Go to Otherpower.com Home Page Go to Forcefield Shopping Cart Go to Wondermagnet.com Home Page
Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Rants & Opinion - Diaries - Our Products
The Footprint Revisited


By finnsawyer, Section Rants & Opinion
Posted on Fri Jun 25th, 2004 at 10:26:55 AM MST
The State of California plans to regulate carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions from cars.  

Wonderful!  If you take a walk to the nearest gravel pit and look around chances are that you'll find a piece of limestone.  Examine it closely and you'll see that it's loaded with fossils.  This stuff, which is calcium carbonate, is everywhere, even on Mount Everest. This is the true carbon cycle on this planet:  Volcanoes and geothermal vents spew CO2 into the atmosphere.  The oceans absorb the gas, and hard shelled marine animals incorporate the carbon into their bodies.  When the animals die the shells fall to the bottom where they essentially last forever or are recycled into limestone.  Judging by the prevalence of limestone this has been an important aspect of the health of the planet for millions of years.  The so called carbon cycle on land is really a zero sum game.  As vegetation rots it releases it's carbon back into the atmosphere.  So, what's the impact of human activity?  Who knows?  How much CO2 is actually released from volcanoes?  Can anybody measure it? As far as I have been able to determine the amount humans produce just isn't important.  Just take the total amount per year and divide it by the total surface area of the earth.  It's not very much per square inch when compared to what's already in the atmosphere.            

Going a little farther afield, the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow" got one thing right.  Numerous remains of Woolly Mammoths have been found that were quick frozen.  These have been found in Alaska and Siberia, two areas that were not covered by ice during the last ice age.  Curious.  The animals were peacefully grazing in a temperate environment when they were suddenly exposed to an arctic environment where they were quick frozen and remained so for thousands of years.  At the time a large part of America and Europe were covered by the ice sheets.  So, where was the north pole?  This ice distribution would suggest that the pole was in the north Atlantic.  Why would the pole shift?  The ice itself would be the culprit.  As the ice sheets built up they would exert a large centrifugal force on the Earth's surface.  Over time an imbalance in the polar ice sheets could develop that was sufficient to cause the Earth's crust to shift (by around a thousand miles).  The ice sheets moved south enough to cause them to melt.  In time new ice sheets would develop and...?  Is there any other proof of this?  In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is a ridge where the land is spreading apart.  This ridge crosses Iceland.  There is a beautiful straight gorge where the spreading occurs that is Eighty feet deep.  Only eighty feet!  Obviously this process can not have been going on for millions of years as the Island would have long ago been split in two.  In other words Iceland has only been located over the ridge for some thousands of years.    

What's the outlook today?  Greenland has an icecap that is about a mile thick and extends 1200 feet below sea level.  So, again we have a large centrifugal force acting on the earth's crust.  It's a dagger pointed at the heart of our civilization.  Some say the Greenland icecap is melting.  But is it?  Even though less ice is entering the ocean, the interior could actually be building up.  Maybe we should hope for and embrace global warming.

The Footprint Revisited | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 editorial)

Re: The Footprint Revisited (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by RogerAS (theropod at yahoo dot com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2004 at 01:37:58 PM MST
(User Info)

Fin,

Please excuse the following, I can't help myself.

You wrote;
<<This ridge crosses Iceland.  There is a beautiful straight gorge where the spreading occurs that is Eighty feet deep.  Only eighty feet!  Obviously this process can not have been going on for millions of years as the Island would have long ago been split in two.  In other words Iceland has only been located over the ridge for some thousands of years.>>

This is not a correct assuption. The depth of the Iceland crack or gorge is far deeper than what is represented at the surface, and in fact goes down to the plate edges. The action of seperation between the plates is obscured by errosion and infilling. Otherwise the crack, or divergence, in the mid Atlantic ocean(& Iceland) would be several miles deeper or wider than the sea floor. Continental drift has been going on since the great breakup of Gondwannaland (sp) some 200 million+ years ago. At some places the plates are converging, like in the Pacific Northwest USA, and subduction of one plate under another carries carbonates (and everything else) under the other more stationary plate. This is why NW volcanos usually explode violently, (St. Helens, Crater Lake) as opposed to Hawaii types that ooze lava during erruptions. Hawaian volcanoes are the result of a hot spot, or thin area, in the earths crust, and gases trapped in the subducting Pacific Plate are compressed and expand rapidly like a soda opening during erruptions.

