fit with their world view. But who was right in the end? The side of the debate that had the support of the DATA. As with plate tectonics, I am confident non-CO2 drivers will prove out with time to be the dominant force in our climate system because of all the data support (which is regularly posted on WUWT, as well as other places).
“I suspect we do not know as much as we think about whats going on below us.”
I suspect you are wrong. The military doesn’t drive geoscience technology now – oil & gas companies do. In the age prior to acceptance of plate tectonics, seismic technology was in it’s infancy. Now, it is a very mature & powerful technology – which allows us to essentially produce detailed “ct scan” images of the subsurface – to great depths with great precision (I think the ct scan is something the general public might be able to relate to as an analog). These same technologies are also used extensively in geoscience research in academic settings. These seismic data are combined with gravity, magnetic & electrical properties data to produce detailed images of the subsurface where we can determine properties such as rock density, rock electrical resistivity, seismic velocities, porosity, fluid types contained in pore spaces and more. This is simply physics applied to the earth – and we understand physics very well.
Getting back to your original point of , you don’t think we know much about the subsurface – between industry & academia, there is virtually no place on earth we haven’t investigated with seismic data, so there is virtually no significant area where we dont have seismic imagery.
To give you an idea of how much we can determine with todays technology, see the following links (related to subduction zones, since there seems to be some who doubt their existence:
An interesting subduction zone article (esp see figure 5 for details we can determine – model goes to 700 km below sea level ! – the image is the geologic equivalent to a ct scan of the earth)
http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/outreach/highlights/mase/
This gives a more detailed view in 3D of the top of a subduction zone.
see for a bigger image :
http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/nankai3dseismic.jpeg
&
http://clasticdetritus.com/2007/11/27/spectacular-3d-seismic-reflection-images-of-a-subduction-zone/
for the full article.
Mattias, Sweden (15:22:59) :
Thanks for your answer. So the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 1612 was followed by a Katla eruption the same year? Interesting. Then everything from a couple of weeks to a couple of years may be likely (based on statistics).
Smokey (12:46:39) :
CO2 is now at 389 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution. That’s 39% increase. Changing the temperature of the planet by even 0.9 deg C is a tremendous amount of energy being trapped:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
What exactly is a “natural rebound from the Little Ice Age” ? Unseen heat from the Abyss leaking up to the surface ? The Sun increased its w/m^2 right before radiosonde and satellite measurements ? This neighborhood of the Galactic plane has higher neutrino flux ?
This is what Dr. Trenberth said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/11/a-uhi-tale-of-two-cities/#comment-341815
The Arctic Ice cap is thinning precipitously:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/19/new-goes-15-weather-sa-reaches-orbit/#comment-349469
The oceans are heating just as expected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/#comment-349454
R. de Haan (15:25:57) said:
I don’t know what you did to that link, but here is the correct one.
Jeff L
Herewith a paper based on some seismic tomography showing the clear absence of a subduction zone under Indonesia
http://www.davidpratt.info/subduct.htm
See especially Figure 3 in the link above, as Choi points out, enough to bury subductions zones. Plate Tectonics is much like AGW in many respects, come to think about it.
“Anu (15:54:23) :
…The oceans are heating just as expected:…”
Do we get a sea level rise?
davidmhoffer (13:10:43) :
…I’ve examined the historic record and it is clear that the only mechanism for controlling volcanoes is virgin tossing. Yet I have not seen one of you mention it…
David, since you reminded me, I’ve had a quick look around for the appropriate kind of volunteers to stop the volcano. Now, I’m pretty sure we’re all gonna die.
Anu (15:54:23) :
Changing the temperature of the planet by even 0.9 deg C is a tremendous amount of energy being trapped: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
First, better plot using the absolute Kelvin scale, a temperature increase from 287.0 K to 287.9 K is not much. This change would not even be visible in a Kelvin scale plot.
Second, please explain how this is “trapped” when TSI varies with 90 W/m² between January and July?
The fact that the equilbrium temperature is not fluctuating more than 287 ± 1-2 K is quite impressive, given oscillations between
1. day and night,
2. summer and winter,
3. ice ages and warmer periods
A process engineer would be very happy with a regulator that manages to keep the temperature that stable…
🙂
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:37:43) :
Luc VC (10:24:48) :
About our newest and best-est buddy, the green algae. Are either of you old enough to remember The Shmoo?
I wrote this:
After the rash of large quakes around the globe, I wonder if this is the precursor to a massive spreading event? I’m not talking about a massive Al Gore type event, but something that is not expected, such as the plate spreading in fits and starts in a way we don’t expect. Lets face, we’ve only known about the connection of the mid Atlantic ridge to plate movements for about fifty years. There is still a lot we don’t know about the behavior of the tectonic system.
I think a few took this the wrong way. I am not remotely suggesting that the world is going to suddenly split open or anything like that. I’m wool-gathering, conducting a thought experiment, if you will, on the statistical probability that the tectonic processes goes through periods of greater activity then becomes less active for a while. Just as climate has various variabilities contained within the system, so does the movements of the geologic engine.
We do of course know that volcanic and seismic activity has fluctuated throughout history, as is evidenced in geologic history. What I’m curious about is the possibility of being able to determine smaller scale increases and decreases in activity that would be harder to show in that record.
For some reason, I’m thinking about the statistical case for cancer clusters. On the one hand, in a perfect world, you shouldn’t see too much variability in the reported cases of cancer from one area to the next. Yet statistics show that having cancer clusters at random, where there is no specific cause for the occurrence (as in a chemical spill, or neighborhoods built on dumps) is just as likely as not. If this is correct, then it is not a stretch to postulate that you would have periods of increased seismic and / or volcanic activity, and thta perhaps we are seeing an increase in the current period.
BTW, Just so there is no misconception, while in college a few moons ago, I was a geology major…. until calculus got the best of me. So I have a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average College Of Wikipedia graduate….. And again, I’m just wool-gathering..
Louis Hissink (16:05:01) :
An interesting article but looks to be pretty clearly a mis-interpretation. Choi is trying to interpret this in the context of a purely dip-slip subduction zone – the classically defined subduction zone. However, in this case , the more appropriate interpretation is that of an oblique convergent margin. See:
http://highlyallochthonous.blogspot.com/2006/05/earthquake-in-java.html
All the non-compliant observations made by Choi are because this is an oblique convergent boundary. The key to remember is that “one size fits all” type of model for geology rarely applies. The earth is inhomogeneous, both from a physical properties & stress/strain setting – both shallow & deep, so every situation needs to be interpreted independently to properly assess what’s going on. Plate tectonics, with subduction being an element of the model, is only a framework to interpret data – it doesn’t give you the answer – you have to let the data speak for itself. In this case, Choi didn’t listen to the data.
Antonio San (12:32:53) :
“James F. Evans, subduction zones are perfectly known by their seismicity, volcanism, tomography, rates of plate convergence measurements etc… inform yourself instead of spreading utter bS.”
Actually, I have informed myself, I have researched in depth the evidence from both sides of the debate. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence that contradicts the standard model of so-called “subduction”.
Most “subduction” assumptions are model driven — where have we seen that before? Most geology papers that discuss “subduction” simply build on assumptions published in previous geology papers and rarely critically examine those underlying and foundational assumptions.
Needless to say, geologists in the “subduction” camp don’t discuss the contradicting evidence — many, if not most, aren’t even aware of all the contradicting evidence because they are taught the prevailing view and discouraged from considering contradicting evidence.
(Similar to AGW proponents not being aware of contradicting scientific evidence to the AGW paradigm. Or, if they are aware, are loath to discuss that contradicting evidence.)
“Seismic tomography, which produces three-dimensional images of the earth’s interior, appears to show that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. McGeary and Plummer (1998) say that these findings cast doubt on the original, simple lithosphere-asthenosphere model of plate behavior.” — David Pratt, 2000
Continents that have ‘roots’ up to 600 km deep don’t go “wondering around” the Earth’s surface to periodically group-up into “super continents”.
For a long discussion that cites authority to numerous scientific papers questioning the “subduction” paradigm please see the link below:
http://davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
“It has been said that “A hypothesis that is appealing for its unity or simplicity acts as a filter, accepting reinforcement with ease but tending to reject evidence that does not seem to fit” (Grad, 1971, p. 636). Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff (1974b, p. 411) argued that this is “an admirable description of what has happened in the field of earth dynamics, where one hypothesis – the new global tectonics – has been permitted to override and overrule all other hypotheses.” Nitecki et al. (1978) reported that in 1961 only 27% of western geologists accepted plate tectonics, but that during the mid-1960s a “chain reaction” took place and by 1977 it was embraced by as many as 87%. Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that a bandwagon atmosphere developed, and that data that did not fit into the model were not given sufficient consideration (e.g. Wyllie, 1976), resulting in “a somewhat disturbing dogmatism” (Dott and Batten, 1981, p. 151). McGeary and Plummer (1998, p. 97) acknowledge that “Geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads.”
Yes, I was like most folks that simply accepted what the scientists said.
(As we have seen in the AGW debate, there has been too much uncritical acceptance of what the “leading” (the “Team”) scientists said and the same shenanigans go on to silence the minority view in numerous other scientific disciplines — geology has been one of the worst offenders in this regard.)
But when I researched the subject I was astonished to find so much contradicting scientific evidence to the “subduction” paradigm (at the time, it did not come easy to accept the contradicting evidence, such was my prior subscription to the “subduction” paradigm).
It is a similar situation to AGW “science”, but is generally unknown to the general public because it is an academic question, where as AGW “science” is the base of support for a huge defining public policy dispute with possible outcomes threatening the world economy and personal liberty.
Regarding so-called “subduction”, Wikipedia entries are similar to Wikipedia entries on “global warming” where the prevailing view is parroted, so these entries are not helpful regarding presentation of contradicting evidence.
Needless to say geologists in the “subduction” paradigm camp react with displeasure whenever arguments are raised that challenge their world-view.
What else is new.
Layne Blanchard (14:06:39) :
Anu (11:59:14) : “Only the inexorable rise of CO2 in the atmosphere have a non-pulse, non-periodic effect on the planets temperature in the 100 to 500 year time frame of interest.” ………………..
…….Ah, Yes, that inexorable, devastating rise of 3 molecules in 10 Thousand …..to 4 whole molecules in 10 Thousand… shocking! Devastating. I’m melting already.
——————–
Do you have a problem with the mathematics of strychnine poisoning too ?
0.2mg/kg of victims body weight works nicely – that’s 0.2 ppm.
We must obliterate all trace of Capitalism, implement Socialism, divide up US wealth among world nations, and everyone will bike to their new job dragging a plow at the (local) organic farm. Once we repent our climate sins with a vow of poverty, will the mother ship swoop in from its hiding place behind the moon?
Or, we could spend the money-equivalent of a small once-every-five-years war to finally get fusion power, and leave the coal of the 19th century in the dustbin of History.
Do you doubt all science, or just climate science ?
Louis Hissink (16:05:01) :
Voodoo geology, what next?
Did you stop to find out about this journal?
Here’s their own description from their web site:
“The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.”
You are suggesting that this represents some kind of breakthrough in our understanding of plate tectonics.
UFO’s? Alternative Medicine? Please!
I have a good one for you. How about dousing for magma? In Iceland.
Anu (15:54:23) :
A 39% increase in C02 is like adding 1 dumptruck load of sand to your favorite beach. The sand probably weighs 10 tons, but is lost in the quantity of sand on the beach.
We’re talking parts per million, not parts per hundred.
Point is that you have to start with something substantial in order for 39% increase to be making a difference.
Try RH.
James F. Evans (16:51:05) :
OK – you have laid down the gauntlet, now defend it with DATA.
1) If subduction is not a valid part of the plate tectonic movement, how do you explain what happens to the earth’s crust at convergent boundaries? It doesn’t simply disappear & we rarely see it at the surface (except for the small & rare obduction events) – so that only leaves one place for it to go – down. You may argue how it goes down, but it must go down.
Convergent boundaries are real and we are measuring plate motions with GPS TODAY. See:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
2) How to you explain the last dataset with out subduction or some equivalent mechanism?
We can see plate motions through time :
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tectonics/crustages.jpg
3) How do you explain the data in the last link without seafloor spreading? And if seafloor spreading is real, if there is no subduction or equivalent mechanism, are you implying the earth is expanding?
4) If you are implying the earth is expanding, what fills the void? Is the bulk density of the earth continually decreasing? And how are you accomplishing this both chemically & gravitationally? Oh, and BTW, GPS data shows the earth is not expanding. So, again, how are you going to explain all of this data without subduction or equivalent in your model?
5) How do explain all the contractional geologic structures see through out the world, throughout geologic time without convergent margins?
I could go on & on but I have already wasted too much of my time with this. You can believe whatever you want, but I make money being right about geology & geophysics. I think I saw some post something here to the effect of “If you don’t know anything, then anything seems possible”.
Show me the data!
Eyjafjallajökull Eruption News from Iceland
For heaven’s sake. Evans, you are repeating an updated version of Harold Jefferey’s 1920s-1930s objections to plate tectonics. Just because the continents have “deep roots” is no reason to call into question the following: 1) The occurrence of mantle rock (peridotite) in the melange of deep oceanic sediments in rock found shoreward of deep ocean trenches, 2) Benioff zones that dip quite linearly into the mantle from deep ocean trenches on the convex side of the arc, 3) the occurrence of volcanic arcs above the Benioff zone on the convex side, 4) magnetic lineations on the floor of all oceans that vanish in — you guessed it, deep ocean trenches, 5) Magnetic Polar wander, 6) lack of any oceanic crust older than Jurassic, 7) the termination of deep ocean trenches in transform faults, 8) gravity anomalies coinciding with deep ocean trenches, 9) lack of any reasonable mechanism to explain the maintenance of deep ocean trenches in the first place, 10) no reasonable explanation for the suite of rocks found in the paired synclines and anticlines that occur in volcanic arcs, and 11) not to mention again, that new crust originating in sea floor ridges, must have a compensating convergence of material some other place that decends into the mantle–i.e in the subduction zones occurring with deep ocean trenches. No geophysical evidence will tolerate an expanding Earth of declining average density.
Some continents have deep roots, and thus move quite slowly or perhaps rotate in the main, but even this is no evidence against subduction zones, which occur on the boundaries of continents.
I see that Jeff L has also chipped away at Evans’ promotion that subduction zones do not exist using some excellent observations involving GPS, and I might add that when I said “no reasonable explanation” in my previous post I meant so in the absence of subduction; and also add that trust-fault mechanisms for earthquakes dominate in and below subduction zones as shown by focal-plane solution of first motion, and also by ground deformation and damage patterns resulting from the earthquakes. Consequently, in order to entertain the idea of no subduction one has has to ignore deep problems with dozens of lines of well-established evidence.
Based on a total sample of one, the icelanders I spoke with were more concerned with Glacier turning (semi) liquid and rushing to the sea in a big hurry, than the volcano eruption per se.
I’ve seen first hand the devastation cause by one of the “glacier flushes” a “small event”. It’s kind of like taking everyting downstream ( for a large value of down and wide) and turning God’s own firehose to it. Impressive, I hope someone gets video this time around.
Anu (15:54:23) :
“CO2 is now at 389 ppm, compared to 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution. That’s 39% increase. Changing the temperature of the planet by even 0.9 deg C is a tremendous amount of energy being trapped:”
The energy isn’t trapped, the temperature of the atmosphere rises and equilibrium is again achieved.
The first order temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm works out to be 1.2 degrees when the earth reaches a new equilibrium.
Ask Trenberth, Hansen, Mann et al, they will all agree, the first order forcing of going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a 1.2 degree rise in temperature.
Where there is disagreement is whether that 1.2 degree rise(.9C already occurred) will trigger second order effects..I.E. A substantial change in earths albedo, a substantial change in cloud formation etc etc etc.
