Electro Plate Tectonics

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Here's a unique, alternate viewpoint and research about the big picture of planet Earth.

Very much worth considering, in my opinion.

Be warned, this is a deep dive into research, and is not exactly light reading.  Really long term, big picture research.

I also found it refreshingly heretical to the usual un-thinking, un-questioning scaremongering of much of Mainstream Media's "ZOMG the world will end in 12 years" nonsense.

Church of Global Warming truuu believers are free to dispute this alternate research and alternate computer models, as it contradicts the Church of Global Warming's holy and sacrosanct computer models.

Dilbert cartoon, related to the Church of Global Warming's computer models:

 

Anyway, here ya go... hope you find this interesting:

https://www.electroplatetectonics.com

This work outlines the solution to a geological mystery. What drives the tectonic plates? The mechanical actuation of plate movement in this model is dependent of an almost undetectable, extremely slow lateral displacement in the Earth’s mantle just below the crust, that is then followed after several million years by an equally slow period of contraction. The only driving force that would fit these parameters is a thermal expansion caused by an internal heat source. All thermal, mechanical and electrical systems both natural and man-made have been observed to possess variability; a rhythm, a cycle, and central to this model, oscillations. This model will show that our planet's magnetic field generator produces a small temperature rise and decline on varying time scales. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-05-17-at-5.webp

Screen-Shot-2017-05-17-at-5.webp

[Marc Linquist + 63]

        Hello everyone, I would like to introduce myself to you, my name is Marc Linquist and I am the author of the hypothesis that Tom was so kind to post on here. I started this project back in 2013 after a conversation with a gentlemen that prompted my desire to solve the many ongoing unanswered questions of how the Earth’s variable climate history was related to our planet’s geology, and too, this most recent period of climate controversy. I’m sure that everyone here who is familiar with the standard model of geology is aware of the many fundamental details that the theory has struggled to answer.  What I believe has been a hurdle to our understanding of these missing answers is that we, as observers, tend to weigh any new found evidence against what we already believe, and to be certain, what we already trust.  And I believe that this has led science to force fit all of our newest, and what is undoubtedly our best data and research of the last decade or so, to an old master reference frame that dictates; the tectonic plates are being moved by mantle convection. And, in having our strongest evidence swayed by our weakest, all of our newer observations are thus bent to support or to understand the world through that distorted lens.   

      So, it is my contention and the purpose of this work; to let the strongest evidence construct this new model.  And further, that if one was to broadly read the available field research that has been compiled in the last 10 years or so, you would begin to understand that the evidence really doesn’t support the idea that convection can drive the tectonic plates in the manner that they have been observed to have actually moved.  And in fact, the research seems to be describing something completely different.  So, this model is about, and focused on, what is described by these most recent observations; these predictions of observations, as we like to call them.

    What started to become clear as I found these research papers and read them, is that they supported one another quite well but did not support the standard model and its mantle convection mechanism (circa 1928) as the source of energy for the tectonic plate’s movement.   These newest papers began to describe what is a very cyclical natural phenomenon buried within the workings of our planet’s interior.  And it then became clear that this cyclical phenomenon was intimately tied to the planet’s climate and undoubtedly, somehow, the solar magnetic energy component of our Sun.  

   So please don’t let the volume of material dissuade you from taking a look, the idea is actually quite simple, and ironically, what is not surprising; some actually think this idea is too simple to be possible.  But, this is because the concept of fitting mantle convection to the surface observations has been so complicated for so long that the efforts to make convection seem viable has left many in geology believing that the answers must require increasingly complex solutions that will finally predict the surface observation of the planet.  But Occam’s razor says otherwise, that this convection regime can’t be the answer.  It makes the theory of plate tectonics a dichotomy: on the one hand it is so complex that it can’t be modeled to a reasonable prediction of movement, while on the other, in what seems as utter simplicity, the plate movement has maintain a remarkable consistency for possibly 3.2 billion years, including at least once, actually turning itself off and then back on again, on a whim. 

  This idea in a nutshell, based on the observation of the paliomagnetic record, is that the Sun’s magnetic field generator changes in intensity over million year time scales, and that the solar magnetic field generator imposes these changes into the Earth’s own magnetic field generator. This commonly understood process as you may know is called mutual inductive coupling. What is interesting is this increase and decrease in magnetic flux is proportional to the creation of current and field within the Earth’s field generator, which the evidence will show imposes molecular level thermal expansive and contractive forces on the core/outer core materials, and in turn will of course impose this displacement energy into the surrounding mantle. 

  So, over a period of millions of years, the Earth’s magnetic field generator and the mantle will slowly move incrementally out and then back, in sync with the solar magnetic generator's output. And of course, we would expect to see tension relieving mechanisms in the Earth’s crust that resemble the current divergent plate boundaries.

The resulting mantle displacement is central to this model and explains how this mechanism is responsible for climate change and plate tectonic movement. The mantle makes up 84% of the Earth’s volume and 67% of its mass. The mass differential between the mantle and the ocean is the most reveling difference between the two that in turn explains how the Earth's short and long term climate history can be driven by and timed with both plate movement and the solar magnetic history. 

   With the mantle's mass at 67% of the Earth's total, the ocean in contrast is a mere 0.022 percent of the total mass while the atmosphere weighs a little over a millionth or 1/1,200,000 of one Earth mass.  When the mantle is displaced outward, its thickness of 2,900 kilometers, causes it to be subjected to immense strain energy forces, that result not so much in an outward movement at the crust/mantle boundary, but as a forced lateral expansion of the mantle’s surface area, think inverse square law, causing tearing and decompression melting of the surrounding boundary area materials.

   This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline.  The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model! The PETM can be solved!