During the last ice age, about 15K years ago, ice was as deep as 1 mile or more in parts of North America. The statement that Alaska was free of this ice sheet is only barely true in that along coastal areas little ice had built up. The famous "land bridge" between Siberia and Alaska was obviously free of deep ice, but the blanket statement that they were ice free is wrong. MOST of the land in these areas was also covered in a deep ice layer. The animals preserved in these areas were not flash frozen, and the tales of finding grasses still in their mouths are just that, tales not truth. Some scientist now believe these animals fell into soft spots or cracks and were entombed. In South Dakota there is a fossil mammoth site where individuals were preserved in a standing position, after having slipping into a sink hole. No ice was involved, aside from providing a dry climate that promoted conditions favorable for mammoth food production. The search for food could have driven these animals to cross areas where they wouldn't normally reside, and a few became curiosities we find today. No evidence exists that these animals were frozen by a sudden catastrophic event.

The release of gases in volcanic erruptions is easily measured. Samples of these erruptive materials can show the precentage of all contents. Of course estimates must be used in dealing with volumes, as in mass of tons per erruption. I have seen estimates that when Krakatoa (SP) errupted in the South Pacific more sulphur dioxide was released than all activity by man to date, by several orders of magnitude. Obviously there were several other compunds released as well, CO2 being one. So, the influence of mans activities on the climate are a miniscule compared to naturally occuring "pollution". While mankind, globally, may see "evidence" of our impact, one must take all these alarmist eco warnings with a grain of salt, or become a reactionary without concern for truth.

As for the rotational poles shifting because the weight of ice threw off earths balance, well let's think about that. Ice weight is not that much different that liquid water, per volume. Icebergs have much more area below water than above. Current oceans should also imbalance the earth in the same way, but this is not the case. Compared to the weight of the entire planet the water is a minor consideration whether frozen or liquid. Tectonic plate movement should be a much greater influence on balance than the pitiful squirt of water we have, but this doesn't seem to be the case either.

Human beings, as a whole, are very incapable of thinking in terms of more than a few hundered years, and the climate we enjoy today is the result of 4+ billion years of formation. There have been episodes in earths climate history both hot and cold. My opinion is that our sun has high and low output periods and these are the determining factors. Extraterrestrial bolide impacts have had more influence on climate and biodiversity change than any activity arising on earth, ever. Were it not for a series of asteriod encounters we humans wouldn't even be here, dinosaurs would be aurguing on the 'net, or maybe trilobites.

RogerAS
Roger AS
8 Years off-grid & counting



Re: The Footprint Revisited (3.00 / 0) (#2)
by finnsawyer on Fri Jun 25th, 2004 at 09:10:13 PM MST
(User Info)

While you make many interesting points I've only got time to respond to one: the Iceland situation.  If the gorge on Iceland had been expanding for millions of years there would not have been enough material to "infill" the crack.  Of course the crack goes down to the plate edges. That's why it's there.  As far as the crack possibly going deeper than the sea floor, the situation on the sea floor is that lava constantly wells up keeping the floor depth more or less constant.  The point is that any area that has been spreading for millions of years should have basically the same conditions.  Iceland does not.