The second order effects are speculation…the science on them is weak, since no one has figured out how to model clouds. Whether or not second order effects will or will not occur is pure speculation.
The evidence against is that the total heat content of the oceans has actually dropped since 2006 and we have not seen a verifiable temperature rise in the atmosphere to conclude there are second order effects.
Louis Hissink and James F. Evans:
Plate tectonics has evolved. The fact a general schematic had to be more complex in nature and show variations is hardly a refutation…
This gem is showing the level of the argument:
“Thrust faults are seen in the lower slope affecting Units III to VII, and are usually attributed to plate subduction. However, since there are no compressional tectonic features in the underlying units, Choi thinks that they are better interpreted as the result of sediment overloading in the middle to upper slope. He argues that the block-faulted units (I and II), which indicate a predominantly tensional stress regime, and the well-layered, little-disturbed Unit III, are unequivocal evidence against plate subduction.”
So compression occurs in the accretionary prism since most sediments, both oceanic, and volcano-detrital series overlying the oceanic basaltic crust do not subduct with the oceanic lithosphere, scrapped by the overlying plate. The flexure of the subducted plate does show horst and grabens consequence of “extra-dos” tensions and there is compression within the lower portion of the plate itself (small seismicity). The fact two different regimes are affecting locally two uncoupled geological elements (except the most basal sediments sheltered in these small crustal grabens) is hardly evidence against subduction!
And David Pratt site brings quite a few gems that do not even suggest science:
“Introduction
Theosophy teaches that a series of seven root-races or humanities will evolve on earth during the present fourth round, each living on its own ‘continent’. In its broadest sense, the word ‘continent’ is used here to denote all the dry land during the life-period any particular root-race, and in a narrower sense it refers to the central locality where the evolution of a particular race takes place. The midpoint of one root-race sees the emergence of the next, and is marked by a series of geological cataclysms, involving the submergence of old landmasses and the elevation of new ones. Just as the root-races overlap, so parts of the continents of one root-race become incorporated into the continental system of the next race.”
Again, nature’s complexity and the fact Plate Tectonics integrates an overwhelming array of measures and evidence doesn’t mean we know it all and there is nothing to learn. But the kind of stuff offered David Pratt and company is hardly what scientific research what’s about.
I can be classified as a “subductionist”????? Who knew?
Well, you learn something new every.
PS. Subduction explains the near disappearance of the Farallon plate quite nicely. How do the nonsubductionists explain it? How do they explain the ring of fire? How do they explain the presence of ophiolite found across the Coast Range, and all the serpentinite found within the Calaveras complex and various terranes that make up the geologic hell that is California?
Jeff L (17:34:05): “You may argue how it goes down, but it must go down.”
No, not if the Earth expands. Surely, you are aware of Samuel Warren Carey (1911 — 2002)?
If not, here is a Wikipedia biography of Carey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Warren_Carey
Oh, as I understand it, in the “subduction” plate tectonic paradigm, all mountain building is the result of “subduction”.
But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?
Yes, there is activity at plate tectonic boundaries where there is stretching and tearing. Expansion is an uneven process where activity is constant.
Actually, these trenches show remarkably little build-up of sediment if the plate has been scraping underneath the continent for eons of time (no such build-up is observed say in the Mariana Trench.
Also, responding to the observation that continents have ‘roots’ doesn’t respond to all the other arguments in the Pratt link I provided (these arguments stand independently of David Pratt as they are from independent scientists, Pratt collates the points raised in the individual papers).
In reference of the “Farallon plate”, that is a huge assumption.
Well, it does not surprise me that there are objections — it is reasonable to object, to be sceptical — but it is also encumbent to be open minded about the evidence too.
I’ll provide this link (not that it will answer every objection) to provide some background:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html
Obviously, this discussion won’t change the minds of those that have a strong opinion, either for or gainst, rather, it is to suggest there is more to the story.
harrywr2 (18:43:33) :
The energy isn’t trapped, the temperature of the atmosphere rises and equilibrium is again achieved.
——————–
The rising temperature of the troposphere and the oceans do, in fact, represent a higher average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules involved. This ‘trapped energy’ is solar energy that would previously have been reflected into space.
——————–
The first order temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm works out to be 1.2 degrees when the earth reaches a new equilibrium.
Ask Trenberth, Hansen, Mann et al, they will all agree, the first order forcing of going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm results in a 1.2 degree rise in temperature.
Let’s ask Dr. Hansen about climate sensitivity:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
A global climate forcing, measured in W/m2 averaged over the planet, is an imposed perturbation of the planet’s energy balance. Increase of solar irradiance (So) by 2% and doubling of atmospheric CO2 are each forcings of about 4 W/m2. Charney defined an idealized climate sensitivity problem, asking how much global surface temperature would increase if atmospheric CO2 were instantly doubled, assuming that slowly-changing planetary surface conditions, such as ice sheets and forest cover, were fixed. Long-lived GHGs, except for the specified CO2 change, were also fixed, not
responding to climate change. The Charney problem thus provides a measure of climate sensitivity including only the effect of ‘fast’ feedback processes, such as changes of water vapor, clouds and sea ice.
Charney used climate models to estimate fastfeedback doubled CO2 sensitivity of 3 ± 1.5°C. Water vapor increase and sea ice decrease in response to global warming were both found to be strong positive feedbacks, amplifying the surface temperature response.
Climate models alone are unable to define climate sensitivity more precisely, because it is difficult to prove that models realistically incorporate all feedback processes. The Earth’s history, however, allows empirical inference of both fast feedback climate sensitivity and long-term sensitivity to
specified GHG change including the slow ice sheet feedback.
They don’t rely on climate models alone – they have empirical, past climate data.
——————–
Where there is disagreement is whether that 1.2 degree rise(.9C already occurred) will trigger second order effects..I.E. A substantial change in earths albedo, a substantial change in cloud formation etc etc etc.
The second order effects are speculation…the science on them is weak, since no one has figured out how to model clouds. Whether or not second order effects will or will not occur is pure speculation.
Ice ages and other past climate swings are not “pure speculation”. You’re right about climate models being a bit weak on clouds, but there are plenty of studies at different time/space scales that are then parameterized, and with the inexorable increase in supercomputer power, the parameterization is being decreased in scale every few years. Given this uncertainty, they run large ensembles of climate model predictions, and give the results as a range of expected climate developments.
Of course, by 2100, they will know exactly what the climate in 2100 will be.
——————–
The evidence against is that the total heat content of the oceans has actually dropped since 2006 and we have not seen a verifiable temperature rise in the atmosphere to conclude there are second order effects.
Sorry, no.
The ocean heat content has been rising for decades (Argo allows us to look down to 2000m, not just the 700m that shows “no warming”), as has the temperature of the troposphere. Perhaps you missed the news, things like the Argo data being analyzed and the satellite data being corrected are fairly recent:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/#comment-349454
Satellite temperature measurements show the lower troposphere is warming at between 0.13 and 0.19 °C per decade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
Hey Charles, didn’t I predict this eruption a few months ago?
What is the assumption about the Farallon plate? That it exists?
James F Evans:
“But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
James, ever heard of this thing called the San Andreas Fault? It runs all the way up the west coast. North American Plate is subducting the Pacific Plate and the San Juan plate underneath it. Makes things like Mt St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Hood, Shasta, Bachelor, Baker, and other western volcanos erupt from time to time. Oh yeah, and that megavolcano, known as Yellowstone National Park, in the Rocky Mountains…
A better question is, whats with the Appalachians?
Mountain ranges have formed for billions of years James, sometimes the fault that formed them goes away entirely, or simply moves (for instance, the Appalachians were formed by the Mid Atlantic Ridge spreading seam back when North America was just starting to be disconnected from Gondwanaland).
If you are gonna question such a very basic and well established thing as plate tectonics, and claim something as absurd as the earth’s expanding (gee, this sounds like you believe in Pellucidar too), then I’ve really gotta question anything you say.
James F. Evans (20:33:44) :
“No, not if the Earth expands. Surely, you are aware of Samuel Warren Carey (1911 — 2002)?”
Evidently you are not aware of gps data which shows the earth is not expanding. James, we are actively measuring the earth to the centimeter & it is not expanding! Case Closed. Need I say more – probably, to hammer the point home.
“So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
This website provides a reasonably well illustrated explanation :
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/province/rockymtn.html
Again, as I posted before, plate tectonics is a framework to interpret DATA within – not a model which tells you all the answers. This framework concept is fundamental to all geologic interpretation. No conflicts here, as you suggest there are.
The funny thing is I just read your link to the expanding Earth hypothesis. Whoever dreamt this up clearly had no concept about the concept of conservation of matter. If the Earth is expanding with time & no additional materials are being added, by definition the average density must be decreasing with time. So, let’s explore that idea in some more detail. In the models presented, it is hypothesized the Earth was once 40% of it’s current size (to get all the parts to fit).
The appropriate formula is V=4/3*pi*r^2 , approximating Earth as a sphere.
If we use our current radius as 1, then the current volume is 4.1888.
If we use our paleo-radius as 0.4 (40%), then our paleo-volume is 0.6702. So, by your hypothesis, the average density of the earth has decreased by a factor of 6.25 (4.1888/0.6702).
How are you going to accomplish this, given the fundamental chemistry of the rocks & gravity of the earth( which, by the way , we do know both quite well via geophysical imaging of the deep interior of the earth via earthquake seismology & extensive gravitational datasets) ???
The current average density of the earth is approximately 5.5 g/cc See:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml
This suggests the paleo-density was a ridiculous 34.375 g/cc. For reference, that is approximately 3 times denser than lead at 11.35 g/cc. It roughly 77% denser than gold at 19.32 g/cc. The calculated paleo-density is 50% denser than the most dense naturally occurring element (Osmium at 22.6 g/cc). Nickel & Iron, which are known to be at the current core of the earth come in at a measly 8.9 & 7.87 g/cc – 4 to 5 times less dense than our calculated paleodensity.
See :
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/density.htm
for element density data.
James, I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no way this hypothesis works. It is literally physically impossible – and I havent even touched on the sub-surface data where you can demonstrate contractional structures with 100’s of kms of net shortening. If you dont understand why it is impossible based on the data I have guided you to, then I cant help you. As I posted earlier, believe what you want – but that’s what the we are trying to get away from on this site – belief must be backed up by data, otherwise it is simply a matter of faith, not science.
Mike Lorrey (22:18:18) :
You too, my friend are off base in most your comments, but they do bring up some good points for James to contemplate.
“ever heard of this thing called the San Andreas Fault? It runs all the way up the west coast. North American Plate is subducting the Pacific Plate and the San Juan plate underneath it. Makes things like Mt St. Helens, Mt. Rainier, Hood, Shasta, Bachelor, Baker, and other western volcanos erupt from time to time.”
The San Andreas has nothing to do with anything you list here. See :
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/province/rockymtn.html
for how the Rockies formed.
All the volcanoes you list are formed by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate under the North Am plate – which, if you notice the southern most volcano of the Cascade range (Lassen) corresponds with the south end of the Juan de Fuca plate & the north end of the San Andreas – another one of those pesky geologic observations supporting plate tectonics (for James & others who doubt)
“and that megavolcano, known as Yellowstone National Park, in the Rocky Mountains…”
That’s an entirely different issue – that’s a hot spot under the North Am plate – which by the way documents the motion of the north Am plate through the Tertiary, just as the Hawaiian Island chain does on the pacific plate, which in concert show net convergent motion on the western boundary of the North Am plate through the Tertiary – yet another pesky piece of geologic evidence supporting plate tectonics, James.
” the Appalachians were formed by the Mid Atlantic Ridge spreading seam back when North America was just starting to be disconnected from Gondwanaland).”
No, the Appalachians were formed as Gondwanaland was formed from the continental collisions, creating a a long lived compressional event, thrusting up the mountains The mid atlantic ridge didnt form until well after the formation of the Appalachians – it formed as part the rifting apart of Gondwanaland & formation of the Atlantic ocean – it did not exist prior to then.
Enough geology lessons for today.
James F. Evans, just because there is variability within the types of trenches doesn’t refute plate tectonics. It’s like stating baldness invalidates the fact that one key mammal attribute is hairs!
“But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
So orogeny is now supposed to be resulting from one single process, one type?… really this makes no sense at all, is not supported by analysis, mapping of various orogens of various ages, caledonian, variscan and alpine.
Considering this expanding earth theory is supposed to explain present day structures, how is it supposed to explain variscan orogenies known the globe over? Ophiolitic sutures and complexes have been identified through most of these orogens showing old oceanic lithosphere existed then…
Life is too short for this. eom.
One thing I like about this site is how it occasionally goes off topic, and teaches me things about subjects I never expected to be researching.
For example, subduction. The Icelandic volcano has nothing to do with subduction. However I am reading fascinating links to the geology of Mexico and Indonesia.
As usual, nature turns out to be more complex than the simple pictures we are given in high school geology text books.
I would say the same thing is true for El Ninos. The current El Nino is very different from the 1998 one. It almost deserves a name all its own, “El Fred” or something.
In the same way various types of subduction will likely get different names, or at least adjectives, “crooked subduction” or something.
The fact nature is full of variety should fill us with wonder, but instead it seems to lead to two extreme sorts of thinker. One is stuck-in-the-mud, and the other throws-baby-out-with-bathwater. It is sort of fun to watch the ferocious quibbling, and people becoming so righteously indignant about stuff, but I also think people need to calm down. We need both imagination and practicality to work hand in hand.
One person who worked with Winston Churchill during World War Two stated his brilliant mind had a hundred ideas a day, three of which were good. He needed practical people around to tell him “That won’t work, Winston, because…” 97 times a day. However he also needed those people not to be such stick-in-the-muds that they missed seeing the 3 ideas, which turned out to be ideas that defeated a despot.
All in all, I deeply enjoy watching all the minds at work on this site.
“Layne Blanchard (14:06:39) :…….Ah, Yes, that inexorable, devastating rise of 3 molecules in 10 Thousand …..to 4 whole molecules in 10 Thousand… shocking! Devastating. I’m melting already.”
——————–
Anu (17:21:29) :”Do you have a problem with the mathematics of strychnine poisoning too ?
0.2mg/kg of victims body weight works nicely – that’s 0.2 ppm.”
Anu, please, don’t try a poison analogy. CO2 is not poison. You are 19% carbon. I get tired of scaremongering hypotheticals. How about some real quantifiable experimental data that show real demonstrable effects of the increase of CO2, like the ag research from U of Illinois: http://soyface.illinois.edu/results/AAAS%202004%20poster%20Leakey.pdf
They increased the test plot atmospheric CO2 to the projected 2050 level of 550ppm(5.5 per 10,000) and watched soybean (C3) yields go up 14-16% while corn yields (C4) yields went up 26%. Water use efficiency went up, and when they added elevated ozone the yields went up even more. By the way, the corn and ozone outcomes confounded their hypothesis. Such is science.
I think we can agree that coal is an incredibly filthy energy source, but the CO2 emissions are not pollution or poison, they are nutrients for our biosphere. Any farmer will tell you that cold is worse than warm for crop yields. The homeless will tell you that the cold is the enemy, the warm is their friend. The Achilles heel of climate science is the inability to run controlled experiments. With so many independent variables how can we assign cause and effect to the dependent variables?
You need to reconcile with the idea that flux and change are the norm in this wonderful world and equilibrium is a chimera. I hope you are adaptable.
Here’s some more photots of it.
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=16&aft=512242&afv=topic
Amazing eh?
After 4 or so billion years and still have massive pressure build-up under our crust.
One day scientists will learn that when in rotation, and it is slowing down, super-compressed gases(liquid) relax and they expand.
Nice to see some science discussed here.
Back to the original subject.
Eruption Fissure now 2 kilometres long. At least one Volcanological explosion shooting a plume to 8000metres. Continuous plume now up to 3 – 4000 metres.
This eruption is expanding. Hopefully not to the Laki precedent.
