Icelandic fissure eruption triggers worries

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.

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

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.

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.

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…

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.

James F. Evans (13:21:19) : Everything OK and nice while plates do not move under your feet…☺

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.

Hank Henry
If newton knew what we know, he would admit that the equations are inadequate

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

Hank Henry
Newton would recognize that the meaning of time is dynamic

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.

Eyjafjallajökull?
jökull means glacier in Icelandic so it’s not that hard to pronounce.