Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 4:29 AM
20 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Essential dynamics & mechanisms of sea-level fluctuations
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 19 (20353)
10-20-2002 10:07 PM


Let's carry over our discussions from the other thread www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=41&p=3 to here.

Let's get to the bottom of what caused the sea-level fluctuations of about 2000 feet during the deposition of the geological column.

We have two primary sources of sea-level fluctuation:
* tectonics
* glaciation

We are mainly talking about the 10-100 million year (mainstream framework) cycles of the sea-level curves known as '2nd order' curves which are presumably primarily tectonic.

My mainstream reading suggests that, yes, sea-floor spreading and suduction changed the ocean basin volumes and led to sea-level fluctuaions of about 2000 feet. It seems this was would have to be primarily due to variations in spreading rates and/or subduction rates. I am currenlty tracking down a ref I saw suggesting that spreading rates may have been constant although that is not the present consensus. I wonder whether then it was variable subduction rates that led to the cycles. In any case it seems to me these are the fundamental potential mechanisms.

Here is an excellent mainstream summary of sea-level change mechanisms: http://rmocfis.uprm.edu/~morelock/eustatic.htm

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]


  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 19 (20355)
10-20-2002 10:10 PM


wj (answer to your post in the other thread)

See my 'EDIT' to Edge as well as Moose's coment. I have mixed up the terms for trench and rift valley/ridge!

All I am syaing is that the bulging at the ridges would generate sea-level increases if this bulging were variable. We empirically know that sea-levels have risen and fallen and so it is natural to ascribe these long-term fluctuaitons to such tectonic effects. This is agreed mainstream. I am simply trying to tease out the essential dynamics.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-21-2002 12:50 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 5 by edge, posted 10-22-2002 1:30 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 10-22-2002 10:21 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 3 of 19 (20360)
10-21-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 10:10 PM


By the way, TB, do you remember "Topic: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!"?

Moose

Imbecile Minnemooseus's feeble attempt at using HTML coding repaired - Adminnemooseus

Ah, screw the HTML code, here's the URL:
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=33&p=3 - Imbecile Adminnemooseus

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-20-2002]

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-21-2002]

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-21-2002 12:59 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 19 (20361)
10-21-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
10-21-2002 12:50 AM


^ I sure do. But if you're proposing that we systematically discuss sea-level fluctuations in a thread where I grandstanded an individual tectonics simulator then you must have a considerably more generic view on what constitutes a new thread! I prefer more focussed threads.

PS - Your link would work better if you inserted a html reference in addition to a caption.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-21-2002 12:50 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 5 of 19 (20444)
10-22-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
See my 'EDIT' to Edge as well as Moose's coment. I have mixed up the terms for trench and rift valley/ridge!

I'm glad we got that cleared up. Do you see now why I needled you so? My next question is, 'where does this frictional resistance occur, if you thought that the rift valley was a deep sea trench?'

quote:
All I am syaing is that the bulging at the ridges would generate sea-level increases if this bulging were variable.

Which is exactly what mainstream geology proposes. The point gets to be what is your evidence that this caused a global flood, runaway subduction or any other fantastic consequences?

quote:
We empirically know that sea-levels have risen and fallen and so it is natural to ascribe these long-term fluctuaitons to such tectonic effects.

Since you respect empirical evidenc so much, then why do you go off on a fantastic search for strictly non-empirical results?

quote:
This is agreed mainstream. I am simply trying to tease out the essential dynamics.

So have you lost your confidence? Tell us what you think. We say that yes, this mechanism probably caused major transgressions that conform to the modern observations, but there is no evidence that there was ever a global flood and no evidence that the ridges could inflate hundreds of times in one year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-22-2002 9:17 PM edge has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 6 of 19 (20487)
10-22-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 10:10 PM


quote:

See my 'EDIT' to Edge as well as Moose's coment. I have mixed up the terms for trench and rift valley/ridge!

JM: Yes, and now you understand why I called your research sophomoric. If you want to argue a point, then you must also learn to argue the point with proper terminology. What you 'discovered' is something that is well known. Indeed, I gave you the reference to Larson's paper elsewhere on this page. I have also given you a reference to other sea-level change mechanisms in my HOG paper (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/hogfinal.pdf ). TB, you're feeling persecuted, but remember you claimed to be a Ph.D.'ed scientist and therefore we insist on that level of scientific discourse from you. If you can't get the terms right or figure out how to access the relevant literature--then expect more terse responses.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-22-2002 9:28 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (20521)
10-22-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
10-22-2002 1:30 AM


Edge

Since I kept talking about spreading from trenches I would have thought someone else would have picked up my misuse of terminology! The bulging I am talking about is the well known bulging either side of the rift valleys.