This may get very interesting
I won’t repeat the good points brought up by my fellow geologists, but may I suggest interested parties read introductory texts on plate tectonics or contintental formation (e.g. Geological Evolution of North America or Evolution of the Earth; these are older texts as I’m an old fart). Essentially, there is more than one way to build a mountain.
For more “entertaining” reads about earthquakes and volcanoes, you could try Simon Winchester’s “A Crack in the Edge of the World” (about the San Francisco earthquake and its effect on the study of earthquakes) or “The Day the World Exploded” (about the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883). Both books discuss geology in a way that is interesting and informative.
Jeff L (22:18:40) :
Well gee, if it didn’t work in the past, and doesn’t work now, let me be the last to posit that it could work in the future if we simply employ the Hollow Earth Hypothesis. Sorry!
I thumbed through http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html ad noted it has the decent to present some of the conventional side, e.g. palaeomagnetic data … limiting the amount of potential Earth expansion to less than 0.8% during the last 400 million years.
The only way an expanding Earth could be viable is if Earth is still accreting matter – and there’s no doubt that it is. However, meteors, comets, and other stuff are bringing several orders of magnitude too little new material. Accretion would have trouble explaining why some multi-billion year old rocks are on Greenland’s surface and why traces of past impacts (e.g. the osmium layer between, umm, whatever the geologic break was) are not deeper, as well as the chemistry and isotope makeup of the crust.
I am pleased at the growth here of the number of people who can handle these sorts of issues and keep things pretty much on track. I’ll have more to say in the upcoming 40,000,000 hit thread, which I confidently predict will occur (duh).
Many thanks to the real scientists here to take the time to apply the “sniff tests” to concepts that have some interesting ideas but are built on a foundation of fantasy.
Jeff L (23:01:08) :
Mike Lorrey (22:18:18) :
“and that megavolcano, known as Yellowstone National Park, in the Rocky Mountains…”
That’s an entirely different issue – that’s a hot spot under the North Am plate – which by the way documents the motion of the north Am plate through the Tertiary, just as the Hawaiian Island chain does on the pacific plate, which in concert show net convergent motion on the western boundary of the North Am plate through the Tertiary – yet another pesky piece of geologic evidence supporting plate tectonics, James.
One of the things I really like about hotspots is that plate tectonics doesn’t explain them (as far as I know) and doesn’t need them, but they provide some of the simplest and most wonderful confirmation of plate tectonics.
I was stationed in Iceland in 1970 during a Hekla eruption. Early May I think. The Icelanders had bus tours of the volcano from the bus station in Reykavik. I took one and got up close and personal with Hekla. We parked close to a lava flow that was at least 15 feet high. We were given hard hats when we walked around outside. We were allowed to walk up to the lava flow and people took home small samples. It was something to remember.
GREEN ALERT!
Quick!
Somebody get the Goreacle on the horn and gas up his fleet of personal luxury jets with Greenpeace approved biofuel. We’ll need to airdrop Leonardo DiCrapio directly into the erupting Eyjafjallajökull fissure in order to forestall a climate catastrophe. Prince Charles has already been notified of the crisis and the Eurozone has been placed under a Level 4 Tipping Point Watch. Politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and prominent members of the mainstream news media have already been evacuated to a luxurious Balinese resort in order to ensure the continued survival of mankind should DiCrapio fail in his mission.
Ordinary citizens are advised to breath more slowly and refrain from farting until the crisis is over.
Even though I eventually chose a combination humanities-social sciences profession, my first love was geology-geography. Thanks for the excellent updating by geologists on this thread — and, I guess I am also grateful for those exposing our collective (as well as individual) ignorance. Provides great opportunities for brief, persuasive lessons. There may have been others, but Leif’s paarticipation is the model I know the best and treasure. Patience to the nth and commitment to (re)education. Thanks to all.
For a polar view of seismic activity, with a spin..eh.
1963-1998 N.Pole magnitudes >3.5
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/data/ftp/polar_nor_gt3.gif
1963-1998 S. Pole magnitudes >3.5
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/data/ftp/polar_south_gt3.gif
1963-1998 Global
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/data/ftp/global_gt3.gif
Home Page
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/index.html
~
James Evans, I am wondering how we explain the sunken cities that have been found offshore Japan, India etc..
Earthquakes and volcaninc eruptions increase during solar minimums..a troublesome “correlation”.
Additional links:
http://leucos.lstilde.org/divers/iceland/eq/data/reviewed_data_hourly_wide.png
http://www2.norvol.hi.is/
Wilson Flood (10:47:09) : …the next “turn of the screw”, in the current minimum, will also include some “revolutions” also as cold makes its job…
Amusing aside; I was at a charity ‘do’ last week when I heard a an elderly ‘Green’ state; “If we stopped all the bombing there wouldn’t be all these eruptions and Earthquakes.”
We did try and explain plate tectonics 101 to her, but it was no good.
/facepalm
maz2 (11:01:02) :
The island’s worst eruption in modern times was in 1783, when the Laki volcano blew its top. The lava shot to heights of 1.4 kilometres and more than 120 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide was released into the atmosphere.
How many SUV exausts would equal this and how many unstoppable Prius would avoid it?
Jeff L (12:47:26) : What if both are right? Actually the las chilean earthquake, instead, of subduction happened the contrary.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/chile-earthquake-moved-entire-city-10-feet-to-the-west/
Perhaps in “interesting times” nature doesn’t like to follow settled science. We should keep our eyes and mind opened.
Daniel H (06:52:59) :
GREEN ALERT!
Bali is a good place for them to stay during this minimum, though I would suggest instead the new Krakatoa’s baby island.
“Iceland volcano eruption intensifies
REYKJAVIK – Icelandic authorities warned Monday of increased disturbance in the area of the volcanic eruption that forced more than 600 people to flee their homes on Sunday.
“Police have increased surveillance in the whole area around the Eyjafjallajokull and Myrdalsjokull glaciers because of increased disturbance this morning in the volcanic eruption,” the police and civil protection department said in a statement.
Police warned there could be danger in travelling or driving in the vicinity of the volcanic area and closed some of the area’s roads.
Public broadcaster RUV reported small earthquakes in the region of the volcanic eruption were measured early Monday.
It also said the 800 metre (yard) fissure caused by the eruption was getting larger and heading towards the Myrdalsjokull glacier, which sits on top of the powerful Katla volcano.”
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Iceland+volcano+eruption+intensifies/2710954/story.html
well.. I went through and read.. every Post.. as always.. was marvously educated.. and amazed .. at what can be learned .. and what brave minds will theorize..
a few questions..
can.. Katla.. Erupt at a VEI of or better given all that is known..
Is there any credence to the I dea, that the Mega Thrusts off chile and in Indonesia.. and the eventual can have been precursors, or catalysts for volcanic events in number that could tip us towards a true rapid cooling..
@richard G. (01:00:58) :
The argument was made that CO2 in the atmosphere could not be consequential, since the numbers were so small :
Ah, Yes, that inexorable, devastating rise of 3 molecules in 10 Thousand …..to 4 whole molecules in 10 Thousand… shocking! Devastating. I’m melting already.
I merely gave a counterexample of an even smaller ppm molecule having a large effect on a system. If you think this implies that CO2 is a poison, you have totally missed the point of the example.
The Achilles heel of climate science is the inability to run controlled experiments.
Have you ever heard of Astronomy, or Cosmology ?
Do you think they build stars and universes to test their theories ?
Different sciences have different approaches and methods, despite what you may have heard in high school. You would be wise to not dismiss the work of thousands of highly trained scientists, working for decades, based on your spare time reading.
Of course flux and change have happened on the Earth for billions of years, but that doesn’t mean I want to die tomorrow, or become obese in 10 years, or have Civilization end this century. Some changes are to be actively avoided.
Anu (10:09:53)
Have you ever heard of Astronomy, or Cosmology ?
Do you think they build stars and universes to test their theories ?
Yes, see:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Terrella#Kristian_Birkeland.27s_terrella
If considered as plasma, universe is an experimental reality.
Anu (10:09:53) : You would be wise to not dismiss the work of thousands of highly trained scientists, working for decades, based on your spare time reading.
I do not think that the average WUWT reader or contributor dismiss the thousands of highly trained scientists that have contributed to IPCC. Rather on the contrary, I think most of us have the same attitude as Dr. Lindzen, namely that most of the work is high quality.
This said, in climate science there are a few topics, covered by a minority of climate scientists, which to a degree serve as a premise for, or justify, the other topics. I am thinking about temperature reconstructions and temperature predictions. Now, after what most of us have seen of scientific evidence here so far is not sufficient, and we regard that the science is not settled.
Before I have the opportunity to calculate and check myself the CRU numbers for 2009, for example, it is impossible to clarify whether something fishy is going on. Could you please explain how these number have been calculated?
2009 0.387 0.374 0.374 0.416 0.408 0.508 0.501 0.539 0.463 0.436 0.446 0.407 0.438
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Also, I would like to see that the climate model predictions agree with reality. Again it is quite evident, as Dr. Lindzen states, that this is not the case. Until then I think we will continue to be suspicious!
Is this so difficult to understand?
Enneagram (07:58:02) :
“Jeff L (12:47:26) : What if both are right? Actually the las chilean earthquake, instead, of subduction happened the contrary.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/chile-earthquake-moved-entire-city-10-feet-to-the-west/
Perhaps in “interesting times” nature doesn’t like to follow settled science. We should keep our eyes and mind opened.”
Wow, that’s amazing. Moved the entire city of Concepcion 10 feet to the west in such a short space of time. Even Buenos Aires, nearly 800 miles from the epicentre, moved an inch! I had always though continental drift was a very slow process. Perhaps the science isn’t settled?
Gentlemen:
I understand when a nail sticks up above the wood there will be objectors that want to hammer it down — that is as it should be — it’s an honorable part of the scientific method (of course, nobody likes to get hammered, but it comes with the territory).
So, let me run through the objections (mostly in a chronological order):
Sonicfrog (22:18:04) asked: “What is the assumption about the Farallon plate? That it exists?”
Yes, the scientific evidence of a Farallon plate is mostly a tissue of unsupported assumptions.
Evans (20:33:44) wrote: “But the Rocky Mountains chain that runs from Canada through the U.S. into Mexico is not associated with any alleged “subduction” activity. So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
Mike Lorrey (22:18:18) replied: “James, ever heard of this thing called the San Andreas Fault? It runs all the way up the west coast. North American Plate is subducting the Pacific Plate and the San Juan plate underneath it.”
As your fellow objectors, to their credit, have pointed out your explanation is wrong. But they neglected to explain why it is wrong:
The San Andreas Fault, first, does not run “all the way up the west coast”, it leaves the West coast and heads out into the Pacific Ocean approximately in Northern Calfifornia; second, the San Andreas Fault is not a subduction zone, but, rather, it’s a transform boundary or fault where the tectonic plates, the Pacific and North Americanplates move parallel to each other in opposite directions. Nobody believes the San Andreas Fault is a so-called “subduction” zone or convergence fault.
I suggest that your incorrect reasoning demonstrates you don’t know as much as you think you do — you made an assumption — not born out by the evidence. Which is fine because it demonstrates how powerful assumptions are in the world of science — and how they can lead people astray.
Lorrey (22:18:18) wrote: “Mountain ranges have formed for billions of years…”
Yes, mountains have formed for billions of years, unquestionably.
Lorrey continues, “James, sometimes the fault that formed them goes away entirely, or simply moves (for instance, the Appalachians were formed by the Mid Atlantic Ridge spreading seam back when North America was just starting to be disconnected from Gondwanaland).”
This statement is an unmitigated assumption. Talk of Gondwanaland is an assumption, at least on an Earth that was the current size it is now. On an expanding Earth the continental granite (as opposed to oceanic basalt) was a single continuous layer of the Earth — seas existed on top of this granite layer (that’s why there is so much fossil evidence of large seas, such as the North American intra-continental sea, on all the continents). See Wikipedia entry for Western Interior Seaway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
Makes you wonder why most of the continents had inland seas (how were the sea levels that high, even with no polar icecaps there isn’t enough of a sea level rise to support that high of a sea level on an Earth structured similar as today).
Lorrey wrote: “If you are gonna question such a very basic and well established thing as plate tectonics, and claim something as absurd as the earth’s expanding (gee, this sounds like you believe in Pellucidar too), then I’ve really gotta question anything you say.”
I don’t question the existence of plate tectonics, I do question the existence of so-called “subduction” zones.
Before you call something “absurd”, you need to investigate — the refusal to investigate is the greatest barrier to correct understanding. And, no, I don’t subscribe to a hollow Earth (“Pellucidar”), but thanks for using a “guilt by association” tactic in an attempt to ridicule and, thus, discourage others from conducting their own investigation.
Yes, there is always the consequence that if one idea is raised which is disagreeable, others will attempt to marginalize the rest of the ideas the presenter subscribes to. That tactic has long been employed in the scientific community — it is used today by AGW proponents against their opponents: “Challenge AGW and be ostracized from the ‘community’.”
And it has succeeded to an alarming degree.
Each idea has to be considered on it own individual merits, in Science the specific empirical observations & measurements and the relevant known physical relationships.
Yes, I could keep my head down (expanding Earth is an academic exercise) and concentrate on other physical relationships such as Abiotic Oil or the fundamental force of Electromagnetism being dominant in astrophysical relationships or most important opposition to AGW. But then I would be knuckling-under and understanding never advances by knuckling-under to those that would retard physical understanding by imposing bias & prejudice to silence their critics.
Jeff L (22:18:40) wrote: “Evidently you are not aware of gps data which shows the earth is not expanding. James, we are actively measuring the earth to the centimeter & it is not expanding! Case Closed. Need I say more – probably, to hammer the point home.”
Actually, that is false. The link I provided above (reviewing expanding Earth theory) shows that gps data supports the concept of an expanding Earth.
But, please, Jeff, provide a link that supports your statement (your previous links did not), instead of relying on an unsupported fiat statement. When you do provide authority I’ll consider it.
Evans wrote: “So, how did the Rocky Mountains form?”
Jeff L responded: “This website provides a reasonably well illustrated explanation:”
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/province/rockymtn.html
The website upon close examination provides much less evidence than your response suggests.
First off, the link deals (based on the schematic) with just the portion within the United States and I noted that the Rocky Mountains run from Northern Canada down through Mexico (it’s called the Sierra Madre in Mexico).
From the link: “The growth of the Rocky Mountains has been one of the most perplexing of geologic puzzles.”
Yes, because it doesn’t conform with the so-called “subduction” paradigm — rather, it is an anomaly or contradiction.
The link goes on: “Normally, mountain building is focused between 200 to 400 miles inland from a subduction zone boundary, yet the Rockies are hundreds of miles farther inland.”
So, even the link explains why the Rocky Mountains are a puzzle.
Of course, it then goes on to attempt an explanation that reconciles the anomaly with the dogma:
“What geologic processes raise mountains at this scale? Although geologists continue to gather evidence to explain the rise of the Rockies, the answer most likely lies with an unusual subducting slab.”
Although, the link even admits geologists don’t have the answers, “the answer most likely lies”, which is to say, “we speculate”, as to an answer.
The “unusual subducting slab” is pure speculation. Simply an unsupported attempt to salvage the “subduction” dogma.
So, Jeff, you see, the link you provided only proves my point that the Rocky Mountains don’t conform to the dogma — thanks for the link.
Jeff L wrote: “Again, as I posted before, plate tectonics is a framework to interpret DATA within – not a model which tells you all the answers. This framework concept is fundamental to all geologic interpretation. No conflicts here, as you suggest there are.
Framework and model are the same thing — please distinguish the difference.
“This framework concept is fundamental to all geologic interpretation.”
Sure sounds like a model to me — let me substitute a word in your statement.
This model concept is fundamental to all geological interpretation.
See what I mean? Again, please distinguish between a model and a framework.
I will grant you it is true that the mechanism which causes the Earth to expand is still unidentified. but does that mean Science simply ignores all the scientific evidence that the Earth has expanded?
