Evidence Shows That Geological Features Play Major Role In Recent Ocean Heat Uptake
Many aspects of the climate change theory have been invalidated by a remarkable increase in our ocean’s temperature during the last twelve months (see here and here).
This sudden, anomalous, and inexplicable change in ocean surface temperature has left scientists who support the climate change theory baffled because it doesn’t support the conclusions of their current ocean climate models.
Inexplicably, those advocating the validity of the climate change theory have stuck to their idea that all significant changes in ocean temperature are due to increases in human activity.
Here we show that the only plausible explanation for this dramatic temperature increase in ocean temperature is massive pulses of heat emitted from ocean floor geological features (see here, here, and here).
Perspective of Earth’s Oceans
Before presenting evidence that supports the contention that heat emitted from seafloor geological features is the cause and/or major contributor to the recent and very anomalous increase in ocean temperature, we must take time to put into perspective ocean area, volume, and depth. And to look at the historical increase in the Earth’s sea surface temperature.
The area of the Earth’s oceans is 139,382,879 square miles, which represents 71% of Earth’s surface, has a volume of 10,907,411,982 cubic miles, and weighs 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
Bottomline: Earth is a water planet. It takes an unmanageable amount of heat to quickly warm oceans. Ocean temperatures between 1880-2010, a 130 period, have steadily and not anomalously risen two degrees Fahrenheit equating to 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per year (Figure 1).
This moderate and steady increase in temperature doesn’t fit into the notion that anthropogenic forces are the cause of the recent changes in ocean surface water.
Atlantic Ocean Warming
The Figure 2 graph illustrates the monthly and yearly temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean surface waters from 1981 to 2024.
It shows that beginning in 2023 and through the first three months of 2024 the surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean surface experienced an extremely anomalous warming event.
The following quote is taken from a research study that describes the temperature change in greater detail. Via Vox:
“On Wednesday, June 14, the surface of the North Atlantic Ocean reached an average temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit. That may sound like a pleasant day at the pool, but it’s actually a record high, and it will have global consequences.
The average for this time of year, over the past three decades, is 71 degrees Fahrenheit. That two-degree difference reflects a gargantuan amount of extra energy stored in the ocean. The Atlantic has been riding a wave of extreme heat since last year. And as summer sets in, the temperature will climb.
This is an incredibly unusual year,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at Princeton University.
“A warm Atlantic tends to have a lot of global influences. Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures affect rainfall and storms in Brazil, India, the Sahel region of Africa, and the southwestern United States. Hot water is also the fuel for hurricanes, which need the sea surface to be at least 79 degrees Fahrenheit to form.
Higher temperatures boost the octane rating of this fuel, leading to more powerful storms. They can also diminish stocks of fish, which feed 3 billion people”
I am certain that the increase in North Atlantic Ocean surface temperature waters is the result of heat emitted from its hundreds of thousands of active ocean floor geological features. Features that are generated, fueled, maintained, and associated with the North Atlantic Ocean floor Pull Apart / Divergent Fault System ( Figure 4).
The system is 25,000 miles long and on average 1,000 miles wide. When the northern segment of the fault system suddenly becomes very active it allows unimaginable amounts of deep inner Earth molten lava to upwell along the main fault plane.
Eventually, the lava reaches the ocean floor where it emits enough heat to increase the temperature of the North Atlantic’s entire ocean column including the surface waters (see here).
Pacific Ocean Warming
Similar to the North Atlantic Ocean’s extreme, a sudden and anomalous increase in the temperature of surface waters in the central Pacific Ocean has also experienced a significant increase in temperature during the last 12 months. Even though this increase hasn’t been the same amount as the increase in surface waters of the North Atlantic Ocean it is still very anomalous.
The anomalous temperature increase of the central Pacific Ocean surface waters is the result of heat emitted from an ocean floor Push Together/Convergent Fault System that encircles the outer edges of the Pacific Ocean.
This fault system is called the Pacific Ring of Fire. A segment of the Pacific Ring of Fire push together/divergent fault system is shown in Figure 4. The image shows an area that is approximately 400 hundred miles wide and 200 miles wide. Even this small portion of the Pacific Ocean is covered by a vast number of volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, and minor faults.
The Pacific Ring of Fire is 25,000 miles long and 350 miles wide. It contains between 750 and 915 active or dormant volcanoes, approximately two-thirds of the world’s total. Ninety percent of Earth’s earthquakes, including the most violent, occur on the Pacific Ring of Fire. All El Ninos originate from one point along the Pacific Ring of Fire (Figure 5)
It may amaze you to know that climatologists and Oceanographers don’t know what generates El Ninos. Attempting to decipher what force or forces generate and maintain El Ninos they have used the vast amounts of atmospheric and oceanic data available to them.