   The model predicts the simultaneous mountain building of the Plio-Pleistocene, where the vertical rise of the Himalayas, Andes and many other ranges were largely completed in the last several million years when the planet cooled and the mantle incrementally subsided.  And remarkably, the irregular size of the Mid-Atlantic ridge will be shown to coincide with these others and all of them together concurrent with our most recent Ice Age period. All of this is supported by the most recent evidence described by this model. These predictions will be supported by multiple sources that range from solar magnetic 14C proxies, Japanese earthquake records, ice core samples, to the most recent research papers that, again, show this model predicted these observations in advance of their discovery.  

If anyone would like to ask any questions about the model in lieu of reading it, or discuss it in general, in any detail, I would be more than happy to oblige you here or at my site.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Thanks again to Tom and everyone else here,

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Marc      https://www.electroplatetectonics.com/

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

20 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

If anyone would like to ask any questions about the model in lieu of reading it, or discuss it in general, in any detail, I would be more than happy to oblige you here or at my site.

Fascinating stuff, Marc!  Without having attempted to delve into the underlying physics, I would ask you:  does your Model allow and account for the apparent past inversions, or reversals, of the geomagnetic poles? 

And kudos to you for your creative thinking!

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

 I would ask you:  does your Model allow and account for the apparent past inversions, or reversals, of the geomagnetic poles? 

   Thank you for your interest Jan. The past inversions/reversals of the geomagnetic poles are without a doubt occurring and were present in the processes that I describe in the model but are at a higher frequency of occurrence then those of the Solar magnetic energy flux that drives the plate tectonic motions which the model gives evidence of occurring at frequencies of 3-4 million year periodicities.  

   There have been 183 geomagnetic reversals over the last 83 million years. If the Earth's magnetic field and generator could have experienced an energy fluctuation that would have resulted in a mantle oscillation then I would consider its influence very probable.   I have however not found any evidence that past inversions/reversals of the geomagnetic poles have had influence on, or have been influenced by, the processes that I've discussed and described in the model. I would say its likely they are just all simply blended together.

   The model predicts that extended periods of lower Solar and Planetary field strength will have periods of planetary cooling and eventually increasing amounts of compression in the crust that may even attain levels large enough to produce planetary wide mountain building. That is where I would expect a reversal to have occurred if it caused the field generator energy level to collapse for a additional period of time. You may be on to something I had not considered! The mountain building periods appear to be every 15-20 million years, these would be the most likely place to look. The evidence will be a challenge to locate but I will be looking and considering the possibilities. Right now off hand I can only think of a couple of sources. Thanks for your interest and suggestion.  

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The Mountain labelled "K2," sitting on the China-Pakistan border, at 28,251 feet, is the second-highest peak in the Himalayas.  It is my understanding that the actual height at the peak is slightly rising, possibly measured in inches per year.  This would seem to indicate a cooling of the mantle, according to your above theory, or at least would be correlated to cooling and thus a decrease in the slave magnetic field reaction to the sun's field.  Assuming that to the be correlation, then it would seem to imply a cooling of the earth's surface, not a warming, thus running counter to the much-shouted ideas of "global warming."  Could you comment further?

As a postscript, I would note that global warming theories are in large part taken from presumed measurements of sea water at sea from boats in the 1700's.  Remembering that those measurements were some sailor heaving a bucket overboard and pulling it back up, then inserting whatever version of thermometer was in vogue at the time  (with uncertain accuracy), the temp of the ocean water would be a function of location  (clearly a lot warmer in the Gulf Stream, and colder outside), and how far a that bucket was allowed to sink before retrieval.  A bucket that sank down say six  would produce a colder water sample than one from the surface. And roiling of the water by wave action would produce a lower temperature at the actual surface than if the ocean were still, with the sun beating down on it. Anyone who has gone swimming there will attest that the water gets a lot colder if you go down a few feet. With those kinds of variables, I don't put much faith or credence on temp measurements from the sailing-ship days. 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Mountain labelled "K2," sitting on the China-Pakistan border, at 28,251 feet, is the second-highest peak in the Himalayas.  It is my understanding that the actual height at the peak is slightly rising, possibly measured in inches per year.  This would seem to indicate a cooling of the mantle, according to your above theory, or at least would be correlated to cooling and thus a decrease in the slave magnetic field reaction to the sun's field.  Assuming that to the be correlation, then it would seem to imply a cooling of the earth's surface, not a warming, thus running counter to the much-shouted ideas of "global warming."  Could you comment further?

Well, the Himalayas are currently rising and that would seem to be counter-intuitive to any idea claiming that you could have a period of increased Solar magnetic energy (as we currently do) producing a slowly outward displacing mantle that could be separating the mid-ocean ridges in the currently observed manner. The model explains this beautifully by the way😉. It took me over four years to figure out how these two could be occurring simultaneously.

   One of the biggest clues is that the oceanic plates are currently under compression! This is some of that newer research that the old model cannot contend with.

http://www-geodyn.mit.edu/zubersite/pdfs/Zuber_92JGR1987.pdf
    MARIA T. ZUBER 
  Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 
    
 "As most of the oceanic lithosphere is in a state of net compression, the question arises as to why intraplate deformation has developed in these regions and not in others." 

   This compression is the result of a vast amount of Gravitational Potential Energy GPE that is required to raise those Himalayas. The GPE is vastly more than the most recent calculations of the standard model's ridge push mechanism can provide. 

http://ceas.iisc.ern...h_geology06.pdf

Gravitational potential energy of the Tibetan Plateau and the forces driving the Indian plate
Attreyee Ghosh, William E. Holt

ABSTRACT
  "We present a study of the vertically integrated deviatoric stress field for the Indian plate and the Tibetan Plateau associated with gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences. Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7  1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3  1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet. We use the Crust 2.0 data set to infer gravitational potential energy differences in the lithosphere. We then apply the thin sheet approach in order to obtain a global solution of vertically integrated deviatoric stresses associated only with GPE differences. Our results show large N-S extensional deviatoric stresses in Tibet that the ridge-push force fails to cancel."
 