Jeff L wrote: “James, I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no way this hypothesis works. It is literally physically impossible – and I havent even touched on the sub-surface data where you can demonstrate contractional structures with 100’s of kms of net shortening.”
Actually, the “sub-surface data” conforms remarkably well with an expanding Earth hypothesis.
I haven’t even touch on many pieces of evidence, myself.
(An example: Dinosaurs don’t bio-mechanically work in the present gravity of Earth (too heavy and bones not strong enough) — of course, in the lesser gravity field that a smaller Earth would have, dinosaurs work perfectly.)
Jeff L wrote: “If you dont understand why it is impossible based on the data I have guided you to, then I cant help you.”
Sorry, Jeff, you have done nothing of the kind, but your attitude perfectly demonstrates the impediments to further understanding of our physical world: Ignore scientific evidence because in your opinion “it is impossible”, that attitude would have kept Man from flying — as many thought Man powered flight was impossible — just ask Scientific American which was still saying “flight” was impossible even after the Wright brothers were flying at Kittyhawk.
Although, again, I do want to credit you for correcting Mike Lorrey on the Rocky Mountains, too bad, you didn’t have much of a better answer.
Jeff L (23:01:08) wrote: “All the volcanoes you list are formed by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate under the North Am plate – which, if you notice the southern most volcano of the Cascade range (Lassen) corresponds with the south end of the Juan de Fuca plate & the north end of the San Andreas – another one of those pesky geologic observations supporting plate tectonics (for James & others who doubt)”
Again, this is an assumption that when examined upon close scrutiny turns out to be remarkably supported by very little actual scientific evidence.
Jeff L: “…the Hawaiian Island chain does on the pacific plate, which in concert show net convergent motion on the western boundary of the North Am plate through the Tertiary…”
Actually, this is also consistent with expanding Earth hypothesis — Jeff, you make statements and assume expanding earth theorists haven’t considered the issues your statements raise — I got news for you, yes, expanding earth scientists have considered the issues you raise — and more important, have answers — more answers, in fact, than the so-called “subduction” paradigm theorists have in many instances.
Sadly, it is just that the general public doesn’t have the knowledge and apparently many geologists also don’t have the knowledge, either.
Knowledge is power.
Antonio San (23:12:21) wrote: “Considering this expanding earth theory is supposed to explain present day structures, how is it supposed to explain variscan orogenies known the globe over?”
Expansion does push together as well as stretch out. And there is uneven expansion where mountain ranges push up because of regional dynamics.
geogrl (04:20:44) wrote: “Essentially, there is more than one way to build a mountain.”
Agreed.
It seems that the so-called “subduction” paradigm proponents are the ones that claim that there is only one way to build a mountain — see discussion of Rocky Mountains, above.
Ric Werme (05:40:24) wrote: “The only way an expanding Earth could be viable is if Earth is still accreting matter…”
Agreed.
And, as I acknowledged above, the exact mechanism is still unclear.
But the Earth also accretes matter via electrons and protons, plasma.
Science doesn’t have all the answers at the sub-atomic level.
Ric Werme wrote: “Many thanks to the real scientists here to take the time to apply the “sniff tests” to concepts that have some interesting ideas but are built on a foundation of fantasy.”
I’d say their “sniffers” are stuffed-up with a cold 🙂
Too bad Ric that you have identified yourself with those that want to ignore the scientific evidence.
Ric Werme (05:49:32) wrote: “One of the things I really like about hotspots is that plate tectonics doesn’t explain them (as far as I know) and doesn’t need them, but they provide some of the simplest and most wonderful confirmation of plate tectonics.”
Huh? Your statement doesn’t make sense, it is self-contradictory.
Perhaps, you could explain what you mean.
Now, here is another factor to consider when deciding how much weight to place on geologist comments regarding expanding earth hypothesis:
Most geologists subscribe to the “fossil” theory of oil formation. That idea has been completely falsified and contradicted by ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling. The supposed “oil window” has been repudiated by oil discoveries that are much deeper than the “oil window’s” 7,500 to 15,000 feet depth.
Oil has been found as deep as 25,000 feet below the sea bottom in water as deep as 8,000 feet deep with the oil as hot as 500 degrees Fahrenheit.
All the above falsifies the “oil window” corollary to the “fossil” theory of oil formation.
From Offshore magazine: “Just as the voyagers of the science fiction Starship Enterprise probed the outer reaches of space to reveal new worlds, oil and gas exploration teams, working in the real world, have boldly gone where no one has gone before to discover giant fields in the deepest reaches of the Gulf of Mexico. They have taken a peek at billions of barrels of potential reserves.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=120#p31833
Now, if the majority of geologists where wrong about Abiotic Oil (there are many important exceptions where gifted geologists exercised independent judgment) and clinged tenaciously to the “fossil” theory in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, one wonders how geologists would react to something else, with a substantial body of scientific evidence, but that challenges even more their world-view.
Something to chew on.
Never ignore scientific evidence — it is the most grave sin a scientist can engage in — wilful ignorance is the sign of a closed mind.
Science doesn’t advance with that attitude.
Dear Ron de Haan,
if you wish, I will happily insure you against the poisoning of you and your relatives from the Katla volcano. 😉 Do you want to purchase my services?
Cheers
LM
James F. Evans (13:10:59) :
Hi James. You wrote:
Actually, that is false. The link I provided above (reviewing expanding Earth theory) shows that gps data supports the concept of an expanding Earth.
—
I read through the article you linked and could not locate where it states gps data supports the concept of an expanding Earth? Help a fella out?
As well, as I’m a fan of a good discussion, I was looking forward to reading your response to Jeff’s call for data. I’m a little dissapointed that your response is composed of simple disagreements over their comments, but nothing else than a wikipedia entry and a TMG article (is that Author you, perchance?). Plan on elaborating further on some of your statements with supporting data? (For Eg, your comment that: Yes, the scientific evidence of a Farallon plate is mostly a tissue of unsupported assumptions.)
Looking forward to additional information. Thanks for contributing to the thread.
-AP-
James F. Evans (13:10:59) :
Gentlemen:….
Open Google Earth, check for “Tectonic Plate Boundaries”, then see the Pacific basic boundaries, you’ll see along the coasts of SA arrows pointing to the east and if you now observe along the coasts of Asia you’ll see arrows pointing to the west !!!!.
That is expansion not contraction, right from the USGS source.
It says pacific basic, should read pacific BASIN
So, according to the USGS pacific sea bottom it is expanding 92 mm/year along Asia and 72 mm/year along SA.
Enneagram (14:15:07) wrote: “Open Google Earth, check for “Tectonic Plate Boundaries”, then see the Pacific basin boundaries, you’ll see along the coasts of SA arrows pointing to the east and if you now observe along the coasts of Asia you’ll see arrows pointing to the west !!!!.
That is expansion not contraction, right from the USGS source.”
Enneagram, I’d say that’s an excellent piece of scientific evidence.
Thanks.
Definitely something to chew on…or sniff at 🙂
Isn’t this the pair of volcanoes that erupted in 1783 and prompted Ben Franklin to speculate a connection between volcanoes and climatic cooling thus initiating climate science?
A magnifying glass wouldn’t even burn paper, Franklin said, so dim were the sun’s rays. “Of course, their summer effect in heating the earth was exceedingly diminished. Hence the surface was early frozen. Hence the first snows remained on it unmelted, and received continual additions. Hence the air was more chilled, and the winds more severely cold. Hence perhaps the winter of 1783-4, was more severe, than any that had happened for many years.”
Global warmers need to countenance the possibility that fluke eruptions could do us even more damage than a slow warming trend.
Anu (10:09:53) :
“You would be wise to not dismiss the work of thousands of highly trained scientists, working for decades, based on your spare time reading.”
Anu, you have completely misunderstood the whole situation.
It is not us that dismiss the work, its the IPCC;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Get it?
Enneagram, I’d say that’s an excellent piece of scientific evidence.
No, sorry, that is not evidence to support you theory; that is someone who doesn’t know how to read a tectonic boundary map. The arrows are inserted to indicate the direction of plate movement. Those arrows point to the direction of subduction. You can’t just change the meanings of markers on a map to suit you whims.
Global warming is responsible for this, of course, because global warming explains everything.
Think of Iceland as a pimple and the oceans surrounding it as fingers. As the oceans rise from global warming they press down harder and harder on the crust surrounding Iceland. I’m sure everyone has popped a zit before so I trust I need I go into no further detail.
Do I get a Nobel Prize for this or do I have to make it into a cartoon/movie first?
Antonio San (23:12:21) wrote: “Considering this expanding earth theory is supposed to explain present day structures, how is it supposed to explain variscan orogenies known the globe over?”
Expansion does push together as well as stretch out. And there is uneven expansion where mountain ranges push up because of regional dynamics.
===
Man, you did not even understand what variscan is.
Enneagram (14:15:07):
I can’t seem to get onto Google Earth and access the data you referenced.
Can you help me out?
Sonicfrog (16:56:42) : Excellent rebuttal.
But upon key word searches on the internet for GPS measurements of the Pacific basin between Australia and South America or Asia and South America, there doesn’t seem to be information one way or another. This is remarkable in that GPS capability has now been available for a number of years.
Here is the objectors’ chance: Supply documented authority that the Pacific basin is shrinking as it must be per “subduction” theory.
Why must the Pacific basin shrink per “subduction” theory?
Because no “subduction” zones have been identified on the West coast of Africa or the East coast of South America, nor on the West coast of Europe or the East coast of North America. So, the Atlantic basin is getting wider, thus, in order for the static diameter Earth model to work, the Pacific basin must be shrinking or decreasing in width.
Yet, there seems to be a dearth, at least on the internet, of GPS measurements in this regard. Or any results for key word searches (which I can find) that touch on the subject of measurements of the changing width of the Pacific basin.
So, here is your chance objectors.
This is what I got:
“Figure 1. Selected spherical rates for lines crossing the Pacific Ocean showing average, annual displacement figures in centimetres, obtained from satellite laser ranging (SLR) for the period January 1980 to June 1993. (From Smith et al., 1994)” — caption for figure 1 on Global Expansion Tectonics, a More Rational Explanation:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html
(Previously linked in this thread.)
And discussion in body of presentation:
“Direct measuring across the Pacific Ocean, to determine the relative plate motions, began in 1976 when NASA launched the Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS), as part of their Geodynamics Programme, Crustal Dynamics Project (Cohen et al, 1985; Owen, 1992; Smith et al, 1994). The LAGEOS laser ranging data obtained up to 1984 (Cohen et al, 1985), combined with the LAGEOS data derived from Christodoulidis et al (1985), plus more recent VLBI and SLR geodetic measurements (Robaudo & Harrison, 1993; Smith et al, 1994) indicated convergence rates in the Pacific significantly less than those predicted by Minster & Jordan (1978), based on a theoretical mathematical model on a constant sized Earth. In particular the chord length increase between Australia and South America (Figure 1). Owen (1992) and Carey (1995) indicated that the accountancy of these preliminary data do not balance as they should if the Earth were of constant dimensions. See NASA for the latest VLBI and SLR space geodetic results.”
Upon closer examination, I acknowledge the above passage is a somewhat ambiguous discussion.
But the width of the Pacific basin is the crux of the issue: If the Pacific basin can be established as increasing in width that goes a very long way to demonstrating an expanding Earth; on the other hand, if the Pacific basin can be established as decreasing in width that goes a very long way to demonstrating a static Earth.
Show me the observations & measurements.
There is correlation of both volcanic eruptions and geomagnetic secular changes (also referred to archeomagnetic jerks. The geomagnetic field during an archeomagnetic jerk changes inclination and has secular variations) and geomagnetic excursions, with deep solar minimums. Abrupt climatic change events correlates with the geomagnetic field changes.
What it appears is the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted. When it restarts after a specific type of interruption there are very, very, large coronal mass ejections. The coronal mass ejections have left burn marks on the earth. The burn marks have the a specific distribution and characteristic shape that is consist with a series of ionosphere to planet strikes and re-strikes. (There is for example overlapping burn marks.)
This paper is interesting. There are five Auckland volcanoes that have independent magma chambers. The five volcanoes erupt almost simultaneously and manage to capture a geomagnetic excursions. A geomagnetic excursion is a very rare event. This is an example of the affects of the ionosphere to planet strikes.
The hemisphere where the strike occurs is determined by planetary precession which has a 21 kyr cycle which in turns controls the yearly timing of perihelion. The effect on the geomagnetic field of the strike depends on the hemisphere where the strike occurs and the current geomagnetic field orientation at the time of the strike.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml
“Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field”
Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities.
This paper notes there has been 10 archeomagnetic jerks in the last 5000 years and that there is correlation with cold periods with the archeomagnetic jerks.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Additional links:
http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/englishweb/index.html
http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/english/
Tenuc (12:51:20) :
I think 10 feet is in line with a lot of great quakes. Think of how the quake worked – many years of the two plates being locked together with motion being absorbed like a strained spring. When the slip begins, the fault unzips for a hundred km or so and the strain is released in seconds.
Some areas in the Good Friday Alaska quake in 1964 moved 30 feet, see http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=106. It’s one of the ways tsunami waves are generated. It takes a prestty substantial push to make a wave that can travel the breadth of the Pacific Basin.
I think the fastest plate in the world is the Indian Plate, moving at 9 cm/year. If you have to live on a plate boundary, it’s good to pick a place where the plates don’t stick. Or a place where they stick really firmly and there was a great quake in the last few years that relieved nearly all of the strain.
This is further to my above comment. The solar magnetic cycle interruption is causes both geomagnetic field changes (archeomagnetic jerks and excursions) and volcanic eruptions. The geomagnetic field changes are integrated by the liquid core in the planet by a process that has a time constant of around 1000 years. For sever strike the long time constants enables a single strike to affect the planet for a long period. There is a geomagnetic field excursion and Northern Hemisphere burn marks that correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period.
A large volcanic eruption only cools the planet for a few years. The very large volcanic eruptions are a secondary effect of what is forcing the geomagnetic field, the very, very, large coronal mass ejections.
“Volcanism and millennial climate change”
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6…#otherarticles
Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland).
These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A
“The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum”
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0° C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. The precise cause of the lower-than-average temperatures during this period is not well understood. Recent papers have suggested that a rise in volcanism was largely responsible for the cooling trend.[3]
James F. Evans (13:10:59) :
“provide a link that supports your statement (your previous links did not), instead of relying on an unsupported fiat statement.”
see:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SPIE.7471E..53Z
Oh, yes, and by the way note that the article states the earth currently is experiencing a net contraction of 3-4 mm per year.
James, this will be my last post – I clearly cant help you any more – believe what you want. I could care less. I cant spend all my days teaching you geology 101. But understand I make a living by being right about geologic interpretation. I have found more oil & gas than you can imagine using the theories / models / constructs you dismiss. Collectively, the oil and gas industry has made trillions of dollars using these theories. So you go ahead and believe what ever you want & we’ll use what has been proven to work over & over & get rich doing it.
Jeff L (19:23:00) :
Thanks for helping us out Jeff.
Have tried to get the idea of a contracting Earth through to a few times myself. Going from drought conditions to saturated with precipitation is a big transfer of weight in just a few years. The planet was dry as a bone 5 years ago.
James – Here is another study that contains direct evidence for subduction zones.
Unfortunately, the study is behind a paywall (gee, big surprise there), but the abstract is quite clear that they have tracked the movement of the crust and it shows subduction.
Jeff L (19:23:00) wrote: “James, this will be my last post…”
That’s fine, we weren’t going to come to any definite conclusions, anyway, rather, my point is that there is contradicting evidence against so-called “subduction” and that there exists evidence in favor of an expanding Earth…really, it’s up to individual readers to decide if they want to investigate on their own.