Utilizing this data scientists have said ‘When an El Nino forms trade winds reverse their direction, ocean currents notably change, and atmospheric parameters are altered.’ They don’t say ‘What generates an El Nino? The Trade Winds, etc. are side effects and not the cause of El Ninos.’
Since 2014 I have written many articles integrating information from numerous research studies with my observations and ideas.
This has convinced me that El Ninos are generated by heat emissions from ocean floor hydrothermal vents and volcanoes, and positioned at a fixed/nonmoving “source point”.
A source point that is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire (Figure 5). Here are a few of my articles that have been posted on Climate Change Dispatch here, here, and here.
A super strong and high-temperature El Nino began on July 4, 2023, and only now have sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies begun weakening across most of the equatorial Pacific Ocean, with La Niña potentially developing during summer 2024.
This El Nino event was preceded by a triad of La Nina cool phases that began in 2020 and ended in 2023. Figure 7 shows that the energy needed to go from a very strong La Nina to a very strong El Nino is off the charts. This energy conversion cannot be explained by heat emitted from human activities (Figure 6).
Conclusion
Scientists who support the human-caused climate change theory are having a very difficult time explaining an extremely large temperature increase in Earth’s surface temperatures. This is because their climate models don’t accurately represent this change.
They have stated that this change is the result of human-made forces. However, the most plausible alternative explanation for these changes is massive, short-period pulses of heat emitted from ocean geological features.
Biography
James Edward Kamis is a retired geologist with 47 years of experience, a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Northern Illinois University (1973), and a Master of Science degree in Geology from Idaho State University (1976). More than 46 years of research have convinced him that geological forces significantly influence, or in some cases completely control climate and climate-related events as per his Plate Climatology Theory. Kamis’ new book, Geological Impacts on Climate, is available now.
See more here Climate Change Dispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
sunsettommy
| #
It is an interesting direction on research over an area that has been badly neglected in the past.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
First, our comments are evidence that someone is reading the articles posted here and the comments submitted here. As I read this article and began watching a video by Mr. Kamis; I had to conclude the basic (fundamental) problem is US. The content of his article and video are very well researched. However, I stopped listening to his video when he referred to a “seven millimeter” change of a sea level change. He knows and we should know that CYCLICALLY sea level changes (maximum and minimum) are measured at many locations with far, far greater magnitudes of changes. And most agree that these Ocean Tides are caused by the gravitation forces of the moon and sun acting upon ocean water as the earth rotates with a 24 hour period. And we can observe that winds can cause the sea levels to change by more than seven millimeters. So, how stupid are WE?
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I happen to know of this man as I have seen his website for a few years now.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,,
Have you read this (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/) article?
Have a blessed day
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes the problem is US. We are all way too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ok, the poroposed sea level change is iffy, but geothermal heat has been proposed a number of times, e.g. https://principia-scientific.com/non-anthropogenic-causes-of-the-hottest-year-on-record/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
Thanks for agreeing. And I agree that “geothermal heat” should not be ignored. For it is evidence of the geological mechanism which drives “continental drift”.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
In order for geothermal heat to be radiated into space it must be on the surface, as when a volcano erupts. In order for geothermal to reach the surface it cannot go through colder water without losing heat to the colder water. Since the surface is heated by the sun and is hotter than the water under it. That solar energy must be lost so the surface becomes cooler than the subsurface water before geothermal can reach the surface and be radiated into space. This is the same problem as the surface of the Earth heating the stratosphere while the troposphere remains cooler.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You concluded “This is the same problem as the surface of the Earth heating the stratosphere while the troposphere remains cooler.” It seems you had not read about the chemical mechanisms by which the stratosphere is understood to be heated. These mechanisms require an improbable three body simultaneous collisions; where the third body can be any atmospheric molecule. For this third body is necessary to carry away excess kinetic energy before the ozone molecule decomposes back to a molecular oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom. And this excess kinetic energy, directly added to that of the stratosphere, is what warms the stratosphere.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Complete and total nonsense. Your scenario requires that during a collision molecules with less energy transfer energy to a third molecule increasing its energy to greater than the starting energy of any of the molecules. Energy flows from higher to lower establishing equilibrium, never from lower to higher. In the law of conservation of momentum the molecule with greater velocity transfers velocity to the molecule with less energy.
Using a swinging ball pendulum try making three balls collide and have one ball end up with a velocity greater than the initial velocity of any of the balls.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Hi Herb,
Where do you get your information? If you would search “How is the ozone of the stratosphere formed”, you would find that I am not the only one who describes the mechanism I just described. Can you direct me to a kink which questions this mechanism?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
It takes 498,000 joules/mole to split O2 into 2 Oxygen atoms. You cannot have two molecules with 249.000 joules/mole collide with another O2 molecule and give it 498,000 joules/mole .. It doesn’t work that way . After the collision all the molecules will have the same energy. Energy doesn’t add it flows from greater to lesser
equalizing. Look up the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
If you you use your swinging ball pendulum and raise two balls it doesn’t result in 1 ball gaining twice the velocity but two balls gaining velocity.