O.K. Two.  A liquid like water while it will experience a centrifugal (inertial) force on the molecular level can not easily transfer that force to solid rock unless it is confined in some way.  Ice on the other hand can transfer force simply by being in contact with the rock.  Also the force on one region of ice can be transfered to rock through intervening ice.  In the case of Greenland we have a situation where the ice is also confined.  All the inertial force on the icecap can be transfered to the underlying rock and hence to the Earth's crust.  The oceans can not in general do this as the water will just tend to flow by.
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: The Footprint Revisited (3.00 / 0) (#3)
by finnsawyer on Sun Jun 27th, 2004 at 10:34:27 AM MST
(User Info)

I'd like to deal with a few more of your comments.  As far as the mammoths are concerned, it is my understanding that the beasts died and froze with their last meal undigested.  I think the important question is: when did they die?  Did they die all at the same time or were their deaths spread over thousands of years?  If they died at the same time it would indicate a catastrophic event.  I don't know if carbon 14 dating would be of use this far out in time, but its a place to start.

Your belief that the sun's energy output has changed is pure speculation (we could argue without proof, for instance, that global warming if it's occurring is due to the sun's output increasing).  The sun is a convective star.  This means that the plasma of which its composed is well mixed. The reactions at the core should have a stable constant supply of hydrogen during the life of the star.  Large long term changes in energy output should not occur except for the long term (we're talking billions of years here) increase in output due to the build up of helium in the core.

While it may be possible to measure gas concentrations at a given location, to accurately access the total amount of a given gas entering the atmosphere requires doing this all over the Earth including the seas and then determining the volumes at each vent or making reasonable estimates based on accurate studies.  I don't believe anyone has done this for carbon dioxide.  Regulating CO2 emissions is pure you know what.

When I saw the aerial view of the small rift on Iceland, extrapolated it forward in time, and compared it with the situation on the ocean floor, I realized that it had to be of very recent geological origin.  There is a similar situation in the Great Rift Valley on the horn of Africa that is more advanced.  Here the sea is making inroads.  Eventually the valley will become part of the sea floor.  In time it too will reach a depth where upwelling lava will form the floor.  Iceland should suffer the same fate.  My point is that it should already have suffered that fate if it's been in the process of being torn apart for millions of years.
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: The Footprint Revisited (3.00 / 0) (#4)
by RogerAS (theropod at yahoo dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2004 at 10:29:28 AM MST
(User Info)

Fin,

Here are a few references I'd like to present. Excuse the length of posting.
***********

Solar Variance

Source NASA
While the visible light from the Sun remains constant, matter and invisible radiation are highly variable. This solar variability is associated with sunspots, solar flares, and coronal holes. We measure the increase in matter and energy that streams toward Earth using instruments on rockets, satellites, and at Earth's surface. Periods of high solar activity are of special interest to scientists and engineers involved in satellite design, space station construction, and space shuttle missions.
***************

Source Rice University

Solar Mechanisms of Global Climate Change

...solar activity has a strong effect on interplanetary space. It is hardly surprising, then, that changes in the sun can drastically affect Earth's climate. Though the climactic changes are not the focus of this project, it should be noted that solar variations can account for the climate change during the Maunder minimum. Two main theories have been proposed: a link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation and a long-term variation of solar irradiance. These are discussed below. However, it should be kept in mind that Earth's climate is the paradigm system for chaos theory; any theory requires extensive approximation and computer modelling.

GCR and cloud formation
...These changes in interplanetary space can directly affect Earth's climate. In particular, galactic cosmic rays have been implicated in cloud formation on Earth. Though no explanation has been proposed for exactly how increased GCR flux leads to increased cloud cover, the correllation is extremely strong (R=.83) 7. Significant increases in cloud cover would decrease the total amount of energy reaching Earth, decreasing the Earth's temperature.