Jeff continued: “I clearly cant help you any more…”
I suspect you weren’t trying to help me as much as defending your position and discouraging other readers from investigating the evidence. Although, you did help me by providing the “Rocky Mountain” link, which did help prove my point about contradicting evidence to the “subduction” paradigm.
In regards to your last link:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SPIE.7471E..53Z
It’s a lot like the “Rocky Mountain” link — less than meets the eye.
From the linked Abstract:
“…approach the surface of the Earth, the Earth’s area, volume and their changes in 2003.”
One year is not much of a time interval for a study (why only one year).
“The feasibility of this method was also verified using stations through plate motion model interpolation.”
So, instead of direct observation & measurement of the distances between Australia and South America, say, which seems relatively straight-forward to conduct, we have application of a model and “interpolation” (to estimate values of a function between two known values) — all models have assumptions — now, the assumptions could be accurate, but we don’t know the rational of the assumptions used in this paper.
“…and the southern hemisphere is undergoing extensional deformation…”
“The deformation patterns indicate that the earth is still undergoing asymmetrical deformation.”
Interesting, this abstract (we don’t have the paper, itself) says that parts of the world are undergoing “extensional deformation”, bulging in other words, and other parts are shrinking.
“…the Pacific hemisphere is undergoing compressive deformation and the Atlantic hemisphere is undergoing extensional deformation.”
Ah, this snippet does support a static Earth.
I’ll grant you this paper overall does support the static model.
But it seems there are more direct observations & measurements that can be made over the course of multiple years that could provide more certainty than this one paper alone.
Jeff wrote: “But understand I make a living by being right about geologic interpretation.”
Which may just make it less likely that you would change your mind given that you have firmly held beliefs developed over many years.
Jeff wrote: “I have found more oil & gas than you can imagine using the theories / models / constructs you dismiss.”
Then you know that before detailed 3D seismic maps were developed where the oil can almost literally be “seen”, the old theories based on the “fossil” theory averaged only two out of 28 holes striking oil. Not a good success rate if you ask me.
Here is what Offshore magazine, an oil & gas trade publication, has to say:
“Subsequently in the early 2000s, few geologists expected to find significant oil traps in the Lower Tertiary. The skeptics have been proven wrong with the discovery of long Lower Tertiary oil pay zones. These discoveries will require development efforts of several decades. Will the operators then discover another frontier beyond the Lower Tertiary in the abyssal depths of greater than 12,000 ft (3,658 m) in the Sigsbee Deep?”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/7102345141/articles/offshore/volume-70/issue-1/gulf-of_mexico/lower-tertiary_play.html
And further from Offshore magazine:
“In December 2008, Baker Hughes inaugurated its Center for Technology Innovation (CTI) in Houston. The primary focus of this facility is to develop next-generation completion and production tools for HP/HT conditions typically found in the Lower Tertiary wells. “The CTI is capable of testing full-size prototypes of the next generation of completion and production equipment in a test environment with gas pressure up to 40,000 psi and temperature up to 700° F (371° C),” says Rustom Mody, Baker Hughes vice president of Technology.”
Doesn’t sound like this fits the “oil window” to me. It sounds like oil that would be very deep and very hot — perhaps you have already read the article?
From a companion article in the same issue of Offshore magazine:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/0314992580/articles/offshore/volume-70/issue-1/geology-__geophysics/imaging-challenges.html
“Understanding the play-fairway opportunities in this setting requires a regional, structural, and stratigraphic context for the Wilcox including subsalt sediment distribution and a better understanding of the tectonic framework of the basement.”
You know those “cracks of the world” (see schematic for these “cracks” or lineaments/faults, below in the PDF link, in this Houston Geological Society bulletin)
http://www.janrasmussen.com/pdfs/Cracks_World.pdf
And, here, the lead-off paragraph for the presentation: Cracks of the World: Global Strike-Slip Fault Systems and Giant Resource Accumulations by Stanley B. Keith, et al.
“Evidence is mounting that the Earth is encircled by subtle necklaces of interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults. Many major mineral and energy resource accumulations are located within or near the deeply penetrating fractures of these “cracks of the world.” Future exploration for large petroleum occurrences should emphasize the definition, regional distribution, and specific characteristics of the global crack system. Specific drill targets can be predicted by understanding the local structural setting and fluid flow pathways in lateral, as well as vertical conduits, detectable through patterns in the local geochemistry and geophysics.” (See the regular link below for the full Houston Geo. Soc. document:)
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?34
Here are the money quotes from Offshore magazine, the oil & gas trade publication:
“Mapping the structure of the rifted basement, its impact on sedimentation, the distribution of autochthonous salt, and the location of the continental-oceanic boundary (COB) all were crucial within the workflow, which culminated in a new deep allochthonous salt isopach used to confirm existing drilled structures and to identify new prospects within the subsalt environment.”
“The study had a number of additional key objectives to help reach the goal of subsalt prospect identification, including: 1. Delineation of an integrated basement surface across the area”
“•Construction of the final integrated basement using elements of seismic acoustic basement and magnetic basement
•2D gravity and magnetic modeling constrained with input from mapped seismic horizons, crustal thickness information, density/velocity data, and allochthonous salt distribution”
“Enhanced delineation of basement structure has lead to a better understanding of the original salt depositional environment and rift morphology, which in turn has had a significant control on subsequent salt mobilization.”
“The work confirmed that basement structure is dominated by NW-SE and NE-SW trending lineaments/faults. Deep allochthonous salt mobilization is controlled by many of these features.”
Does it sound similar to the what the Houston Geological Society presentation was talking about? It does to me.
The point here is that in all this discussion (the entire article for that matter) there is no mention of so-called “source rock”, only discussion of the basement and the cracks and fissures in it. Where oil comes up from the deep.
Empirical observation & measurement is always relevant to scientific questions.
Both contraction and expansion camps are right. The sun changes chemically/gravitationally at regular intervals…When it is heavier/ gravity is greater and thus subduction increases and the earth contracts.
A more irradiant sun is a lighter sun and its weakened gravitational forcing allow the inner layers to cool. If you accept the propositon that the sun’s galactic position will determine how it oscillates between behaving like a nebula and like a red giant in its planetary birthing process, then you can begin to understand that the outer planets and the sun are much older than proposed and the innermost planets are younger…. I am of the opinion that the oldest body in the solar system is the moon and it is extrasolar and was ripped away from the outer planets, most recently Mars
After reading the above, my thoughts now are WATER. More compression in the N. Hemis. dah yeah. The Antarctic is surrounded by WATER. Increases in WATER to the Earth system.
Incoming fluxes due to Interstellar (cold dense regions) locations increases in WATER (Glaciation).
Less incoming fluxes due to interstellar (warm ionized regions) decreases in WATER. something about weight and measure comes to mind.
Good day good read James, Saul.
The Earths expansions and contractions are in change there not static it is like the above posts made you think that change doesn’t occur or is occurring.
James F. Evans (18:31:01) :
Enneagram (14:15:07):
I can’t seem to get onto Google Earth and access the data you referenced
At the left Menu , at “Places” you have to choose, “ShakeMap: 2009jcap”and all from USGS
There is a huge cracked world alright… LOL
Ric Werme (18:52:05) : I think the fastest plate in the world is the Indian Plate, moving at 9 cm/year
I am watching right now the following data from Google Earth:
West-east arrow, pointing in direction of the Peruvian-Chilean border (Peru/Chile Trench): 79 mm/year
East-West arrow, pointing to center Japan: 92 mm/year
East-West arrow, pointing to Lapu-Lapu Ridge: 63 mm/year
West-East/East-West? Strech anything like this and you have expansion not contraction.
Again, the arrows express the speed of the subduction and the direction that the Pacific plate is being subducted.
Enneagram, if you’re not pulling a fast one and being facetious, all I can say is; I don’t ever want to be in a car with you when you’re lost and have to read a map for directions…. Ever!
Antonio San (17:36:23) wrote: “Man, you did not even understand what variscan is.”
True, I had not read the term before you brought it up, but that was readily correctable: “The Variscan (or Hercynian) orogeny is a geologic mountain-building event caused by Late Paleozoic continental collision between Euramerica (Laurussia) and Gondwana to form the supercontinent of Pangaea.” (see below Wikipedia entry link:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variscan_orogeny
Although, I’m not impressed — it’s an assumption and a pretty wild one at that. In the same realm as continents wondering around for millions of years and periodically colliding to become supercontinents. And these so-called “supercontinents” formed up six different times???
Passage from Wikipedia entry for supercontinent cycle:
“One complete Supercontinent cycle is said to take 300 to 500 million years to occur.”
The names of the supposed “supercontinents”: Pangaea, Pannotia, Rodinia, Columbia, Kenorland, Ur, and Vaalbara.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
And, four of these so-called “supercontinents” supposedly formed over a billion years ago??? And we know about that? Right. Then I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
And one of the objecting commenters mentioned something about fantasies. People living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If the general public knew geologists subscribe to such speculations, they might not rely on geologists as much.
Antonio San (08:32:59) wrote: “There is a huge cracked world alright… LOL”
Well, the Houston Geological Society (concerned with oil & gas) takes it seriously or they wouldn’t have put the “crack of the world” presentation on their meeting calendar. And Offshore magazine (an offshore oil exploration & production trade publication) wouldn’t have devoted an entire article to the mapping of these “cracks of the world” in the Gulf of Mexico if they didn’t take it seriously. And Oil companies wouldn’t spend millions of dollars on mapping these “cracks of the world” if they didn’t take it seriously .
So, Antonio San, it looks like the joke’s on you, friend.
I bet Jeff L isn’t laughing.
Sonicfrog (22:51:09): Thank you for presenting the abstract.
But upon close examination of the abstract it is a tissue of assumptions with an unsupported assumption of “subduction” as its conclusion.
From the abstract: “…image a slab of oceanic lithosphere descending…”
(Too bad, we don’t have the whole paper — but I know how that is.)
Do the researchers actually have real time measurements? After all, these slabs, if they were to exist would move very slowly.
I would like to know more about the “New traveltime tomographic” since the researchers rely on this process for a significant conclusion.
The researchers mention “seismicity beneath the westernmost Alboran Sea”, but “seismicity” or “earthquakes” by themselves don’t spell out direction or movement one way or the other, rather, direction is an assumption imposed by the model. In this case, the subduction model.
“…merging with a region of deep-focus earthquakes 600–660 km below Granada, Spain…”
(This actually sounds more like the continetal ‘roots’ discussed earlier in the thread — does anybody really subscribe to the idea that continents with 600 kilometer ‘roots’ move around, or are the continents more like a tree with roots? I haven’t seen any trees “wondering” around lately, have you?)
Again, earthquakes don’t tell us direction of movement.
“The scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but if examined closely, estimates of subduction velocities are usually inferred from midocean ridge growth rates, or are based on suggestive geophysical data without empirical measurements to prove the direction and velocity of motion.” — Lawrence S. Myers, 2005
“Benioff zones and deep-focus earthquakes, without directional evidence, are just as easily interpreted as obduction from beneath the continents—or, better, just a sudden shift of two crustal masses readjusting positions in response to expansion of the core and sheer gravitational weight. The epicenter depth of an earthquake bears no relationship to the direction of relative movements of the opposing masses that shifted and caused the earthquake, or the primary mechanism that caused the masses to shift.” — Lawrence S. Myers, 2005
The first Earth expansion review I linked, in hind sight, is a difficult and awkward read.
This review is clearer and lays out a more concise criticism of “subduction” (the link goes right to the portion headed “Subduction’s Fatal Flaw”, but the entire website is an excellent review of the expanding earth idea):
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm
The above link also lays out the historical development of the “subduction” concept. I have often found the historical development of a concept is very important in evaluating its merits. Unvarnished history is a little like watching sausage being made — it lays out all the worts and scars — stuff that people interested in advocating the final conclusion aren’t necessarily interested in having you see or know about, but shed light on the validity of the conclusion.
andy atkins
“The sun changes chemically/gravitationally at regular intervals…When it is heavier/ gravity is greater and thus subduction increases and the earth contracts.”
Wait a minute there andy. In Newton’s Principia one of the things he establishes is that the spherical bodies can be regarded as having its mass concentrated in a point at the center of gravity (as we have come to call it). Section XII
James F. Evans,
If you needed to go to wikipedia in order to check the definition of Variscan, it shows your geological culture is limited.
Many of my colleagues have studied the orogeny in detail an dthat include the recognition of ophiolitic complexes, the obducted traces of oceanic lithospheres.
The same ophiolitic complexes, remnant of the Thetys, have been found along the Indo-Eurasion collision by field geologists, not armchair QB, such as Jean Marcoux. But I guess paleogeographical reconstructions are also suspect for you…
As for the Houston paper, man o man, one truly wonders how strawman arguments such as these can be published. Only a caricature of Plate Tectonics while mapping virtually all the same faults that are already known. And the fact Oil and Gas companies pay attention to these fault zones is no proof against plate tectonics or a validation of your fairy tale.
Another gem:
“The researchers mention “seismicity beneath the westernmost Alboran Sea”, but “seismicity” or “earthquakes” by themselves don’t spell out direction or movement one way or the other, rather, direction is an assumption imposed by the model. In this case, the subduction model.”
One wonders what focal mechanisms are all about…
I suspect that you’ll benefit from the latest US law…
Sonicfrog (09:25:01) : Take a piece of elastic cloth and make it “subduct” the same as the pacific ocean floor, both sides…
James F. Evans (11:09:55) : Make a relation between the link you gave and this one:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
That SST anomaly along the center of the pacific just appeared this year, the usual El Nino does not behaves that way.
Sonicfrog (09:25:01) wrote: “Again, the arrows express the speed of the subduction and the direction that the Pacific plate is being subducted.”
I don’t want to download Google Earth so I haven’t seen the document.
Sonicfrog, you are probably right (with all due respect to Enneagram). I doubt the USGS, United States Geological Survey, would be signing up for Expanding Earth Theory.
But who knows about the future 🙂
The vaues given I suggest are suspect. The figures given by Enneagram:
“West-east arrow, pointing in direction of the Peruvian-Chilean border (Peru/Chile Trench): 79 mm/year
East-West arrow, pointing to center Japan: 92 mm/year
East-West arrow, pointing to Lapu-Lapu Ridge: 63 mm/year”
Are inferred distances, not the result of direct observation & measurement.
Rather, I suggest these values are obtained exactly as Lawrence S. Myers stated:
“The scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but if examined closely, estimates of subduction velocities are usually inferred from midocean ridge growth rates, or are based on suggestive geophysical data without empirical measurements to prove the direction and velocity of motion.”
Oh, and for Antonio San, a couple of further notes on “Cracks of the World”:
A quote from the Houston Geological Society presentation:
“For example, petroleum resources in the largest hydrothermal mineral deposit [read Abiotic Oil] in the world, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia (Cantrell et al., 2002), may be related to deposition of‚ regional-scale hydrothermal dolomites in a north-northeast-trending dextral slip zone that is 175 miles long and 30 miles wide. This zone is but one element of the previously mentioned north-south segments in the global fracture system.”
Yes, that Ghawar oil field, the largest in the world, pumping oil since 1951, to the tune of a cube 19 miles square, and still going strong — that’s 60 years of pumping oil — Abiotic Oil.
The professional biography of the lead author of the presentation:
Stanley B. Keith has over 30 years of successful exploration experience in minerals and energy. Upon earning BS and MS degrees in geology from the University of Arizona, he became a field and research geologist focused on mineralogy, geologic mapping, stratigraphy, tectonics, and isotopic age dating. At Kennecott and the Arizona Geological Survey in the mid-1970s he recognized an empirical relationship between mineral deposits and magma series. He co-founded MagmaChem Exploration in 1983 for mineral exploration, working on numerous exploration and research projects for both mineral and energy exploration companies. Currently he is a founding researcher with Sonoita Geoscience Research, an industry-supported consortium that applies hydrothermal and economic geological theory and techniques to petroleum exploration.”
