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
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.