.  .  .  ."there is no complete dynamic explanation for this large GPE of the Tibetan Plateau and the relatively fast movement of the Indian plate. There is no apparent down going slab attached to the Indian plate that might assist in driving the plate into Eurasia through the slab pull mechanism" .  .  .  .  .
 
.  .  .  .  "However, the ridge push, or vertically integrated deviatoric stress magnitude, which is 3 1012 N/m (Richardson, 1992; Harper, 1975; Lister; 1975; Parsons and Richter, 1980), is not sufficient to satisfy inferred stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m that result from GPE differences between the Tibetan Plateau and the surrounding lowlands (Molnar and Lyon-Caen, 1988). An additional force is required to explain the disparity between the excess GPE of Tibet relative to that of the mid-oceanic ridges" .  .  .  .
 
.  .  .  ."Lithospheric density variations associated with the support of the high topography of the Tibetan Plateau give rise to lithospheric body forces and hence stresses. Although the sources of stress that drive plate motions have been ascribed to many parameters (Forsyth and Uyeda, 1975), from the point of view of stress continuity and force balance, the stresses that drive lithospheric motion arise from two sources: (1) gravity acting on density variations within the lithospheric shell on Earth, and (2) gravity acting on density variations deeper than the lithospheric shell. The latter gives rise to tractions (radial and tangential) that act on the base of the lithosphere, affecting the stress field of the lithosphere and producing dynamic topography.The former involves density variations associated with support of nondynamic components of topography".
 
         
      Conclusions;
     .   . "It is clear that something is missing as a driving force that does not have its source within the lithospheric shell."

So, pretty interesting isn't it! The mid-ocean ridges are moving apart while we are in a inter-glacial warm period, yet the Himalayas are rising, and there is massive compression in the crust that no one knows how it got there. 

 The way this works is: 

For the last several decades the global network of geodetic stations has allowed us to determined that the relative motions of thousands of points on the planet's surface has shown that the net motions add up to zero for any global circuit. All of the observed tectonic plate domains that are semi-rigid and separating, are matched by other domains which are converging. 

   It would then be most critical to any plate movement model to incorporate these facts into its description of operation. This model is dependent on a tremendous shear resistance between the crust and mantle that moderates the distribution of the compression that slowly moves away from its source at divergent boundaries to its final disposition at a convergent boundary. This is in part due to the isostatic equilibrium that is distributed at much lower values due to the compression that is now present in the global plate matrix.

For example, the Himalayas should not be anywhere close to the height that they are at. They should be sinking into the mantle at this moment. But, this model can explain this paradox by explaining that the Earth's entire plate matrix is, to some degree, being held in a compressive load state by its shear resistance to the mantle.
   
   Imagine how compression alone can hold a long series of unmortared bricks in suspension without falling. Now if these were instead massively wide plates lying over a planetary sphere we have an idea how the immense shear resistance could hold a compressive bias in the entire planetary plate matrix.

http://www-geodyn.mit.edu/zubersite/pdfs/Zuber_92JGR1987.pdf
    MARIA T. ZUBER 
  Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 
    
 "As most of the oceanic lithosphere is in a state of net compression, the question arises as to why intraplate deformation has developed in these regions and not in others." 

   In this model the compression that resides in the crust at this moment is much older than the mantle displacement period that is currently taking place. The compression that is in the crust right now could be referred to as fossil compression, being that it is supplied by residual or "fossil" gravitational potential energy in the crust that was produced over the last several million years as the mantle subsided during the Pleistocene and Pliocene periods and produced in the crust many of the massive ranges around the world that rose up so quickly during that time period.

   This process then, that produces this residual and periodic supply of compression in the crust, could be described in the mechanical terms of a reciprocal compressive engine, or even terms describing a mechanically driven gravity actuated drive.  This mechanism allows the newest divergent boundary infill to supply a means to periodically advance the plate into a state of compression that ultimately will end in a convergent trench. The plate first being loaded at the divergent boundary when the mantle moves down, and then during the following period of low activity this very laterally concentrated load of compressive energy will slowly redistribute across the plate, and will be largely distributed into, and added with, the overall crustal matrix when the mantle will once again slowly displace outward and again adds another boundary infill for the next round of compression. 

   This process has thus supplied the crust with a net plus of compression, which currently allows us to observe the divergent boundary metrics to be in balance with the convergent boundary metrics, as is shown in the geodetic measurements, all the while holding and keeping the world's mountain ranges from sinking into the mantle.    

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

It took me over four years to figure out how these two could be occurring simultaneously.

Marc, you have a highly complex model!  I sure hope it does not take me four years to grasp the fundamentals! 

Thanks for bringing this to the Community Forum.  This is great stuff, gotta let it sink in. [no pun!] 

Back to oil:  there is also a "theory" that both oil and life itself rained down on the planet from outer space.  If vast sheets of oil, formed elsewhere, were drifting through space, and then collided with Earth as it traversed its orbit, then this would account for the finding of oil in unlikely places (such as the Arctic), would account for Biblical descriptives of "fire raining down" from the Heavens  (that is, oil fragments igniting by frictional passage through the atmosphere), and would suggest that there is a lot more oil out there that we have no clue about.  Could you comment?

[esgeo + 54]

On 4/13/2019 at 6:59 PM, Marc Linquist said:

This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline.  The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model! The PETM can be solved!

Extension of the upper crust in the Basin and Range is predominantly Miocene, not Paleocene-Eocene age. Mid-crustal extension appears to have begun earlier in late Eocene in to Oligocene time. There is also some evidence of syn-orogenic extension in Late Cretaceous.  Minimal evidence exists of Paleocene-Eocene extension in the Basin and Range, as you suggest is required to validate your hypothesis.

In the course of getting my PhD, I got some good advice from a very sharp committee member- basically you need to be able to distill any geologic problem to terms of mass and energy to rigorously validate hypotheses. 