To highlight: “Currently he [Keith] is a founding researcher with Sonoita Geoscience Research, an industry-supported consortium that applies hydrothermal and economic geological theory and techniques to petroleum exploration.”
Got that Antonio San? Sonoita Geoscience Research which Keith heads up is an “industry-supported consortium” — meaning the oil industry as a whole provides financial support for Abiotic Oil research. And as we’ve seen in the Offshore magazine article, the oil industry is actively applying Abiotic Oil principles in their exploration for deep-water oil deposits and spending millions of dollars in the process.
It’s not what they say, it’s what they do, or in other words — follow the money — not the head fakes of the PR flaks.
And when you combine the years of experience of the presentation’s authors, it adds up to 109 years experience — I suspect even Jeff L would respect that.
Read the presentation and learn — learn the future of the oil business — no “peak” oil is on the economic horizon. The unexplored territory in the world’s oceans has barely been scratched:
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?34
James F. Evans (13:21:19) : Everything OK and nice while plates do not move under your feet…☺
Jame F. Evans writes:
““For example, petroleum resources in the largest hydrothermal mineral deposit [read Abiotic Oil] in the world, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia (Cantrell et al., 2002), may be related to deposition of‚ regional-scale hydrothermal dolomites in a north-northeast-trending dextral slip zone that is 175 miles long and 30 miles wide. This zone is but one element of the previously mentioned north-south segments in the global fracture system.”
Yes, that Ghawar oil field, the largest in the world, pumping oil since 1951, to the tune of a cube 19 miles square, and still going strong — that’s 60 years of pumping oil — Abiotic Oil.”
Hydrothermal DOLOMITES!!! That’s the reservoir and it has nothing to do with abiotic oil pal!
Inform yourself before BSing!
Keep believing in this and please let us know when you’ll make your first trillion dollar…
Antonio San (12:35:23):
Yes, I’ve run into geologists like you before and many times it’s what they don’t say which is more telling than what they do say. You want to discuss Variscan orogeny, that’s fine, I’ll let you while away. But I notice you don’t refer to that multiple supercontinent tomfoolery, that’s a credit to you.
Antonio San wrote: “But I guess paleogeographical reconstructions are also suspect for you…”
Not necessarily, it depends on the evidence, but it does seem geologists have a model full of assumptions that they in turn filter the evidence through, which leads them to wrong conclusions — much like AGW proponents.
“Lowman (1992a) argued that geology has largely become “a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts … used as confidently as trigonometric functions” (p. 3). Lyttleton and Bondi (1992) held that the difficulties facing plate tectonics and the lack of study of alternative explanations for seemingly supportive evidence reduced the plausibility of the theory.” — Pratt 2000
Yes, it does appear in many instances (with important exceptions) that geologists apply their models by rote, and when I sense that attitude, an attitude coming through loud and clear from you, I take what they say with a large grain of salt as should other readers.
Antonio San wrote: “As for the Houston paper, man o man, one truly wonders how strawman arguments such as these can be published.”
So, you think Stanley B. Keith is a strawman, even though he has over 30 years geology experience and heads an oil industry-supported consortium, along with his colleagues?
Do you think the Houston Geolgical Society would allow a presentation that was nothing but a strawman?
Do you think the oil industry would financially support nothing but a strawman?
I strongly suggest Antonio San that you read this link: Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons, by Stanley B. Keith:
“Serpentinization of peridotites by oceanic or metamorphic sourced brines under strongly reduced conditions and temperatures of 200-500 C produces hydrocarbon-rich, chloride and/or bicarbonate metal-bearing brines. Serpentinization is common on the ocean floor along fracture zones (Lost City), beneath conventional petroleum in rifts due to sedimentary burial (Gulf of Mexico) or thrust loading (Roan Trough), and at the top of flat subducting oceanic crust (Eocene beneath UT, CO, WY).”
“Petroleum condensate typically forms in reservoirs between the HTD zone and seep sites at the top of the lithosphere. Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines. Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins.”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/keith.htm
Make no mistake, Keith is describing Abiotic Oil formation.
Your dogmatic attitude is coming through loud and clear to the readers, keep it up. So, this is your reaction to facts and evidence you don’t like? Yes, you may not want to hear it, but they are facts and evidence, nevertheless.
Now, you know how AGW scientists feel when their scientific papers are thrown back in their faces…
Question is, are you going to go into denial just like AGW supporters?
Here are two interesting quote from the Houston paper:
“A global network of transform faults apparently links ocean basin to ocean basin through the continents. The continents may not be tectonically inert, rigid blocks: rather, they are active, kinematic participants of the oceanic spreading process.”
“The mega-shear system is not confined to the country of Mexico and adjacent regions. Individual fault elements in the Mexico mega-shear extend outward into the Pacific Basin, where they link with the Pacific oceanic fracture system between 18°N and 42°N. A similar, even more dramatic connection is achieved when the Mexico mega-shear system is extended to the east-southeast, where it links, structural element for structural element, with the central Atlantic fracture system between the equator and a latitude of 18°N (Figure 2). In both the Pacific and Atlantic ocean basins, the oceanic ridge system displays an apparent left offset of some 3500 km, in accord with the offset on the Mexico mega-shear system.”
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?34
These two passages explicitly state there is a continuous, connected, and consistent structure of lineaments/transform faults running all the way from well out in the Pacific Ocean through the continent out into the Atlantic Ocean. The structure is remarkable for maintaining the pattern even through the continents.
This is consistent with Expanding Earth theory and a contradiction to the so-called “subduction” model, which would suggest there is a distinct break between oceanic and continental plates — no wonder you were so quick to trash the paper — I do give you credit for reading the paper and understanding why it is a threat to your world-view.
It must be very uncomfortable to think a basic model you were taught was false — you’ve been looking at shadows on the cave wall for years — if you could relax just for a second and follow the evidence, you might get a chance to see the sun light.
I hope you do see the sun light, but you have to keep an open-mind — not convince yourself there is nothing new for you to learn — new ideas about the physical reality of our world are not a threat — it is a possibility for enlightenment and to see the world as it really is — that is the greatest gift of all.
Antonio San, thanks for mentioning “focal mechanisms”.
Here is a passage from an explanation:
“The trouble is that there are two solutions to the diagram, two planes along which earthquake motions could yield the same seismographic results. One is the real fault plane, therefore the other, called the auxiliary plane, has no physical meaning. Seismographic evidence alone isn’t enough to choose the right one. That’s why in (B) there are two different slip diagrams shown for each focal mechanism. Usually there are enough clues in the local geology or aftershock patterns to pick the right solution.” (See link below for focal mechanisms:)
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blbeachball.htm
In other words, a focal mechanism is no guarantee that an earthquake will tell you what motions or directions the rock takes — I suspect the deeper the epicenter of the quake, the harder to interpret the movement of the faults, or determine what is happening.
Remember, the gravest sin to commit for a scientist is to ignore evidence — and, yes, I know it’s hard when that evidence contradicts long held views, but the obligation of a scientist is to consider the evidence in good-faith, even when that evidence contradicts and may even falsify long-held views. Actually, that is the true test of a scientist, not when evidence agrees with long-held views, but when it doesn’t.
Enneagram (12:53:11): Thanks for the evidence, your suggestion is good. There is evidence that substantial heating of ocean waters are effected by the mid-ocean Pacific Rise where continuous and substantial volcanic activity is taking place. It seems worthy for more investigation, obviously if that has validity, and the latest El Nino can be identified as a result of volcanic action it would be another dagger in the heart of AGW.
Video illuminating a possible connection between Eyjafjallajökull and Katla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENbABd306Nw
Hank Henry
If newton knew what we know, he would admit that the equations are inadequate
Jeff L writes sense.
Jeef
(yes, I’m another geologist)
Antonio San (15:27:19) wrote:
“Hydrothermal DOLOMITES!!! That’s the reservoir and it has nothing to do with abiotic oil pal!
Inform yourself before BSing!
Keep believing in this and please let us know when you’ll make your first trillion dollar…”
Antonio San, if it wasn’t clear from Keith’s paper, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons, which I linked above, that he was referring to a chemical reaction process where the dolomite was one of the chemical reactants, or catalysts — you do understand chemistry don’t you — Go back and read it — it’s explicit — Keith is describing an abiotic process. But if you refuse to understand English, then I’ll present another of Keith’s papers which will make it even more clear and unambiguous.
Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons, by Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan.
“Hydrocarbon origin theories have focused on: 1) generation of gas and crude oil via burial diagenesis of biogenic, organic-rich sedimentary rocks, and 2) abiogenic hydrocarbon generation in the mantle. We suggest a third possibility–the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids. These fluids are proposed to be the product of serpentinization of carbon-rich peridotites under hydrogen-rich, reduced conditions.”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
Antonio San, please note that Keith specifically distinguishes between the so-called “fossil” theory of oil formation, “generation of gas and crude oil via burial diagenesis of biogenic, organic-rich sedimentary rocks”, and the abiotic process Keith describes as, “We suggest a third possibility–the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids.”
Read the entire abstract, it is quite clear that Keith is describing a chemical reaction process. If you can’t comprehend that Keith is describing a chemical reaction process then I question your ability to comprehend English. Now, I know you do read & comprehend English well.
So, I can only conclude when confronted with facts and evidence not to your liking, you either can’t admit it to yourself, a form of cognitive dissonance, or your ego refuses to acknowledge the facts to somebody in opposition to your world-view.
Here’s the problem for you: Other readers can read the abstract or both abstracts for that matter and see that Keith is describing a chemical reaction process, Keith considers hydrocarbons a mineral resulting from a combination of precursor minerals and catalysts, dolomite happens to be one of those reactant minerals.
When you can’t admit the patently obvious, then it also becomes clear you can’t objectively consider other evidence that threatens your world-view.
Your ability to act as a scientist is in question by other readers.
Is that what you want readers to think when they see your handle, here on this website?
You can do better than that.
I’ll provide the previous Keith paper, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons, (of course the second is linked above) so both you and other readers can consider the evidence and reach their conclusions. I can’t say I’m surprised, geologists can be obdurate when faced with this evidence — even though it is undisputable. No wonder they can’t objectively consider evidence for Expanding Earth Theory, they won’t even admit to things spelled out in simple English, much less complicated physical evidence.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs
I apologize for the failed link at the bottom of my last comment (hopefully this will properly link), Keith paper, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons :
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/keith.htm
Hank Henry
Newton would recognize that the meaning of time is dynamic
Anu (10:09:53) :
“I merely gave a counterexample of an even smaller ppm molecule having a large effect on a system.”
As did I, Anu, as did I. I think what bothers you is that I cited an example that demonstrates several quantifiable benefits bestowed by elevated CO2. Nowhere did I challenge your pantheon of authority. For my optimism you disparage my Alma Mater. I merely question the models when they are falsified by real world data.
As to cosmology and for that matter geology, I see by the lively debate on these pages that there are some disagreements that arise because they can not be tested by controlled double blind experiment. Since we wander far off topic I can’t pass this up:
The Lithosphere Rocks, the Atmosphere Sucks, The Hydrosphere Waves, and the Biosphere Rolls with the punches. Nobody gets out of here alive so I intend to enjoy the ride.
A humble and perhaps a naive question: Do you know how to pronounce:
Eyjafjallajökull?
The one who named it had a piece of hot lava in his mouth for sure.
Funny how you keep moving the goal posts: you take a quote and when it’s refuted you find another one… You twist facts and none of them suggest any confirmation of your pet theory of expanding Earth.
“Serpentinization is common on the ocean floor along fracture zones (Lost City), beneath conventional petroleum in rifts due to sedimentary burial (Gulf of Mexico) or thrust loading (Roan Trough), and at the top of flat subducting oceanic crust (Eocene beneath UT, CO, WY).”
Rifts, subducting oceanic crust… And you trust this guy!!! LOL
“A global network of transform faults apparently links ocean basin to ocean basin through the continents. The continents may not be tectonically inert, rigid blocks: rather, they are active, kinematic participants of the oceanic spreading process.”
Woaw and that mambo-jambo is supposed to prove anything?
“This is consistent with Expanding Earth theory and a contradiction to the so-called “subduction” model, which would suggest there is a distinct break between oceanic and continental plates”
Once again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of plate tectonics: take the African plate, it’s composed of oceanic lithosphere (east Atlantic) and continental lithosphere (continental Africa). Your vision of plate tectonics is some caricature of Wegener continental drift circa 1913 when you were a teenager pressing pimples.
“In other words, a focal mechanism is no guarantee that an earthquake will tell you what motions or directions the rock takes — I suspect the deeper the epicenter of the quake, the harder to interpret the movement of the faults, or determine what is happening.”
One quake… how about recurrent seismicity? Oh and that final gem “the deeper the epicenter of quake”… listen, epicenter by definition is the surface position of the hypocenter, the real location of the quake. But hey, ya speak anglese very good hey!
Ciao, and again tell us when YOU’ve made millions, soon! Yesterday!
Eyjafjallajökull?
jökull means glacier in Icelandic so it’s not that hard to pronounce.
Antonio San (19:36:12) wrote: “Funny how you keep moving the goal posts: you take a quote and when it’s refuted you find another one… You twist facts and none of them suggest any confirmation of your pet theory of expanding Earth.”
What quotes were refuted? Please be specific.
What facts did I twist? Please be specific.
Antonio San, You’re pitching woo, instead, you need to look in the mirror.
Antonio San sets out a quote from a link Evans presented:
“Serpentinization is common on the ocean floor along fracture zones (Lost City), beneath conventional petroleum in rifts due to sedimentary burial (Gulf of Mexico) or thrust loading (Roan Trough), and at the top of flat subducting oceanic crust (Eocene beneath UT, CO, WY).”
And then Antonio San goes on to comment: “Rifts, subducting oceanic crust… And you trust this guy!!! LOL”
When Keith, a geologist, is authoring a paper that asserts significant commercial quantities of Abiotic Oil, I wouldn’t expect him to address anything other than the Abiotic Oil question. So, no, it doesn’t bother me that he mentions “subduction” in passing.
By the way, “rifts” are not incompatible with expanding Earth at all. What are rifts? They are where two tectonic plates are pulling away from each other. Which would figure to happen on an Earth that is expanding.
Antonio San quotes Keith from the “Cracks of the World” paper Evans presented:
“A global network of transform faults apparently links ocean basin to ocean basin through the continents. The continents may not be tectonically inert, rigid blocks: rather, they are active, kinematic participants of the oceanic spreading process.”
And, then Antonio San responded: “Woaw and that mambo-jambo is supposed to prove anything?”
Well, there you go, Antonio San: You criticize Keith a geologist with over 30 years experience. I understand what Keith is saying because I read the whole paper as opposed to taking a quote out of context and I have background knowledge. By the way, where did you get your geology qualifications? Out of a Cracker Jack’s box?
Antonio San (15:27:19) wrote:
“Hydrothermal DOLOMITES!!! That’s the reservoir and it has nothing to do with abiotic oil pal!
Inform yourself before BSing!
Keep believing in this and please let us know when you’ll make your first trillion dollar…”
I see you have read the Keith abstracts I provided a link to, still, apparently, you can’t bring yourself to make a direct acknowledgement that you were wrong and I was right that Keith was referring to Abiotic Oil.
I’d say your comment looks pretty foolish — in the harsh light of reality.
Oh, well, it’s pretty obvious, since you shut your mouth in that regard. So bound-up are you in your dogmatic attitude that you couldn’t comprehend plain English or thought you could bluff your way through it — that’s a good course of conduct for someone who holds himself out as a geologist — way to represent your fellow geologists — you make them look good. LOL.
As I stated above in this thread, my point wasn’t to convince anybody, here, on the spot of Expandig Earth Theory, but to present contradicting evidence to the so-called “subduction” model and leave it in the hands of the readers to investigate on their own as they see fit.