I'm not saying any of this prove the flood etc. I just like to be clear baout what's going on.

Some form of runaway subduciton and/or radioheating is still conceivable as demonstrated by Baumgardner's simulations.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 10-22-2002 1:30 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 10-22-2002 11:21 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 19 (20525)
10-22-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Joe Meert
10-22-2002 10:21 AM


Joe

I never claimed that the bluges at the spreading centres were novel, I was just trying to clarify that that was a major mechanism for sea-level change. What I was wondering about was variable subduction rates which there seems to be little comment on in my readings.

I'm used to being misunderstood in my job too because I have to converse with real biologists all the time when I'm actually a (bio)-physicist. I enjoy learing the new stuff and the associated terminologies but occasionaly make stuff-ups despite having valid points to make.

The point I was trying to make is a valid one. And I haven't even got to state it yet properly! Here it is: What is the evidence against variable subduction rates being resposible for sea-level fluctuations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 10-22-2002 10:21 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 9 of 19 (20531)
10-22-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
10-22-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Since I kept talking about spreading from trenches I would have thought someone else would have picked up my misuse of terminology!

I'm not sure why I have to spell everything out for you, TB. We DID detect your misuse of terms. Your whole story made no sense at ll and that is why we badgered you to explain yourself so.

quote:
The bulging I am talking about is the well known bulging either side of the rift valleys.

See how much easier it is to communicate when you actually know something about subject?

quote:
I'm not saying any of this prove the flood etc. I just like to be clear baout what's going on.

The main thing that was clear is that you didn't really understand what you were talking about.

quote:
Some form of runaway subduciton and/or radioheating is still conceivable as demonstrated by Baumgardner's simulations.

Okay, once again: the there is no evidence for runaway subduction; in fact if it had occurred, the geological record would look completely different. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-22-2002 9:17 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 2:52 AM edge has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 19 (20536)
10-23-2002 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
10-22-2002 11:21 PM


Why is it that you think the tectonic changes were always so slow?

1. They're slow now
2. You presume that sediments alwyas collect at today's rates
3. You assume that radioisotopic decay has been constant

While I'll grant number 3 as being on a stong footing, number 2 a priori assumes no flood so it can't be used as evidence and number 1 similarly assumes uniformitarianism.

So we're really down to radiodating. Apart from radiodecay there are no real reasons that these processes couldn't have happened much more quickly than you assume. And on the radiodecay front we have evidence of excess helium retention suggesting accelerated decay.

For us of course we even have the Bible telling us in plain language that the doubters will 'willing forget' that the flood occurred.

I completely understand your point of view. If there was no flood, no accelerated decay then of course it happened over millions of years. We're simply sharing an alternative way of looking at it that is unashamedly Bible inspired.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 10-22-2002 11:21 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 10-23-2002 8:04 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 12 by edge, posted 10-23-2002 4:49 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 11 of 19 (20554)
10-23-2002 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 2:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why is it that you think the tectonic changes were always so slow?

1. They're slow now


JM: Why do you insist on a caricature of science rather than a real view? The truth is that some tectonic changes are VERY fast. For example, in 1964, ground level in Juneau Alaska was changed by >10 feet in seconds. Others, such as the drifting of continents and the spreading of ocean floors take longer (on the order of centimeters per year). For this, we have multiple (and independent) sources of evidence. For example, we can observe it happening today. We know that conductive cooling predicts a specific bathymetry whereas rapid spreading ala Baumgardner predicts quite a different bathymetry. Modern bathymetry is consistent with slow spreading and conductive cooling of the oceanic crust (this has been pointed out to you before--see http://gondwanaresearch.com/oceans.htm ). Radiometric dating confirms the age profile (see discussion of point #3. Magnetostratigraphy paints a consistent picture of 'slow' (cm/year) spreading at the ridges. So the difference between the two models is something more than interpretation. You rely on the mythos of a Sumerian epic and science relies on mutually consistent observation. Merely repeating you mantra does not make your argument any stronger. It may reinforce it in your own brain, but repetition of false information brings no additional data to the table.

quote:
2. You presume that sediments alwyas collect at today's rates

JM: False and either (a) dishonest on your part or (b) sophomoric. Either way you've no point here.

quote:
3. You assume that radioisotopic decay has been constant

JM:: Once again we have observational evidence from which this 'assumption' is based. This observational evidence is based on a google of decay events and a geohistorical basis (e.g. consistent ages from different isotopic systems and the Oklo natural fission reactor).

quote:
While I'll grant number 3 as being on a stong footing, number 2 a priori assumes no flood so it can't be used as evidence and number 1 similarly assumes uniformitarianism.