In terms of your argument that mantle convection has a lesser impact than the earth's magnetic field on plate tectonics, one only needs to consider quantitative estimates of the energy associated with the heat content of the earth.  

If you compare estimates of the energy stored in the earth (10^38) ergs to that of the earth's magnetic field (10^26 erg) from the two references below, the energy of the magnetic field is 10^-12 (one trillionth) that of the total energy budget that drives convection. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040195177901949

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/rhprice/www/Readers/Purcell/June1983-Problem1.pdf

 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Marc, you have a highly complex model!  I sure hope it does not take me four years to grasp the fundamentals! 

Thanks for bringing this to the Community Forum.  This is great stuff, gotta let it sink in. [no pun!] 

Back to oil:  there is also a "theory" that both oil and life itself rained down on the planet from outer space.  If vast sheets of oil, formed elsewhere, were drifting through space, and then collided with Earth as it traversed its orbit, then this would account for the finding of oil in unlikely places (such as the Arctic), would account for Biblical descriptives of "fire raining down" from the Heavens  (that is, oil fragments igniting by frictional passage through the atmosphere), and would suggest that there is a lot more oil out there that we have no clue about.  Could you comment?

Thank you Jan for your interest, take it easy, I promise it's not really as complicated as you first think. Just remember; It's going to directly address observations that have been actually seen and documented. 

I try to avoid getting involved in any of those ideas like you mentioned there just because of the high degree of speculation involved. Anytime an opinion is expressed that does not have evidence to back it up it just adds to what appears to be additional layers of the same, it quickly resembles fiction.

11 hours ago, esgeo said:

Extension of the upper crust in the Basin and Range is predominantly Miocene, not Paleocene-Eocene age. Mid-crustal extension appears to have begun earlier in late Eocene in to Oligocene time. There is also some evidence of syn-orogenic extension in Late Cretaceous.  Minimal evidence exists of Paleocene-Eocene extension in the Basin and Range, as you suggest is required to validate your hypothesis.

Hello esgeo, I'm sorry I should have maybe put those in two different paragraphs and explained them in more detail. 

Quote: "This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline." 

And then;

"The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model! The PETM can be solved!"

These two statements were not intended to infer anything more then the claim that they are individually related with the model's novel mantle thermal phenomenon that this model outlines and supports. 

  The first paragraph is just simply outlining the relationship that will be shown to exist (predictions) between the phenomenon's dynamics and the observations; "like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline."

 

The PETM reference is a direct nod to this geologic mystery. 

 Early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) ca. 52–50 million years ago. Where temperatures in at least high-latitudes and in the deep ocean, warmed by at least 5 C. from the late Paleocene ca. 57.5 million years ago, an additional 5–8 C. warming of the atmosphere and ocean occurred between 55.5 and 56.3 million years ago. This event is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)  

   Enormous amounts of 13C-depleted carbon rapidly entered the carbon cycle during the beginning of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Explanation for this carbon input has been thermal warming causing the release of the gas hydrate on oceanic continental slopes, followed by release of methane CH4 from the seafloor and its subsequent oxidation to CO2 in the ocean or atmosphere. 

  The revelation that atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming is difficult to explain using the standard model. A strain energy response from this model's mantle thermal pulse mechanism at the crust/mantle boundary would supply such a response.  The thermal content would need to migrate into the seafloor mud and liberate the gas hydrate, the dissolved C02 was then carried to the surface and released where it produce the increased atmospheric CO2 content.  

This article contains some incredible figures of geologic discharge.
 

http://www.clim-past.net/7/831/2011/cp-7-831-2011.pdf
     Down the Rabbit Hole: toward appropriate discussion of methane release from gas hydrate systems during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum and other past hyper-thermal events

G. R. Dickens 2011

    "The volume and timing of the release of carbon requires a massive discharge into the ocean with the mass depending on the 13C composition of the source. "About 6000–12000 Gigatonnes of Carbon with a 13C of −25‰. In comparison, burning and use of almost all fossil fuel reserves will emit about 4000–5000 Gigatonnes of Carbon by 2500 AD with a 13C value of about −30 ‰. Geologists have no mechanism within the framework of conventional carbon cycle models to explain a geologically rapid and truly global >2.5‰ negative 13C excursion, except by human extraction and burning of most known fossil fuel resources. This problem regarding the PETM forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box” (G. R. Dickens 2011)." 

Notice he says; "forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box" 
 

I read your links, I think you are possibly unfamiliar with my model's idea, here is a basic outline;

Mantle thermal pulses below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and temporal variations in the formation of oceanic lithosphere
Enrico Bonatti*†‡, Marco Ligi*, Daniele Brunelli*†, Anna Cipriani‡, Paola Fabretti*, Valentina Ferrante*†, Luca Gasperini* & Luisa Ottolini§
* Istituto di Scienze Marine, Geologia Marina, CNR, Via Gobetti 101, 40129, Bologna, Italy
† Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita` “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00187, Rome, Italy
‡ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
§ Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Sezione di Pavia, CNR, Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy
 
    "A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time."


This shows the mantle is oscillating as this model requires.

  With these revelations above we can now imagine a very simple process whereby the multi-million year increase in magnetic field strength would produce a gradual thermal expansion of the field generator's liquid iron and inner core. The mantle is then displaced in turn and the crust is then slowly displaced outward by the displacing mantle, thus causing the world's divergent boundaries to be opened to receive fresh magma in a manner that is identical to what is currently happening at this moment at all divergent boundaries around the world.

   And further, we can imagine that these oscillations of "3-4 million years" are putting in place periodic amounts of new seafloor at divergent boundaries that, as the paper above explains are; "superimposed on a longer-term steady increased with time" that reveals a variability within the phenomena that would eventually allow it to reverse direction and thus allow for multi-million year periods when the crust would develop massive amounts of gravitational derived lateral compression as the crust follows the mantle downward when the planet's magnetic field generator's output incrementally decreases.