Catching you, Antonio San, in your contortions and foolish statements regarding Keith’s papers, and the fact that he is the head researcher at an oil industry-supported consortium, was an added bonus — arrogant people like you — they’re like shooting fish in a barrel.
The attitude you displayed, here, on this thread, particularly in your last several comments doesn’t make you or other geologists look good:
Actually, it reinforces this impression below:
“Lowman (1992a) argued that geology has largely become “a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts … used as confidently as trigonometric functions” (p. 3). Lyttleton and Bondi (1992) held that the difficulties facing plate tectonics and the lack of study of alternative explanations for seemingly supportive evidence reduced the plausibility of the theory.” — Pratt 2000
Geologists aren’t used to having their ideas challenged. You came off looking petulant and kind of brittle.
Antonio San, how you handled yourself made my job easier — next time, maybe you’ll remember that.
Time out..
Let’s change the mass load of the planet.
The Harvard abstract above states S. hemis. extensional and N. hemis compressional. We’ve all looked at maps and weather satellites and nod yes.
Now add a glacier to the land mass etc in both hemis. Then slowly melt it over an extended period of time let’s say 20,000 years or so. Tectonics are in a perpetual state of change over longer periods. There some that say the planet is currently pear shaped but this would not of been the case then.
Wish I had a time lapse of plate tectonics just watching the changes from mass loading. With respect to extensional and compressional changes in the earths plates.
For a bizzaro moment, picture mass loading, axis tilt, extended orbit and going to a gravitational war with Mars. Mars the god of war, go figure.
Antonio San (19:36:12) : How much water was there in the earth in the past and how much is there in the present, has it increased or decreased? I would like to know. Thanks.
Antonio San (20:20:25) So is it pronounced JEKYLL as Dr.Jekyll and Mr Hyde?. Obviously it means Jö-COOL, the je cool. Is it so?
Funny NO mention of the “deeper epicenter”… LOL
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=359883
Ennegram, the answer is here http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_13.htm
except how to cure the common cold… but no doubt it’ll come soon.
“Earth’s rate of expansion over just the past ~200 Ma indicates that not very long ago (in terms of geologic time) Earth was the same size as Mars is today, so it may not take much longer to reach the same size as Neptune is today, especially if the rate of increase is accelerating. Today’s alarm bells are ringing in response to the growing scientific evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising. Global warming is an early warning signal that Mankind’s continued existence on Earth is in jeopardy.”
Re-pent-now!
Carla (06:45:00) :
“Time out..
Let’s change the mass load of the planet.
The Harvard abstract above states S. hemis. extensional and N. hemis compressional. We’ve all looked at maps and weather satellites and nod yes.”
Here is an extended response that addresses your point:
“Ironically, NGS geodetic sites routinely experience sudden and unexpected jumps in elevation that are usually attributed to earthquakes, or to “elastic rebound” or “glacial uplift” of the continent resulting from melting glaciers. The author’s belief is that such sudden increases in elevation result from global expansion and are being misinterpreted because the NGS assumes the planet’s diameter remains constant and therefore does not consider any alternative explanation. This presumption could be an unsuspected major flaw in NGS operations.
An NGS review of these elevation data with a different basic assumption could be an important factor in settling the issue of Earth’s diameter. The NGS may already possess enough data in its database to confirm expansion of the Earth. The fact that ellipsoid elevations and horizontal coordinates constantly change, especially if the changes are unidirectional and cumulative, should alert some inquisitive mind that some unexpected factor, such as expansion, may be affecting their geodetic measurements.
Few people know that the Good Friday earthquake in Alaska on March 27, 1964, raised the elevation of Montague Island, Alaska, by ~30 feet, and elevated by several feet other locations on the North American continent as far away as Washington, DC, and Mexico [Joseph Wraight, 1966, Chief Geographer of the U.S.]. Such large-scale elevations are exactly what one would expect as a result of expansion of the planet and change in Earth’s radius and surface curvature.
Earthquakes are not a primary force—they are merely secondary effects of planetary expansion; i.e., readjustments in radius and flattening curvature of Earth’s crust in response to competing demands of the forces of gravity and internal core expansion. Until scientists understand this principle underlying all earth movements, all efforts to predict or determine the causes of earthquakes are doomed to failure.” (See link below:)
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm
But there is reason to question the accuracy and methodology of the Harvard abstract provided by Jeff L:
“Scientists generally rely on VLBI measurements [the Harvard abstract relies at least partly on VLBI] by NASA to show that Asia, Australia, and North America are ostensibly moving towards each other to reduce the width of the Pacific Ocean basin—which MUST DECREASE if Earth’s diameter is fixed and subduction is actually occurring.”
“But these VLBI measurements—velocity and directional measurements that APPEAR to be reliable—are misleading. They do not accurately reflect the realities of relative plate motions resulting from new seafloor growth at the midocean ridges around the planet.”
Now, is the above a complete answer or refutation of the VLBI calculations?
No, it is not, but there is reason for further scientific investigation.
Here is at least one approach:
“The simplest solution would be direct trans-Pacific measurements of the changing distances between fixed points on each of the five Pacific continents and Alaska. (Use of satellite measurements (VLBI, LAGEO, GPS) should be avoided because the global grid system of latitude and longitude has itself changed by increased distances between parallels and meridions.)” — Lawrence S. Myers
Now, I’m open to suggestions for the best techniques for empirical observation & measurement that can shed light on this question — but putting your head in the sand ostrich style — to ignore scientific evidence for an expanding Earth is antithetical to good science.
What are people like Jeff L or Antonio San afraid of? That their world-view will be irreprably falsified?
Given their hostile reaction to the subject one could easily conclude that is exactly the reason.
“Second, based on this fundamental philosophy of a constant diameter, scientists ASSUMED that some unknown mechanism must somehow be removing an amount of older seafloor equal to the newly-discovered creation of new oceanic seafloor along the Atlantic’s midocean ridge, otherwise, they would have been forced to conclude the Earth must be expanding. Expansion WAS briefly considered, but discarded because of their belief that Earth’s diameter is fixed and unchanging. On page 284 of Menard’s “The Ocean of Truth” (Princeton University Press, 1986) is the statement “Neither of us believed for a moment in an expanding earth, so we were left with a puzzle.” — Lawrence S. Myers
Assumptions are the ruin of Science.
A few intrepid scientists, while acknowledging the short-term global cooling effect of significant volcanic events, argue that global warming is largely a product of increased SO2, and that CO2 has little, if any, meaningful impact. Of course they are properly chastised for such arrogant hyperbole. Imagine, though, how easy it is to reduce sulphur emissions as opposed to carbon emissions. If this becomes a globally significant volcanic event, it will be interesting to see what impact the increased SO2 load has on climate three, four years down the road.
For my part, not being much of a scientist, I find sulphur a far more likely candidate for that which we so quickly blame carbon. Certainly the Greenland Ice bears witness to the relationship between historic global warming and major volcanism.
Today only, TWO proofs that subduction does not exist:
1) “Discovery of a type unknown hominid
This hominid lived there some 40,000 years in Siberia
It was found through a bit of DNA found in a bone fragment, indicates a study published Wednesday in Nature.
The hominid had lived at the same time that men of Neanderthal and modern humans. A phalanx of bone was found in 2008 in a cave of Mount Altai.”
Homo Expandicus finally located!
2) “A freight train without driving and driver finished his mad dash in the Oslo Fjord Wednesday
The convoy of 16 empty cars was set in motion for an unknown reason in a commercial area. After having rolled down a hill several kilometers and hit an industrial warehouse, the train broke apart in water.”
Is there any doubt the unknown reason is linked with “Such large-scale elevations are exactly what one would expect as a result of expansion of the planet and change in Earth’s radius and surface curvature.”???
Indeed, I am afraid now. Yesterday we discovered “deeper epicenters”, today these two disturbing news so What will tomorrow bring?
Antonio San (12:37:05):
It’s too bad, that when confronted with scientific evidence Antonio San lapses into non-sensical jibberish — yes, that’s what a supposedly, scientifically trained intellect is reduced to — I can only hope all geologists aren’t as childish as that.
When Antonio San looks into the mirror he sees the reflection of an AGW proponent — but he doesn’t care — it’s telling in more ways than one.
Unfortunately, the sickness in the scientific community isn’t limited to climate scientists — although, their sickness is the most publically known, however, it has opened up a window onto the problems in other scientific disciplines — not the laboratory sciences — but the field sciences like geology and astronomy where assumptions from more primitive times still ride roughshod over the minds of men.
Antonio San’s (09:41:31) comment was interesting because he linked to Lawrence S. Myers expanding earth website and presented a quote, presumably he read the section to draw the quote (I credit him for that), but, sadly, only in a weak attempt at ridicule — that’s what he’s been reduced to.
Interestingly, that section, The hydrosphere, has discussion which is directly on point for this post concerning the Icelandic volcanic eruptions:
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_13.htm
How so, might an intellectually curious reader ask?
Remember, Iceland is an above sea-level expression of the mid-Atlantic spreading ridge, the only oceanic spreading ridge directly exposed to the atmosphere in the world. And the video linked in the post showed an extended volcanic vent with a curtain of erupting lava the length of the vent.
Well, the most active volcanics in the world are along the East Pacific Rise, a mid-ocean spreading ridge in the eastern Pacific Ocean, a Pacific Ocean equivalent to Iceland, but, of course, below sea-level.
Here is an extended passage from the section Antonio San linked in his poor attempt at ridicule:
“…the world’s meteorologists, marine scientists and volcanologists should investigate the heat flux emanating from these worldwide midocean ridges to determine whether the flux is the primary factor in global warming, just another contributory factor, or of little consequence. Unknown to most people, the most active volcanism on the planet is concentrated in a short section of the midocean ridge just south of the equator along the East Pacific Rise (EPR)–and directly below the area where El Niños spawn in heated surface waters. Is this mere coincidence, or cause and effect?
Formation of new basaltic ocean seafloor along this short hyperactive stretch of the EPR has been measured at ~15-16 cm/yr, four times the growth rate along other sections of the EPR or the worldwide LUV system. The total volcanic heat flux from this source is undoubtedly massive, but it is not known whether the rate and total volume of heat has ever been calculated for the entire Earth.”
Should this be scientfically investigated?
I should think so. And if born-out and validated, it would go a long way to explaining SST (sea surface temperatures) increases in that area of the Pacific Ocean ( El Niños?) and possibly other areas of increased SST — totally independent from any claims of increased CO2 — a dagger in the heart of AGW.
I would think Antonio San would have been able to grasp that idea, but he seems so blinded by his bias & prejudice that it either didn’t occur to him, he was too intent on his attempted ridicule, or he just couldn’t bring himself to give credit to an author and website devoted to Expanding Earth Theory.
Such a pity that scientific understanding can be so retarded by Man’s emotional attachment to his belief systems.
(I hold out hope against hope that he brought out the link thinking perhaps one of the Expanding Earth proponents would do it for him — it is best that we hope for the best in our fellow-man — even when there is scant evidence to think so.)
“When Antonio San looks into the mirror he sees the reflection of an AGW proponent — but he doesn’t care — it’s telling in more ways than one.”
Yet the following warmist BS comes from expandingearth…
“Today’s alarm bells are ringing in response to the growing scientific evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising. Global warming is an early warning signal that Mankind’s continued existence on Earth is in jeopardy.”
In conclusion, it’s the first time I am characterized as an AGW proponent and it had to be by a humorless earth expansionist: isn’t life wonderful? LOL
James goes on: ” And if born-out and validated, it would go a long way to explaining SST (sea surface temperatures) increases in that area of the Pacific Ocean ( El Niños?) and possibly other areas of increased SST — totally independent from any claims of increased CO2 — a dagger in the heart of AGW.”
Here is the SST map:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA12962_modest.jpg
Here is the direction of the East Pacific Ridge:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/bake1538/images/fig08.jpg
Indeed, baring a 90 degrees rotation, the trends are perfectly aligned… LOL
Antonio San – there is no arguing with the deluded. They’ll lead you round in circles with their shifting sands arguments. You disproved everything with your first posts, no need to repeat.
I’m still chuckling at the leaky capacitor idea.
Don’t they use the “dead man’s switch” on their locos?
(It’s a spring-loaded throttle, or flap on the throttle, that must be depressed or the throttle will close.)
Antonio San (16:06:59) presents Evans’ (14:23:30) comment: “When Antonio San looks into the mirror he sees the reflection of an AGW proponent — but he doesn’t care — it’s telling in more ways than one.”
Obviously, Antonio San doesn’t like that characterization.
San, it’s your attitude towards evidence derived from observation & measurement that I have a problem with.
It’s your refusal to discuss in good-faith evidence presented to you.
For example, the scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Oil.
Rather than discuss the evidence in good-faith in a collegial fashion, you attempted to ridicule the evidence.
A grown-up adult in a discussion would acknowledge the evidence and apologize for the attempted smears and distortions.
Now, I’ll give you another chance to engage in a responsible & professional fashion.
To refresh your memory:
Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons, by Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/keith.htm
Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons, by Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
A refresher: Keith & Swan distinguish the chemical & mineral process for Abiotic Oil formation from the supposed “fossil” formation hypothesis.
And a reminder: Keith & Swan are geologists each with over 30 years experience apiece. Keith heads an oil industry-supported consortium, Sonoita Geoscience Research, which applies hydrothermal and economic geological theory and techniques to petroleum exploration.
Keith describes the “Cracks of the World: Global Strike-Slip Fault Systems and Giant Resource Accumulations”, in a 2003 presenation & paper to the Houston Geological Society:
“Evidence is mounting that the Earth is encircled by subtle necklaces of interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults. Many major mineral and energy resource accumulations are located within or near the deeply penetrating fractures of these “cracks of the world.” Future exploration for large petroleum occurrences should emphasize the definition, regional distribution, and specific characteristics of the global crack system.”
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?34
And, in January 2010 Offshore magazine, an oil & gas trade publication had an article, “Imaging challenges in deepwater US/Mexico border zone”, that discussed these same “cracks of the world”:
“The work confirmed that basement structure is dominated by NW-SE and NE-SW trending lineaments/faults. Deep allochthonous salt mobilization is controlled by many of these features.”
“•Construction of the final integrated basement using elements of seismic acoustic basement and magnetic basement
•2D gravity and magnetic modeling constrained with input from mapped seismic horizons, crustal thickness information, density/velocity data, and allochthonous salt distribution”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/0314992580/articles/offshore/volume-70/issue-1/geology-__geophysics/imaging-challenges.html
Oh, yes, let’s not forget Antonio San’s reaction to this documented facts and evidence:
Antonio San (15:27:19) :
“Hydrothermal DOLOMITES!!! That’s the reservoir and it has nothing to do with abiotic oil pal!
Inform yourself before BSing!
Keep believing in this and please let us know when you’ll make your first trillion dollar…”
Perhaps, now, Antonio San will understand the basis of my comment:
Evans: “When Antonio San looks into the mirror he sees the reflection of an AGW proponent — but he doesn’t care — it’s telling in more ways than one.”
Now, here is your opportunity to prove me wrong and discuss this like a professional geologist — or — you can prove my point once and for all.
It’s your choice.
James F. Evans (09:27:42) :I got a diagram of the displacement after the 2007 8 degrees Richter Pisco earthquake:
http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html
There was a westward displacement of 2.5 meters, very similar to the displacement at Concepcion (3.0 meters)…nos both are even ☺ (as you know both belong to the same Nazca plate).
Here’s Lawrence S. Myers, expanding-earth, statement on global warming:
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_13.htm
Chapter: The Hydrosphere
Section: Midocean Ridges a source of Global Warming?
“…there is no consensus as to what causes global warming.”
The second to last concluding full paragraph for Chapter, The Hydrosphere; Section, Midocean Ridges a source of Global Warming? for proper context of the above statement:
“Possibly enhanced by the El Niño effect, global warming and its effects on the planet took center stage in 1997, 1998, and 1999 as worldwide reports of unusually severe hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, heavy rains, disastrous floods and heat waves captured media attention. Automobile and factory emissions, ozone depletion and greenhouse effects of a polluted atmosphere, plus other potential causative factors, have been studied extensively but there is no consensus as to what causes global warming.”
