Icelandic fissure eruption triggers worries

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?

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.

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-

It says pacific basic, should read pacific BASIN

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 🙂

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?

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?

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.

Additional links:
http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/englishweb/index.html
http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/english/

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.

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.