Re: What is this convection cell nonsense

On Aug 6, 2:48 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1186350753.604752.276380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Aug 4, 4:46 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1186250477.122133.159640 @j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

<snip rant>

Well, stuff comes out of the interior at the ridge, and disappears
into the interior at the subduction zone. Since there is not a HUGE
hole at the ridge, nor HUGE mountains at the subduction zone, and in
fact, since both areas are in pretty good isostatic equilibrium, you
gotta have convection of material by some means. Stuff MUST flow
from sink to source. That means convection,kind of by definition.
Since the stuff sinking is colder than the stuff coming up, there
pretty much has to be a heat transfer involved too, any way you look
at it. You also need to explain things like the spreading between
Antarctica and Australia, which is zonal rather than meridonal.

I distinctly told you that unless you attempt to make a complete fool
of yourself and determine where these nonsensical 'convection cells'
emerge and descend geographically on the planet that I would have
little interest in discussing matters of geological interest.As
differential rotation is observationally observed where a celestial
body is rotating,at least one which is not in a solid state but rather
in a variety of molten/flexibvle condition,why would I care to even
waste a second with silly people who believe in 'convection cells.

No offense but I do not think that reasoning is your strongest point
and I suggest you continue believing in silly correlations where you
can do no harm.Thank you.

Arrogant ***, ain't you? <plonk>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The inference of differential rotation in the molten/flexible interior
of the Earth as a common link between crustal motion and planetary
shape is just an enjoyable modification of Wegener's original proposal
for why surface features and continental seperation exist the way they
do,if nobody is good enough to create the link then there is little I
can do about it.

Empricists are useless when considering the motions of the Earth,they
still attribute a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt to the Earth
to explain cyclical hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) and
ignore the main input into climate and seasons even when images of the
Earth from space are availible.Considering that differential rotation
below the Earth's crust is infered as a mechanism for crustral motion
while 'scientists' cannot even grasp Directly from observation the
main component in global climate and subsequently cyclical
hemispherical meteorological patterns I do not have a high confidence
that the neccessary intelligence exists to consider the geological
mechanism.

You probably consider yourselves brilliant but looking at how you
approach the non offfensive differential rotation mechanism for the
Earth I would consider you lot dull and mediocre.




.

Quantcast