Antonio San Antonio (16:06:59), please provide a citation to the quote you attributed to Mr. Myers, so that I can verify & inspect the context of the statement to determine if, “…the following warmist BS comes from expandingearth…”, to put it in your words.
I’ve looked over the expandingearth website and can’t locate the quote.
Your help would be appreciated.
Well, well, well, I missed that statement, but now I have found it, my apologies.
Here is the statement Antonio San quotes from Myers, final chapter: Ultimate Conclusions: “Today’s alarm bells are ringing in response to the growing scientific evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising. Global warming is an early warning signal that Mankind’s continued existence on Earth is in jeopardy.”
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_14.htm
To put the quote in proper context, here is the preceeding two paragraphs and the full paragraph the quoted statment is embedded in:
“ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
From the evidence presented in this web site it should be immediately apparent that the Earth is expanding. One thing is certain from the evidence—the world we know today is destined to be a much different world in the future. Therefore, current conceptions of the planet and its internal and external processes must be reexamined and reevaluated.
My firm and unshakeable conclusion is that the Earth is not only increasing in mass, diameter, circumference, total surface area, water volume and atmospheric density, but the rate of increase is accelerating and will continue to accelerate into the future to endangerment of the human race.
Earth’s rate of expansion over just the past ~200 Ma indicates that not very long ago (in terms of geologic time) Earth was the same size as Mars is today, so it may not take much longer to reach the same size as Neptune is today, especially if the rate of increase is accelerating. Today’s alarm bells are ringing in response to the growing scientific evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising. Global warming is an early warning signal that Mankind’s continued existence on Earth is in jeopardy.”
It seems clear Myers is refering to geologic time as he uses that term, itself prior in the passage, “in terms of geologic time”, so Myers doesn’t know when or what would hapen in the future, and I would agree that “jepardy” is an inappropriate term for a concluding Chapter.
However, one statement doesn’t make a book, it’s the evidence, the observations & measurements, and the facts the book brings to the discussion and the reasoning applied to those facts & evidence which determine the value and weight to be given the presentation.
Enneagram (12:15:58) :
James F. Evans (09:27:42) :I got a diagram of the displacement after the 2007 8 degrees Richter Pisco earthquake:
http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html
There was a westward displacement of 2.5 meters, very similar to the displacement at Concepcion (3.0 meters)…nos both are even ☺ (as you know both belong to the same Nazca plate).
Thank you, Enneagram, the enlarged schematic is interesting, the caption reads: “Three-dimensional deformation following the 2007 Pisco, Peru earthquake. The red areas show ~1m of uplift offshore and the blues areas about 50 cm of subsidence on land. The hinge-line between uplift and subsidence closely matches the location of the coastline. Credit: UM Rosenstiel School”
Enlargement provides excellent resolution.
The lateral motion offshore 2.5 meters, and the 1 meter rise offshore and the 50 centimeter subsidence onshore with the hinge-line straddling the coast line gives a profile suggestive of rock emerging from under the continent or rising up close against it, which when it rises causes the land to sag or subside.
This description contradicts the model of subduction which would suggest “diving” oceanic crust under the continent, leading to subsidence offshore and uplift onshore as the oceanic crust pushes under the continent, with volcanoes giving expression to this uplift pressure underlying the continent.
The lateral movement away from the shoreline, 2.5 meters, is also significant as this contradicts the idea that the “diving” slab exercises lateral motion towards the coast line as it dives at an inclined angle “under” the continent.
Such is not the case.
Rise and subsidence and lateral motion are prime indicators of direction and angle of motion.
These indicators fail to act in accord with the so-called “subduction” model.
The motions are consistent with an expanding earth model.
Enneagram,
Great find.
That schematic is really something. Color collated for vertical motion and arrows tilted to show lateral motion. This is a high resolution presentation providing an excellent image of the relative motions as a result of the Earthquake.
http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html
James F. Evans
“Enlargement provides excellent resolution.”
AND
“… suggestive of rock emerging from under the continent or rising up close against it, which when it rises causes the land to sag or subside.”
Are you sure you’re on the right site?
In Surprise, Major Earthquake Fault Slips Backward
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 02 August 2007 03:15 pm ET
A vast chunk of Earth sliding under Mexico has surprisingly reversed direction, puzzling geologists and leaving them wondering whether the ground might be poised to pummel Mexico City with a devastating earthquake. .
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070802_fault_backward.html
This was and still is an interesting aspect of plate tectonics. Rock’n and Roll’n back and forth. hmm
Guess the point is how do you separate the natural shake of time from the expansion and contraction debate? Without a historical glacial size measurement of the planet how can you separate the obvious scars of geological time, like those of rotational (extensional, compressional) and glacial mass loading, with its subsequent melt, lift, scar?
Happy Friday, bizarro thought for the day. Earth’s magnetic field is somehow dancing along with weather and tectonics, just haven’t found their beat, yet.
“The Beat Goes On,” Sonny & Cher
Just an up down example of some loading and mass unloading.
I live on river that runs SOUTH to north inside the Gr. Lakes Basin. The Fox river orignates at Portage under a half mile from the Wisconsin river, which carries out to the Mississip etc., Yet at this geologic time the two rivers no longer connect and the cork rose up and the river now flows south to north. The mass load of the glacier no longer pushing the cork down and letting the Fox flow to sea. Led Zepplin “Ramble On.”
Antonio San (21:52:56) :
Upon reading the phys.org report and my analysis & interpretation, San was led to remark: “Are you sure you’re on the right site?”
Of course, his remark was rhetorical, but even the scientists who reported the observations & measurements noted the contradiction to the so-called “subduction” model:
“The convergence of the Nazca and the South American plates is slowly building the Andes, but the relationship between great earthquakes and mountain building processes is still unclear.” — Rosenstiel School Postdoctoral Fellow and Principal Investigator Dr. Juliet Biggs
Look at what Dr. Biggs said. First, she gives homage and genuflection to the “subduction” standard model (implicitly pledging allegiance), but then admits the physical relationship between earthquakes and mountain building processes is still unclear.
Why is it unclear?
The reason becomes evident in the next paragraph of the report:
The money quote:
“Intriguingly, models developed as a result of this event in 2007 demonstrated no upper lifting of the region after this major earthquake. Long-term uplift of the upper plate must either occur aseismically or as ‘slow earthquakes’ during the interseismic or postseismic part of the earthquake cycle.”
http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html
“…demonstrated no upper lifting of the region after this major earthquate.”
You see, the standard “subduction” model would predict that there should be uplift as the tectonic plate “dives” under the continent as a result of the earthquake much as I stated above (16:09:43).
The most the scientists will do to acknowledge this primary falsification of the “subduction” model is make the notation, “Intriguingly”.
The second half of the paragraph is even more noteworthy:
“Long-term uplift of the upper plate must either occur aseismically or as ‘slow earthquakes’ during the interseismic or postseismic part of the earthquake cycle.”
Here, the scientists acknowledge “uplift” must happen to be in conformance with the “subduction” model. Then the scientist engages in some speculations about how that necessary “uplift” (necessary to the “subduction” model, that is) could happen, “aseismically”, “slow earthquakes”, or “postseismic”.
Essentially, casting about for a reason, any reason at all, except the one reason staring them in the face: The model is false.
Why the inability to consider the model false — because of ‘group think’ and if the model is false that means only one thing — The Earth is Expanding — and that conclusion is verboten, toboo, beyond the pale.
As previously discussed in this thread, the recent Chile earthquake was more powerful, moving the city at the epicenter 10 feet west or slightly over 3 meters (an objector rationalized this movement to be a kind of elastic rebound):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132043.htm
Enlarge the map on the right-hand side of the article.
Possible avenue of scientific investigation: Considering the pattern reported of the 2007 Peruvian earthquake where offshore uplift and onshore subsidence with a hinge-line straddling the coast line occured, see if similar measurements of the recent Chile earthquake show offshore uplift and onshore subsidence can be observed with a hing-line straddling the Chilean coast line.
(It should be noted there already is similarity that can be noted between the two quakes: Lateral movement toward the West South West.)
Should the pattern between the Peruvian earthquake and the Chilean quake match with uplift offshore and subsidence onshore, the “subduction” model would be called into serious question.
Carla, I appreciate your following this thread — but it would seem that glacial rebound can’t explain all the observations & measurements of rising elevations because many of those uplifts have been recorded where there is no history of glaciers ever being present.
Carla, thank you for the link to the, “In Surprise, Major Earthquake Fault Slips Backward” it’s a major contribution to the discussion:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070802_fault_backward.html
The lead-off from the livescience article:
“A vast chunk of Earth sliding under Mexico has surprisingly reversed direction, puzzling geologists…”
And a note that this is not unprecedented: “Meantime, the reversal of the fault is itself an important discovery. Similar reversals have been noted at other subduction zones, such as the highly active Cascadia region off the coast of Washington and Oregon. But this is the largest such backward event so far detected.”
“The recognition of these transient events where the plate reverses direction is arguably the most important geophysical discovery that has stemmed from the introduction of GPS measurements.”
A mass of rock with tremendous inertial energy, abruptly changes direction???
No, not likely, but still possible if a different mechanism is identified for causing the Earth’s motions (the “subduction” model simply doesn’t account for this observation & measurement.)
This is another falsification of the “subduction” model.
Sadly, the scientists are so blinded with their devotion to the “subduction” model and their unquestioning acceptance of same, that they can’t see what is staring them in the face: The “subduction” model has been irrepably falsified by observation & measurement that directly contradicts the model.
And what about that 1 inch motion of the plate, “The offshore tectonic plate had been sliding toward Mexico City at a rate of 1 inch per year, as recorded by Global Positioning System measuring stations near Acapulco and Guerrero…”
While these measurements could come into question for their accuracy, there is another possibility that might account for this reversal of movement: In the course of the Earth expanding radially from its center, bodies of rock (the tectonic plates) can move laterally in different directions depending on where the greater force is emanating from (likely this expanding pressure is uneven).
Carla, come into the Expanding Earth water, it’s warm and feels good, come into direct sunlight, the shadows on the cave wall are dim and stifling.
You seem like a girl that likes the sunshine on her face and the wind in her hair — not the smoky, dim light, and stifling shadows that dominate the cave 🙂
Plato’s analogy is from long ago, but he had a keen insight into human nature — it’s still true today as we see in the AGW debate, and Plato’s insight holds true in geology — Abiotic Oil: Can’t let the possibility cross thy lips. Same for an expanding earth, even if that requires remaining in the cave with its framiliar shadows.
Another anomaly: (BBC) July 22, 2009 — Quake moves NZ towards Australia:
“…it was New Zealand’s biggest earthquake in 78 years…”
“While the south-west of the South Island moved about 30cm towards Australia, the east coast moved only one centimetre westwards, Dr Gledhill said.”Basically, New Zealand just got a little bit bigger is another way to think about it,” he told AFP news agency.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162628.stm
According to the “subduction” model New Zealand should move towards the East, but the July 2009 earthquake contradicted that by New Zealand getting “bigger” and moving 30 cm towards the Australia.
Could it be another example of an expanding Earth?
(Interesting note: New Zealand is an island chain that sits above where the Indo-Australian tectonic plate comes into contact with the Pacific plate. Earlier in this thread I stated that Iceland is the only mid-ocean spreading ridge exposed to the atmosphere above sea level, but a solid argument can be made that New Zealand is also an example of an expression of a mid-ocean spreading ridge above sea level, although, it would seem much older and, therefore, has been exposed to atmospheric erosion much longer. Side note: Producing offshore oil & gas wells are present on the underwater slopes of a New Zealand island volcano.)
Shiveluch has puffed again.
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14948671&PageNum=0
I’ve read Leif at sc24.com that sunspots reported during the Maunder were big spots. Even if cycle 24 turns out small, we could still get really large spots without the interference from other spots if solar activity remains low.
James F. Evans (10:19:00) :
..glacial rebound can’t explain all the observations & measurements of rising elevations ..
Carla, come into the Expanding Earth water, it’s warm and feels good, come into direct sunlight, the shadows on the cave wall are dim and stifling.
You seem like a girl that likes the sunshine on her face and the wind in her hair — not the smoky, dim light, and stifling shadows that dominate the cave 🙂
~
James, I understand that glacial rebound doesn’t explain all. But I do think that we yet don’t completely understand all that glacial rebound means to the expansion, contraction debate.
A five year of Canadian quakes including the St Lawerence R. and Niagara Escarpment. Since I am on the western side of the Escarpment cork it is interesting to me.
http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/maps-cartes/index-eng.php?maptype=5y&tpl_region=canada
I am going to sit on the fence and watch the expanding and contraction debate.
There is something in the “TIME” elements used in the debate that I find troubling. Within in the time constraints I am seeing an expansion and contraction that is occurring without an overall expansion, like the Earth getting bigger scenario. Then on the other hand I do see an accretion ah of sorts that is occurring and has in the past, sometimes much more and sometimes less. hmm So, I am stuck on the fence.
Coming out of the cave. lol Better for me to stay in the dim lit, smoky underground world. It’s Spring around here. Younger sis takes the older mother shopping. They call you on the phone and ask you how your paint brushes and roller stats are? And you start thinking man haven’t raked the lawn yet and they see a paint job too? argh! Next thing ya know there will be half gallon bottle of windex and roll towels too. I get enough sunlight Mon-Fri in the 9 to 5 regime. Hey .. thanks anyway, I’ll hang at the cave, it’s safer.
Well, at least you can’t say the guy didn’t ask 🙂
As to your link, what does it show?
Only that earthquakes happen with regular frequency, and happen with more frequency in specific locations — which mitagates against a general “glacial rebound” effect because the ice age glaciers were, to my knowledge, fairly evenly spread-out, and these earthquakes are not evenly spread-out.
Actually, these earthquakes with their trend to specific locations argues more for an expanding Earth than “glacial rebound”.
“Glacial rebound” is a speculation — there is no established causal link between Northern earthquakes and receding glaciers, and remember, corollation is not causation, and even the corollation is weak per the link provided.
But why do we hear so much about so-called “glacial rebound”?
Because it’s another ‘but for’ test: But for speculations of “glacial rebound” there would be only one other answer for consistent earthquakes with rising elevations observed & measured after the earthquakes: The Earth is expanding.
The glaciers have been gone for, what, 12,000 years.
Yet, regular earthquakes with concomitant rises in elevation happen like clockwork.
Reports of subsidence very much trend to local phenomenon (often attended with nearby uplift), whereas, uplift is secular over broad
areas, in fact, it trends over the whole Earth.
Carla, you are welcome to stay in the cave — but then you won’t ever know what the physical reality is — instead you will know what somebody else wants you to believe the reality is…big difference.
James F. Evans (11:25:40) :
As to your link, what does it show?
Reports over the last few years of melting of permafrost for first time in.. well drunken tree depictions from the A.G. movie also would come to mind here.
That its not over till the reverse trend is evident. And since the N. Polar ice sheet over the Arctic is now stabilizing and reversing. And that the north magnetic pole is now heading for Siberia again.
If you take a look at the horn of Africa James and draw rotational extension so you see the extensional effects to the horn of South America, we might start selling Island real estate. The tectonic linkage all the way down the central to southern America is showing its intent. Little note. . National Geographic this month contains a bonus map entitled World of Rivers. The south American rivers in the horn all run west to east and don’t reach the east coast. huh just saw it today.
oops correction small percentage of the west to east rivers in the S. American horn do reach the east coast.
Escalating eruption Icelandic volcano, new fissure opened, volcano inflating, rise in tremor and quake events.
Watch this breathtaking video made today:
http://http.ruv.straumar.is/static.ruv.is/vefur/01042010_flogid_yfir_gosstodvar_1_april.wmv