JM: Number 3 is on STRONG footing indeed! #2 is simply a false statement on your part and #1 makes PREDICTIONS borne out by data it does not 'assume' anything!

quote:
So we're really down to radiodating. Apart from radiodecay there are no real reasons that these processes couldn't have happened much more quickly than you assume. And on the radiodecay front we have evidence of excess helium retention suggesting accelerated decay.

JM: This helium 'issue' is a complete red-herring. In fact, Humphreys latest fiasco is reminiscent of his misrepresentation of the magnetic field. He misrepresented modern work to bolster his own bias. This is inexcusable no matter what 'salvation issue' he may be supporting.

quote:
For us of course we even have the Bible telling us in plain language that the doubters will 'willing forget' that the flood occurred.

JM: I believe that document also discusses the issue of 'bearing false witness'. But you won't discuss that will you?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 2:52 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 8:52 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 12 of 19 (20599)
10-23-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 2:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why is it that you think the tectonic changes were always so slow?

1. They're slow now[/quote]

Not at all. In fact some rates are quite high. However, there is no evidence that they were ever as extreme as you suggest. If virtually all Paleozoic and Mesozoic volcanism occurred within one year, this would be clearly documented in the geological record.

quote:
2. You presume that sediments alwyas collect at today's rates

No. I do not. That is a creationist assumption as far as I know.

quote:
3. You assume that radioisotopic decay has been constant

Not an assumption.

quote:
So we're really down to radiodating. Apart from radiodecay there are no real reasons that these processes couldn't have happened much more quickly than you assume. And on the radiodecay front we have evidence of excess helium retention suggesting accelerated decay.

TB, be aware of what is happening around you. This idea is turning out to be an embarrassment. See the other thread on this.

quote:
For us of course we even have the Bible telling us in plain language that the doubters will 'willing forget' that the flood occurred.

I have some Heinlein that I really think we should all take literally, too. So, are you telling me that this is all that you have for your scientific foundation?

quote:
I completely understand your point of view. If there was no flood, no accelerated decay then of course it happened over millions of years.

Wrong again. Since there is absolutely no evidence of accelerated decay and plenty of evidence that the geological record represents millions of years of depostion, then we can assume that no biblical flood laid down the geological record. (You have it backwards.)

We're simply sharing an alternative way of looking at it that is unashamedly Bible inspired.[/B][/QUOTE]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 2:52 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM edge has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 19 (20601)
10-23-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by edge
10-23-2002 4:49 PM


[QUOTE]I have some Heinlein that I really think we should all take literally, too. So, are you telling me that this is all that you have for your scientific foundation?[/b][/quote]

I have always been a firm believer in "The Cat Who Walked through Walls"

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by edge, posted 10-23-2002 4:49 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 19 (20631)
10-23-2002 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Joe Meert
10-23-2002 8:04 AM


Joe

You said: Why do you insist on a caricature of science rather than a real view?

Why do you insist on caricaturing me as if my entire being and thoughts can be summed up by one line in a post?

Is it possible that I was referring to global tectonics? That was the context. I know all about the Alaska event. On many of the occasions that you accuse me of not knowing something I actually know it.

You have made good points about predicted bathymetry. I some how doubt it is as clear cut as you suggest, however I am way out of my field and my readings here.

My statement that mainstream geologists assume slow sedimentation rates is a very accurate generalizaiton.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Joe Meert, posted 10-23-2002 8:04 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Joe Meert, posted 10-23-2002 9:23 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 16 by edge, posted 10-23-2002 11:00 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 15 of 19 (20634)
10-23-2002 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
10-23-2002 8:52 PM


quote:

Why do you insist on caricaturing me as if my entire being and thoughts can be summed up by one line in a post?

JM: Because that is what the evidence shows.

quote:
Is it possible that I was referring to global tectonics? That was the context. I know all about the Alaska event. On many of the occasions that you accuse me of not knowing something I actually know it.

JM: Then say so darn it all! You are a scientist. Specificity is required.

quote:
You have made good points about predicted bathymetry. I some how doubt it is as clear cut as you suggest, however I am way out of my field and my readings here.

JM: It is very simple in this case.

quote:
My statement that mainstream geologists assume slow sedimentation rates is a very accurate generalizaiton.

JM: It is completely false and you should stop claiming it.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-23-2002 8:52 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019