Solar Irradiance Variations

A great deal of research has been put into understanding both the variations in the solar constant and the effect on the Earth's climate. For the first, roughly a dozen upper atmosphere and space instruments have been launched since 1980. The solar irradiance has been found to vary on a wide variety of timescales, from minutes to the 11-year solar activity cycle. It has even been postulated that the solar irradiance varies on a time scale of centuries or millenia, though the evidence for this is still controversial. The strongest correllation is with the 11-year cycle. When the sun is at a minimum in its cycle, the solar irradiance is lowest 8. This suggests that, during a great minimum like the Maunder minimum, solar irradiance should decrease. Numerous studies have shown that the solar irradiance was between .1% and 1% lower during the Maunder minimum using a wide variety of techniques. (See, for example, Bhatnagar et. al 9).
************

Source Christian Science Monitor

Because the sun is the ultimate source of Earth's warmth, some researchers have looked to it for an answer. In the 1970s, solar researcher John Eddy, now at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan, noticed the correlation of sunspot numbers with major ups and downs in Earth's climate. For example, he found that a period of low activity from 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum, matched perfectly one of the coldest spells of the Little Ice Age.

Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, estimates that the sun may have been about a quarter of 1 percent dimmer during the Maunder Minimum. This may not sound like much, but the sun's energy output is so immense that 0.25 percent amount to a lot of missing sunshine -- enough to cause most of the temperature drop, she says.
**************

Source National Acadamy of Science

The development and calibration of a solar-output model for climate are supported by geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence from the last full glacial Pleistocene (30,000 years BP) through the current Holocene interglacial to the present. The solar-output model is based on a superposition of a fundamental harmonic progression of cycles beginning at 10 and 12 years and progressing to the 13th harmonic (90,000-year cycle), which is approximately equal to the average continental glacial cycle. This model was date calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years BP and compared with geophysical records of sea level, carbon-14 production, oxygen 16/18 ratios, and other geologic evidence of climate fluctuations. The approximate 1,300-year little-ice-age cycle and intervening warmer periods agree with archaeological and historical evidence of these cold and warm periods. Throughout history, global warming has brought prosperity whereas global cooling has brought adversity.

The solar-output model allows speculation on global climatic variations in the next 10,000 years. Extrapolation of the solar-output model shows a return to little-ice-age conditions by A.D. 2400-2900 followed by a rapid return to altithermal conditions during the middle of the third millennium A.D. This altithermal period may be similar to the Holocene Maximum that began nearly 3,800 years ago. The solar output model suggests that, approximately 20,000 years after it began, the current interglacial period may come to an end and another glacial period may begin.
*************

Mammoths********

Source: don-lindsay-archive.org

Less than fifty frozen animals have been found. Most were pretty decayed, and only a few were whole. They all have different carbon dates, spread across the last 50,000 years. These are unrelated deaths that happened to result in burials.

 "Lapparent attributes the extinction of the mammoth to a gradual increase in cold and a decrease in the supply of food, rather than to a cataclysmic flood." (Guthrie 1990)
**************

Iceland******

Source platetectonics.com

Iceland is part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge that owes its very existence to the molten rock, or magma, that wells up through the rifts along the ridge. Scientists believe Iceland rose from the sea floor about 20 million years ago. Continuous spreading, accompanied by eruptions along Iceland's section of the ridge, widens the country by about one inch per year.

Over one third of Iceland's 40,000 square miles is volcanically active and loaded with lava fields. Elsewhere, magma too far below the surface to create volcanoes heats the rock above, sending the heated groundwater percolating to the surface in the form of "hot springs." Iceland is far enough north so that it should be entirely covered by ice and snow, like Greenland to the west. The heat generated by the ridge, however, keeps the country in a constant state of thaw, distinguishing it as the Land of Fire and Ice.
*******

Hope this helps rather than hinders,
RogerAS

Roger AS
8 Years off-grid & counting
[ Parent ]



The Footprint Revisited | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 editorial)
Display: Sort:
Menu
· create account
· How to use the board
· FAQs
· search the board
· Google search the board
· Old Otherpower Board

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Total Views
  40 Scoop users have viewed this posting.

Related Links
· Also by finnsawyer

Powered by Scoop
You must be a registered user to post here. It's easy and free, and the link is on the upper right side of your page.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Postings are owned by the poster, but may be deleted or moved at the ADMIN's sole discretion. The Rest © 2003 Forcefield.
You can Email the board ADMIN here. PLEASE include the username you signed up with!