   This newest divergent boundary infill of the last several million years is now the source of this compression. The infill has now become a point of leverage and began its new role as a shoring wedge resisting the building compression in the planet's crust and forcing the tectonic plate to shift in the opposite direction, the compression bleeding away into convergent trenches and crustal folds as the world's crustal plates shift to process the slowly developing gravitational potential energy. This compression would easily produce in the crust the folding and uplift that is seen in the geologic record. And too, we can imagine the compression produced being so large that it would even provide an energy source large enough to drive numerous crustal plates deep under the edge of many others in a manner so widely observed yet is not very well explained by the current standard model. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

hank you Jan for your interest, take it easy, I promise it's not really as complicated as you first think. Just remember; It's going to directly address observations that have been actually seen and documented. 

I try to avoid getting involved in any of those ideas like you mentioned there just because of the high degree of speculation involved. Anytime an opinion is expressed that does not have evidence to back it up it just adds to what appears to be additional layers of the same, it quickly resembles fiction.

I picked up 1550 on my SATs way back when, including a 793 on the math, so your project does not scare me.  Getting past that, there is no logical reason why oil was not formed in vast quantities during the Big Bang, along with everything else.  If you take as a starting point that oil was indeed formed at the beginning of the universe, then flung out in sheets of material into space, it is not a stretch to conclude that the various planetary bodies would intersect with those sheets and pull them into the planet. There is some evidence for this, albeit scant, in the old biblical narratives and descriptives of fire raining down from the heavens.  If you get past the religious aspects of the bible and look at it in terms of a narrative of old historical events, then having these sheets of fire coming down become hard to decipher outside of an oil product.  Go a step further and note the huge quantities of oil lying near the surface in the Middle East. Oil coming down in volume will be in flames only on the periphery; the center material will lack the oxygen needed for combustion.  The impact will drive some of that material down into the sands, from where it could seep further until it reaches a resistance point  (rock layer).  Does this explain,say, Kuwait? 

"Speculative?"  Perhaps.  Yet the idea that all oil is the result of compression of ancient organic matter is not logically exclusive of other sources. If there is anything to the concept of oil cloud impact, then logically there is a lot more oil out there that has not been found.  Including, of course, a lot under the ocean floors.  We don't know it is there, because our models (and our current thinking) has not provided for the possibility.  Our thinking is thus self-limiting. Cheers.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

Cheers.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This is certainly turning into an engrossing, thought-provoking thread.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

21 hours ago, esgeo said:

 

In terms of your argument that mantle convection has a lesser impact than the earth's magnetic field on plate tectonics, one only needs to consider quantitative estimates of the energy associated with the heat content of the earth.  

If you compare estimates of the energy stored in the earth (10^38) ergs to that of the earth's magnetic field (10^26 erg) from the two references below, the energy of the magnetic field is 10^-12 (one trillionth) that of the total energy budget that drives convection. 

 

Just a note to thank you for your contributions to this thread. There is a lot more going on inside this planet than we think!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is certainly turning into an engrossing, thought-provoking thread.

And we thank you for bringing a very interesting idea to Oilprice, via some very bright people!

[esgeo + 54]

15 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Thank you Jan for your interest, take it easy, I promise it's not really as complicated as you first think. Just remember; It's going to directly address observations that have been actually seen and documented. 

I try to avoid getting involved in any of those ideas like you mentioned there just because of the high degree of speculation involved. Anytime an opinion is expressed that does not have evidence to back it up it just adds to what appears to be additional layers of the same, it quickly resembles fiction.

Hello esgeo, I'm sorry I should have maybe put those in two different paragraphs and explained them in more detail. 

Quote: "This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline." 

And then;

"The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model! The PETM can be solved!"

These two statements were not intended to infer anything more then the claim that they are individually related with the model's novel mantle thermal phenomenon that this model outlines and supports. 

  The first paragraph is just simply outlining the relationship that will be shown to exist (predictions) between the phenomenon's dynamics and the observations; "like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline."

 

The PETM reference is a direct nod to this geologic mystery. 

 Early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) ca. 52–50 million years ago. Where temperatures in at least high-latitudes and in the deep ocean, warmed by at least 5 C. from the late Paleocene ca. 57.5 million years ago, an additional 5–8 C. warming of the atmosphere and ocean occurred between 55.5 and 56.3 million years ago. This event is called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)  

   Enormous amounts of 13C-depleted carbon rapidly entered the carbon cycle during the beginning of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Explanation for this carbon input has been thermal warming causing the release of the gas hydrate on oceanic continental slopes, followed by release of methane CH4 from the seafloor and its subsequent oxidation to CO2 in the ocean or atmosphere. 

  The revelation that atmospheric carbon looks to have followed by a thousand years the deep ocean warming is difficult to explain using the standard model. A strain energy response from this model's mantle thermal pulse mechanism at the crust/mantle boundary would supply such a response.  The thermal content would need to migrate into the seafloor mud and liberate the gas hydrate, the dissolved C02 was then carried to the surface and released where it produce the increased atmospheric CO2 content.  

This article contains some incredible figures of geologic discharge.
 

http://www.clim-past.net/7/831/2011/cp-7-831-2011.pdf
     Down the Rabbit Hole: toward appropriate discussion of methane release from gas hydrate systems during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum and other past hyper-thermal events

G. R. Dickens 2011

    "The volume and timing of the release of carbon requires a massive discharge into the ocean with the mass depending on the 13C composition of the source. "About 6000–12000 Gigatonnes of Carbon with a 13C of −25‰. In comparison, burning and use of almost all fossil fuel reserves will emit about 4000–5000 Gigatonnes of Carbon by 2500 AD with a 13C value of about −30 ‰. Geologists have no mechanism within the framework of conventional carbon cycle models to explain a geologically rapid and truly global >2.5‰ negative 13C excursion, except by human extraction and burning of most known fossil fuel resources. This problem regarding the PETM forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box” (G. R. Dickens 2011)." 

