Mercurio I don't have time at present to refute each of your points. The basic issue is that plate tectonics is powered by mantle convection currents. Any other effects are secondary. Those two points woould be accepted by 99.8% of geologists. If you are proposing something else it requires evidence. You keep presenting consequences as if they were causes. Example: in your last post you say "You asked where the energy comes from when globs get sucked under, added or just gas. Artists impression from the Cambridge would say gaseous:" No those are not bubbles of gas, those are magma melts. Where did the energy come from to melt them? The heat of the mantle. Once again they are a consequence not a cause.
Absolutely. At one time. Just as, at one time, I suspect plate tectonics were active on Venus. Two points:I suggested the role of life in sequestering carbon dioxide may have been pivotal, not that it was. I believe the jury is still out on that. Second, life is more efficient at carbon dioxide removal than weathering. I'm not clear what your point is. Would you clarify please. Three things: 1. Very much thicker. 2. Substantial subterranean topography. 3. Much more massive. I would subsrcibe to the notion that the lack of magnetism is due to the painfully slow rotation.
Well, I've sort of had enough of this discussion too. Your statement about mantle convection currents is incorrect, even according to a leading source (Cambridge). I know they are magma melts. I didn't think gas erupted into vulcanos even judging from that picture, thank you. 'Gaseous' was the word, since it rises. The heat comes from friction energy ofcourse, not simply 'the mantle', btw Ophiolite. Have fun. [unsubscribe]
Me too, before the "resurfacing" event. - the missing oxygen problem and the outgassing event. refer to this link again: Good story however I see several problems. There is a lot of oxygen missing. Dragging into space would not suffice; the N2 has not been dragged in space either. Picture all Earth oceans oxygen in the atmosphere it would be orders of magnetude denser than Venus current atmosphere. This means that the whole process (sediment reaction with the free oxygen) must have been very very slow and it must have required vigourous tectonics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! to replace the oxygen saturated soil. If the oxygen density gets too high in the process, the 20% rule would have precluded all the hydrogen outgassing. The build up of the younger CO2 atmosphere is totally missing in the whole equation. The weathering process is claimed to remove it initially but the limestone reaction is reversible: CaCO3 <=> Ca(2+) + CO3(2-) and CO3(2-) + 2H+ <=> H2O + CO2 depending on temperature, acidity and saturation the oceans would give CO2 back to the atmosphere, increasing it's density and precluding the complete outgassing of H2. But even if all the Earth crust limestone at the ocean bottom and surface was reduced to CO2 it would be far less than what is in Venus atmosphere. But AFAIK there are only two natural non biological processes to convert limestones to CO2, the aforementioned reverse weathering that requires water to be around and lime burning, CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 at temperatures around 1000K obviously without water. As long as liquid water was available the reverse weathering could not have been significant, because of the nearly complete outgassing. But little atmosphere means also little greenhouse gas effect. Far to little to produce 1000 K temperatures. Nevertheless, the majority of CO2 must have been formed by lime burning. Considering that the atmosphere of Venus contains more carbon than is estimated for the entire lithosphere of Earth, even the hundreds of vulcanoes would not be sufficient to get all the carbon out of the lithosphere. And, Kwikzilverio, a paradigm shift (Kuhn 1962) would be possible if we'd agreed that this problem, together with many more pertaining to Venus, constitutes a scientific crisis.
I would not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If the Earth magnetic field was directly caused by it's rotation, how to explain the numerous magnetic pole flips? But you mentioned a factor the most likely mechanism yourself: But mantle convection is powered by outer core convection and so is the Earth magnetic field according to the geodynamo hypothesis. Glatzmaier's model was remarkable mimicriing the paleo magnetic excursions and field reversals. Consequently, if this hypothesis stands, lack of magnetism signifies lack of outer core convection and consequently, lack of sufficient thermal gradient for convention, consistent with the measurements of the lithosphere thermal gradient.
On the off chance that you may return, but principally to maintain some accuracy: I hadn't. I simply said I did not have time right now to address each of your points. Tell me where in your source mantle convection currents are not identified as the primary mechanism for plate tectonics? Or where an alternative mechanism is proposed? Indeed you quote from your own source, "A logical scheme of birth, destruction and renewal will continue as long as sufficient heat is produced in the Earth's mantle to drive the plates around the surface of the globe" My impression is that you have decided to leave the discussion because I am attacking you. I am not. I am attacking the errors which you persist in filling your posts with. Gas contained in solution in the magma does indeed erupt in volcanoes, contrary to your staement here, but only near the surface where the constraining pressure is much reduced. A 'thing' rises because it is less dense, not because it is gaseous. This is a wholly wrong use of the word. What is powering the frictional generation of heat? The mantle convection currents. Once again a secondary effect. Thank you, I shall have fun.
Andre, the recent threads have carried us quite off topic. I see you've managed to turn around to your favourite topic. No problem, but if you want an intelligent response I'll need to take some time to digest your ideas and provided links.
