Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
From: Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.troelsgaard_at_mail.dk)
Date: 03/05/05
- Next message: don findlay: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Previous message: maison.mousse: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- In reply to: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: Matt: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:21:12 +0100
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3q6Wd.32835$r55.30379@attbi_s52...
>
> "Matt" <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:e25c654e.0503041137.2c2bc04e@posting.google.com...
>> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>> news:<7BLVd.89072$4q6.15721@attbi_s01>...
>>> "Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:VmIVd.3$YD4.1@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>> > Effectively resulting in a drop in relative sea level. There are to
>>> > many
>>> > other causes of universal sea level variations to rely on universal
>>> > change
>>> > in sea level to support EE IMHO.
>>> > Ralph Nesbitt
>>> >
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> The decline in sea level shows a gradual drop going over the last 500
>> million years at least. Egyed drew this from various sources. He
>> used it as evidence for a slow EE model.
>
> Where do you get this information? That is utter crap. Sea level has
> risen and fallen hundreds of times (if not thousands) in the last 500
> million years, and has many causes. That is a blanket statement like that
> demonstrates clear lack of direct field expereince. Fact: sea level
> changes are determined in the rock record by trends in sediment grain
> sizes and facies changes, trends which only tell you about regional
> changes. You can almost never correlate these changes from region to
> region. Many have tried. It doesn't work. There are too many facies
> changes, to many tectonic movements, too many unconformities to say that a
> specific change in sediment properties in China correlate to specific
> sediment changes in Wisconsin in the Mississippian, for example.
> Sometimes, you can for immediately adjacent basins, but very rarely. You
> need to learn how to interpret stratigraphic columns. You should also
> learn two terms: transgression, and regression, and two other concepts:
> coarsing/fining upwards/downwards.
The registrated global sea level changes (comprehensive overviev: Gerhard
Einsele; for details see Vail et. al) are well accounted for within PT. A
gradual sea level rise of a few hundred meters is registered, not a drop.
At times of a united super-continent ocean ridges are not very active, the
ocean floor cold, heavy and deep - alternatively the super-continent is hot
and raised higher than normal. There is a long term rise of sea level from
Perm/Trias to late Cretacious. This ofcourse has been calculated within PT,
but if the latest super-cycle is acknowledged, there would be no
differences.
I don't know how Egyed reaches his conclusions. Considering the created
basin volume in expansion, one would be inclined to believe that a drastic
and permanent change would have happened ... not a return to usual
sedimentary conditions as is witnessed by continued sedimentation across
Perm/Trias and the global highstand at the end of Cretacious. If one assumes
a soft subsurface that promotes instant isostatic eqvilibrium, the same
assumption prevents a rationale for a focussed surge of 'expanded material'
toward ocean basins.
Carsten
- Next message: don findlay: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Previous message: maison.mousse: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- In reply to: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: Matt: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|