Notice he says; "forces the Earth Science community to “think outside the box" 
 

I read your links, I think you are possibly unfamiliar with my model's idea, here is a basic outline;

Mantle thermal pulses below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and temporal variations in the formation of oceanic lithosphere
Enrico Bonatti*†‡, Marco Ligi*, Daniele Brunelli*†, Anna Cipriani‡, Paola Fabretti*, Valentina Ferrante*†, Luca Gasperini* & Luisa Ottolini§
* Istituto di Scienze Marine, Geologia Marina, CNR, Via Gobetti 101, 40129, Bologna, Italy
† Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita` “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00187, Rome, Italy
‡ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
§ Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, Sezione di Pavia, CNR, Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy
 
    "A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time."


This shows the mantle is oscillating as this model requires.

  With these revelations above we can now imagine a very simple process whereby the multi-million year increase in magnetic field strength would produce a gradual thermal expansion of the field generator's liquid iron and inner core. The mantle is then displaced in turn and the crust is then slowly displaced outward by the displacing mantle, thus causing the world's divergent boundaries to be opened to receive fresh magma in a manner that is identical to what is currently happening at this moment at all divergent boundaries around the world.

   And further, we can imagine that these oscillations of "3-4 million years" are putting in place periodic amounts of new seafloor at divergent boundaries that, as the paper above explains are; "superimposed on a longer-term steady increased with time" that reveals a variability within the phenomena that would eventually allow it to reverse direction and thus allow for multi-million year periods when the crust would develop massive amounts of gravitational derived lateral compression as the crust follows the mantle downward when the planet's magnetic field generator's output incrementally decreases.

   This newest divergent boundary infill of the last several million years is now the source of this compression. The infill has now become a point of leverage and began its new role as a shoring wedge resisting the building compression in the planet's crust and forcing the tectonic plate to shift in the opposite direction, the compression bleeding away into convergent trenches and crustal folds as the world's crustal plates shift to process the slowly developing gravitational potential energy. This compression would easily produce in the crust the folding and uplift that is seen in the geologic record. And too, we can imagine the compression produced being so large that it would even provide an energy source large enough to drive numerous crustal plates deep under the edge of many others in a manner so widely observed yet is not very well explained by the current standard model. 

This is far from my field of expertise, but my understanding is that geodynamo variability (and resultant magnetic field) is largely controlled by the kinematics associated with mantle convection. You seem to be implying the direct opposite- that the topographic and kinematic characteristics of the mantle are controlled by work done by the magnetic field.

There is A LOT of relatively cold mass in the form of subducted lithosphere being delivered to the core-mantle boundary at variable rates (due to many factors, such as slab density, trajectory, convection currents, etc...), and A LOT of heat being transferred away from the core-mantle boundary by upward convection. Seems to me that this would be the primary influence on the variability in convection in the outer core, that in turn is the geodynamo that creates the earth's magnetic field.

There is no argument that the rate of mantle convection is variable, but to imply its variability is driven by magnetism, as opposed to gravity and thermal gradients, is creative, but (at least from afar) defying laws of physics. 

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GC006334

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00046/full

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by esgeo

[Marc Linquist + 63]

On 4/16/2019 at 9:42 AM, esgeo said:

This is far from my field of expertise, but my understanding is that geodynamo variability (and resultant magnetic field) is largely controlled by the kinematics associated with mantle convection. You seem to be implying the direct opposite- that the topographic and kinematic characteristics of the mantle are controlled by work done by the magnetic field.

There is A LOT of relatively cold mass in the form of subducted lithosphere being delivered to the core-mantle boundary at variable rates (due to many factors, such as slab density, trajectory, convection currents, etc...), and A LOT of heat being transferred away from the core-mantle boundary by upward convection. Seems to me that this would be the primary influence on the variability in convection in the outer core, that in turn is the geodynamo that creates the earth's magnetic field.

There is no argument that the rate of mantle convection is variable, but to imply its variability is driven by magnetism, as opposed to gravity and thermal gradients, is creative, but (at least from afar) defying laws of physics. 

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GC006334

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00046/full

 

Hello again esgeo. Well, I’m not too concerned with whether the mantle has convection currents or not. It’s interesting when you consider how much the standard model is dependent on the mantle having a convection regime. The great Arthur Holmes gave geology the concept and even the suggestion it could be the missing energy source to drive the tectonic plates. But, he also readily admitted it could be wrong.  To date there is no observable evidence of the mantle having an up-welling of lower density material resembling a convective cell. The mantle appears instead to be a solid state material that is 2,900 km thick. With pressures so great, that between just 150 and 250 kilometers deep, carbon can be squeezed into a diamond matrix.

Prof. Don L. Anderson, of the Caltech seismological lab., had, with many other geologists, abandoned deep convection and developed their own “top down” varieties of convection to drive plate motion.    

 https://authors.library.caltech.edu/25038/122/Chapter 1. Origin and early history.pdf
   New Theory of the Earth 
   Anderson, Don L. (2007) New Theory of the Earth. Cambridge University Press , New York. ISBN 9780521849593. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechBOOK:2007.001
 
  "Because of the combined effects of temperature and pressure on physical properties, shallow stratification may be reversible - leading to plate tectonics - while deep dense layers may be trapped at depth." 

     "Conventional (Rayleigh- Benard) convection theory may have little to do with plate tectonics.

   Convection is so poorly defined that it can be top down or bottom up.  So, I do not consider a working hypothesis (like convection) to be on the same level as that of a theory, unless there is some direct observable evidence that it can make anything resembling a prediction of observation then it should remain just a working hypothesis. 
 