Ophiolite Which one? The mammoths, the Clatrate gun, the paleoclimate controversy during the late pleistocene, especially the last glacial maximum and beyond, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Optimum, the Rapid True Polar Wander, Venus? oh, and Global warming of course. Well if a certain nobody wants to start a couple of paradigm shifts, I guess everything is allowed, even stealing threads Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, well the basic hypothesis is that terrestrial planets of sufficient size contain a serious design flaw. Both Earth and Venus are suffering. It made Venus the scorning inferno what it is now and it teases Earth a little every now and then.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by a "terrestrial planet"? Small and rocky? What is that flaw you talk about? How does it show itself on Earth? Isn't that just climate (geological)? If it's not perfect for us, humans, it doesn't mean that it's not perfect or good for other life forms. Moreover, even if there is a flaw by your logic, but a design flaw? I highly doubt planets have been designed (well, apart from the Douglas Adams book). I don't think we can talk about the concept of "flaw" in planetary bodies.
Well a Terrestrial planet is a name given to a planet composed mainly of rock and iron, similar to that of Earth. And the design flaw is exactly what it is meant to say. For instance if a bigger terrestrial planet was made of solid rock like the moon or Mercury for instance things would be okay but instead bigger terrestrial planets contain a mantle a fluid outer core and a solid inner core. That's a serious design flaw.
I have just spent 20 mins reading this thread. Ophiolite i salute you. There seems to be an awful lot of posts by the hard of thinking, that you have consitantly answered there points with hard facts and good explainations, has amazed me. Your staying power is awsome Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And about: I have seen a few dozen publications on the cause of the heat of the interior of the Earth, the geo-reactor (Hendon), normal nucleair sequence reactions, 40K-40Ar. All are based on scholar views of the moment. Suppose that my little pet idea was right, then as a consequence there would be another explanation that would put Mercurio -by coincidence- in the right corner. Then the current internal heat would be caused by friction of the consecutive 100,000 years events that we interpret now as the Ice Ages to interglacial sequences, the last one from some 30,000 years to perhaps 4000 years ago. Exactly the same process caused Venus to stop spinning, heating it to the present furnace. Warning: this is only toying with ideas and physics, rather well supported by concrete evidence, but it's not the scholar view.
Thank you. I guess I'm just to dumb to know when I'm beaten, or to distingush between a listener and a brick wall. (Or is it the old troika - I am strong willed and consistent, you are stuborn and intransigent, she is pigheaded and stuck in her ways.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Yes, Avatar. I am also confused as to whether Andre is meaning to imply a designer, or is using the phrase in a metaphorical sense. In either case Andre, what aspect of the consecutive 100,000 years events that we interpret now as the Ice Ages to interglacial sequences would create the current internal heat .....by friction ?
Well if "design flaw" is too metaphorical, how about "manufacturing error". It's a rather complicated story. Took me six years to get the finger behind it. The interaction between Earth as a complicated three fold gyroscope (mantle - fluid outer core - solid inner core) under the torque force of the precession of the equinoxes and other orbit pertubations could be having a bit more problems than we suspect. Considering that Astro- physisists always assume the Earth to be a solid rock in a complicated multiple spinning motion whilst the geophysisist picture the Earth as a complicated multi shelled ductile brittle elastic fluid contraption, but mostly motionless apart from the daily spin, there is not really a speciality responsible for putting it all together. That's what I have tried. Think of a raw egg spinning versus a boiled egg.
Sorry Andre. I guess I'm being thick. A manufacturing error implies it was intended to be different, it did not match the plans. Whose plans? You appear to be saying that the terrestrial planets were assemmbled according to a plan, but in the case of Venus and the Earth the plan was not followed correctly. Who or what produced that plan? Even for brandy and cigar speculation that is pretty wild and requires some form of justification. Or, are you meaning something more like "there is an aspect of the way the constituents of Venus and Earth came together that has created an unfortunate tendency in the dynamic evolution of the planet." Secondly I still do not understand what aspect of the Ice Ages would create the current internal heat .....by friction ?
Okay forget about that then. If in our humble human minds we like to have a planet that is physical sound and would spin nicely forever. But we see that Venus did not comply to that. And the spinning stop of Venus appears to have caused a hot brake effect, heating up the planet tremendously. Hence my question marks at the wet greenhouse gas theory. From this point of view there must have been something wrong with the planet itself. Can the same happen to Earth? I'm afraid so although the moon is postponing the end result like Venus probably a few hundred million years. But it has started already about one million years ago, when the 100,000 years isotope cycle kicked in out of the blue. http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/sciencespectra.htm What did happen the last million years about every 100,000 years were the physical effects of misalignment of the mantle spin axis with the inner core spin axis due to different precession logics. Each event lasted about 20,000 - 30,000 years each time when realigment occured after completion of the precession cycle. It may have caused another version of Kirschvink's (rapid) true polar wander. And currently we interpret the effects as interglacials. But it's a very long complex story with many more players: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