    Carlo Doglioni is a preeminent geophysicist and the former president of the Italian Geological Society.  Since April 2016, the president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology

   This is his CV;  http://presidenza.governo.it/AmministrazioneTrasparente/ConsulentiCollaboratori/allegati/CV_doglioni.pdf

He has published some very remarkable papers in regards to mantle dynamics and plate tectonics.
 http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_
MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS
Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy

   ". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.     The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

This remarkable observation above expresses the reality of the situation. Geologists want to believe convection is a viable solution to plate movement, but after 90 years, its existence, let alone its functionality, remains unanswered in the standard model. Being decoupled from the crust is a death blow for convection to have any means to move the plates. The problems I noted in an earlier post about the missing energy to raise the Himalayas is just one more example of the problems that convection is unable to address.  Currently N.America is being driven over the remains of the Farallon oceanic plate, there is no down going slab pulling it, so it is either dragging or being pushed by its own section of the Atlantic plate. If the mantle is decoupled from the crust then there is few options left and ridge push in this situation has been dismissed as inadequate. 

           “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”   

   Reading what is being said in general publications; you would never suspect there was a problem. A great deal of faith is involved in the idea that the Earth’s deep mantle has some sort of fluid like behavior, so much so, the general idea that the oceanic plates can just flounder and sink to the bottom is repeated without even contemplation of the difficulties involved.  None of this plate behavior has been observed. What should be trusted is theories based on predictions supported by observations, and the observation by Doglioni above falsifies much of the supposed credibility that the mantle convection hypothesis has.  

From your link;

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00046/full

"Both rising low-density and sinking high-density regions release gravitational potential energy. In a highly viscous fluid like the Earth's mantle where inertial forces are negligible, the gravitational energy released from a sinking thermal density anomaly is completely transformed into viscous dissipation energy within the deforming fluid." 

This is the tail wagging the dog.   There is great effort going into making the mantle a fluid force to move the continental and oceanic crust. 

There is another way to dissipate energy.  And this model will make many predictions of observations of it. If we were to instead consider the mantle as an extremely dense and in-compressible solid under extreme temperature, a strain energy cycle could be imposed on it as the planet’s magnetic field generator slowly changes amplitude over million year time scales.  This mechanism is not directly derived from the Earth’s magnetic field energy, but from the kinetic energy that occurs when the outer core’s liquid iron thermally expands or contracts against the mantle. In what is simply a strain energy displacement, the mantle’s 2,900 km thickness creates a massive strain energy differential between the inside and outside surfaces of the mantle as it is forced to expand outward. The strain energy increases proportionally with the distance from the core, resulting at the crust/mantle boundary with maximum expansionary movement and thermal release. The mantle’s outer surface area is stretched out and torn, releasing thermal content into the boundary area.   

The mechanical dynamics of strain energy displacements are detailed here;

 http://solidmechanic.../Chapter4_3.htm

Applied Mechanics of solids by Allan F. Bower  

Solutions to simple boundary and initial value problems

4.3 Spherically symmetric solution to quasi-static large strain elasticity problems
 

So, what predictions can this model make?  Well, there is direct observational evidence in the solar magnetic proxies that there is a clear correlation between solar magnetic energy levels and climate variability; increased solar activity will correlate to increased strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary leading to deep oceanic and climate warming. Then when the solar magnetic energy levels fall the planet will begin a period of cooler climate. The model shows 11,400 years of solar magnetic and climate coupling.  Additionally, the strain energy displacement of the mantle is correlated in the solar magnetic proxies with specific occurrences of earthquakes timed to rapid changes in solar magnetic energy.      

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This thread reminds me why I miss the hard science and research threads on the (sadly) now defunct Oilpro forum.

Hopefully we can resurrect here on Oil Price forum that wonderful spark of analytical discussions, where unconventional hard science ideas are fearlessly tossed out in the open to be kicked around, mulled over, tweaked, improved on, etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing an "O&G Science & Research" type of sub-forum added here.  Price, price, price all the time can get a bit dull.

@Rodent

[Rodent + 1,424]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This thread reminds me why I miss the hard science and research threads on the (sadly) now defunct Oilpro forum.

Hopefully we can resurrect here on Oil Price forum that wonderful spark of analytical discussions, where unconventional hard science ideas are fearlessly tossed out in the open to be kicked around, mulled over, tweaked, improved on, etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing an "O&G Science & Research" type of sub-forum added here.  Price, price, price all the time can get a bit dull.

@Rodent

Passing the ball to @CMOP

[CMOP + 227]

13 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Passing the ball to @CMOP

Caught and Touchdown. 

Great Idea @Tom Kirkman. I'll have a new forum created around "O&G Tech, Science, And Research"

[esgeo + 54]

12 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Hello again esgeo. Well, I’m not too concerned with whether the mantle has convection currents or not. It’s interesting when you consider how much the standard model is dependent on the mantle having a convection regime. The great Arthur Holmes gave geology the concept and even the suggestion it could be the missing energy source to drive the tectonic plates. But, he also readily admitted it could be wrong.  To date there is no observable evidence of the mantle having an up-welling of lower density material resembling a convective cell. The mantle appears instead to be a solid state material that is 2,900 km thick. With pressures so great, that between just 150 and 250 kilometers deep, carbon can be squeezed into a diamond matrix.

Prof. Don L. Anderson, of the Caltech seismological lab., had, with many other geologists, abandoned deep convection and developed their own “top down” varieties of convection to drive plate motion.    

 https://authors.library.caltech.edu/25038/122/Chapter 1. Origin and early history.pdf
   New Theory of the Earth 
   Anderson, Don L. (2007) New Theory of the Earth. Cambridge University Press , New York. ISBN 9780521849593. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechBOOK:2007.001
 
  "Because of the combined effects of temperature and pressure on physical properties, shallow stratification may be reversible - leading to plate tectonics - while deep dense layers may be trapped at depth." 

     "Conventional (Rayleigh- Benard) convection theory may have little to do with plate tectonics.

   Convection is so poorly defined that it can be top down or bottom up.  So, I do not consider a working hypothesis (like convection) to be on the same level as that of a theory, unless there is some direct observable evidence that it can make anything resembling a prediction of observation then it should remain just a working hypothesis. 
 

    Carlo Doglioni is a preeminent geophysicist and the former president of the Italian Geological Society.  Since April 2016, the president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology

   This is his CV;  http://presidenza.governo.it/AmministrazioneTrasparente/ConsulentiCollaboratori/allegati/CV_doglioni.pdf

He has published some very remarkable papers in regards to mantle dynamics and plate tectonics.
 http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_
MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS
Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy

   ". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.     The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

This remarkable observation above expresses the reality of the situation. Geologists want to believe convection is a viable solution to plate movement, but after 90 years, its existence, let alone its functionality, remains unanswered in the standard model. Being decoupled from the crust is a death blow for convection to have any means to move the plates. The problems I noted in an earlier post about the missing energy to raise the Himalayas is just one more example of the problems that convection is unable to address.  Currently N.America is being driven over the remains of the Farallon oceanic plate, there is no down going slab pulling it, so it is either dragging or being pushed by its own section of the Atlantic plate. If the mantle is decoupled from the crust then there is few options left and ridge push in this situation has been dismissed as inadequate. 

           “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”   

   Reading what is being said in general publications; you would never suspect there was a problem. A great deal of faith is involved in the idea that the Earth’s deep mantle has some sort of fluid like behavior, so much so, the general idea that the oceanic plates can just flounder and sink to the bottom is repeated without even contemplation of the difficulties involved.  None of this plate behavior has been observed. What should be trusted is theories based on predictions supported by observations, and the observation by Doglioni above falsifies much of the supposed credibility that the mantle convection hypothesis has.  

From your link;

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00046/full

"Both rising low-density and sinking high-density regions release gravitational potential energy. In a highly viscous fluid like the Earth's mantle where inertial forces are negligible, the gravitational energy released from a sinking thermal density anomaly is completely transformed into viscous dissipation energy within the deforming fluid." 

This is the tail wagging the dog.   There is great effort going into making the mantle a fluid force to move the continental and oceanic crust. 

There is another way to dissipate energy.  And this model will make many predictions of observations of it. If we were to instead consider the mantle as an extremely dense and in-compressible solid under extreme temperature, a strain energy cycle could be imposed on it as the planet’s magnetic field generator slowly changes amplitude over million year time scales.  This mechanism is not directly derived from the Earth’s magnetic field energy, but from the kinetic energy that occurs when the outer core’s liquid iron thermally expands or contracts against the mantle. In what is simply a strain energy displacement, the mantle’s 2,900 km thickness creates a massive strain energy differential between the inside and outside surfaces of the mantle as it is forced to expand outward. The strain energy increases proportionally with the distance from the core, resulting at the crust/mantle boundary with maximum expansionary movement and thermal release. The mantle’s outer surface area is stretched out and torn, releasing thermal content into the boundary area.   

The mechanical dynamics of strain energy displacements are detailed here;

 http://solidmechanic.../Chapter4_3.htm

Applied Mechanics of solids by Allan F. Bower  

Solutions to simple boundary and initial value problems

4.3 Spherically symmetric solution to quasi-static large strain elasticity problems
 

So, what predictions can this model make?  Well, there is direct observational evidence in the solar magnetic proxies that there is a clear correlation between solar magnetic energy levels and climate variability; increased solar activity will correlate to increased strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary leading to deep oceanic and climate warming. Then when the solar magnetic energy levels fall the planet will begin a period of cooler climate. The model shows 11,400 years of solar magnetic and climate coupling.  Additionally, the strain energy displacement of the mantle is correlated in the solar magnetic proxies with specific occurrences of earthquakes timed to rapid changes in solar magnetic energy.      

 

I think we can agree upon the fact that we have vastly differing views on the rheology (and associated kinematics, or lack thereof) of the earth's mantle and leave it at that.  The "standard" view is that mantle convection (i.e., heat transfer due to plastic fluid-like behavior of the mantle over geologic time) provides the driving mechanism for plate tectonics on earth today. This is supported by numerous first order observations that can be made  - e.g., heat flow variations in different tectonic settings (high heat flow at mid-ocean ridge and retroarc settings; low heat flow in stable cratonic regions), seismic anisotropy in the upper mantle and at the core-mantle boundary, the far greater average age of continental vs. oceanic lithosphere, indicating much shorter timeframes for recycling (mantle-derived) oceanic lithospheric plates. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, CMOP said:

Caught and Touchdown. 

Great Idea @Tom Kirkman. I'll have a new forum created around "O&G Tech, Science, And Research"

Thanks CMOP and Rodent : )

[Francois Normandeau + 14]

On 4/18/2019 at 8:05 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Price, price, price all the time can get a bit dull.

Agreed.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Thread moved to the new sub-forum Energy Tech, Science & Research.

[Francois Normandeau + 14]

Hello everyone.

I hope that by posting my comment here, it will be posted in the correct location (where this thread now resides)...

If not, kindly forgive me.

First, many thanks to @Tom Kirkman for bringing our attention to such a fascinating topic.

I am by no means an expert in such matters but I do enjoy intelligent and stimulating content which is at times,

rarely found on social networks and sites and blogs of all types.

Second, heartfelt gratitude to @Marc Linquist, for taking the time to present, explain, respond to enquiries

and enlighten us with a level of knowledge and a clarity rarely encountered...

For the time taken and the efforts you have made in making all this information understandable, sincere thanks.

@Marc Linquist, I will gladly share the URL of your website on Linkedin and other networks.

Wishing everyone here a great Easter holiday.

From Spain... F. Normandeau

 

P.S.

Here is the link I shared on Linkedin.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6524923679707664384

Thanks.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Francois Normandeau
adding a link to a share on LinkedIn.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@Francois Normandeau thanks for your kind words about the Oil Price forum.  And yep, you posted your comment in the right place. And thanks for sharing the topic on LinkedIn.