This is just a stupid explanation by someone claiming to be a scientist trying to explain something that contradicts their beliefs. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that as the altitude in the stratosphere increases and collisions become less frequent it gets hotter?
The ozone forms because O2 is absorbing energy from the UV light from the sun and gains enough to split into atoms. If you look at the composition of the atmosphere you will see it is composed of NO molecules where oxygen atoms have combined with partially split nitrogen molecules.
As I’ve been trying to tell you for years a thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy in a gas. As a gas gains energy it expands and there ate fewer collisions transferring energy from gas molecules to the thermometer.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“As I’ve been trying to tell you for years a thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy in a gas.” True, but Herb do you not know that the purpose of the thermometer is to MEASURE the,[TEMPERATURE of the gas (atmosphere)?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“As I’ve been trying to tell you for years a thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy in a gas.” True, but Herb do you not know that the purpose of the thermometer is to MEASURE the TEMPERATURE of the gas (atmosphere)?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
The thermometer measures the amount of momentum of the molecules striking it. Since there is no transfer of mass in elastic collision it is only energy that is transferred to other molecules and temperature is a measurement of both mass and energy, it is not an accurate measurement. The surface of the ocean has 1000 times the molecules as the air above it. If both have a temperature of 20C do you believe the kinetic energy of the molecules are the same?
Reply
MattH
| #
The anomalously warm SST hot spot off the coast of Northern Japan is still there eighteen months after initial observations, with the associated plume of warmer water dispersed Eastward across the Pacific Ocean.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_90day_large.gif
This area is where four tectonic plates meet, the only such geologic characteristic on the planet.
Of Course, there are SST temperatures of up to 60degrees Celsius in the Red Sea from geological activity.
https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2020/11023.pdf
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Don’t you find it revealing that this area of the Pacific is much warmer than the rest of the Pacific, yet we know the difference in solar radiation onto the waters isn’t that different across the water.
Reply
MattH
| #
Anomalies such as weather can allow an SST to become a bit warmer but eventually another weather event and currents disperses that warmer SST.
When you have a Significantly warmer SST in one spot for a long time, such as North East Japan, them geological dudes are up to something.
Of course them geological whats its create a column of warmer water that reaches the surface and disperses. The very Eastern most point of South America had a spot right next to the coast that dispersed North West to the Galapagos before dispersing West along the Equator. I first noticed it in Febry last year and I find it hard to believe it got there by the Cromwell current or the North Equitorial Counter Current.
It was an identical hot spot to the Japanese one.
Reply
MattH
| #
P.S. Good day to you young Sunset.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt and Sunsettommy,
Since energy decreases with distance from the source, if geothermal heat from bottom of a body of water is heating the surface of the water, there must be a column of water in that body where the temperature decreases as the depth decreases. How would it be possible for an energy source to heat water molecules on the surface without first heating identical water molecules below the surface?
If the surface of the water is “hotter” than the water below it, the source of heat must come from the surface or above the surface.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Here is Herb saying the SST during the Tonga eruption was warm but the subsurface water was cold so the sun caused the eruption.
There was a column of warmer temperatures. Probably if on the coast of Japan or South America the warmer SST’s would not have dispersed so quickly by oceanic currents.
Reply
MattH
| #
Correction. “so the sun caused the warmer SSTs”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The Tonga eruption blew the water into the atmosphere. After the eruption the water was replaced by cold water flowing in with the warmer water remaining on the surface.
The “Smokers” on the floor of the Pacific are continually releasing geothermal heat but since that heat is absorbed by the cold water around them, it does not make it to the surface.
The Sea of Japan is similar to the Mediterranean Sea in that it is almost totally enclosed. It is not only heated directly by the sun but also the water cooling the surrounding land draining into it. Considering that Japan is highly industrialized and densely populated this would be a significant source of heat. Since there is little out flow dispersing the heat much of it remains in the sea. There very well may be geothermal heating but a rising column of warm water needs to be identified to determine how much this contributes to the surface temperature.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
No body mentioned the sea of Japan.
Fuck off.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and MattH,
In 2017 I began a series of three relatively brief essays the titles :”the Power Of Pondering Or (?) Imagination”, “The Problem—Argumentation”, and The Solution—Discussion”.
This morning I read that MattH and Herb had begun what I consider to be a discussion until MattH. Seemed to get offended by the fact Herb had introduced the topic (the sea of Japan) into the discussion.
MattH, you need to apologize to Herb. James Kamis ‘ article has given us a topic which deserves a fruitful discussion and Herb’s has introduced information that seems related to his article. Why do you object so strongly to what Herb did?
Have a good day,
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. I am comfortable to apologize to the readers but none of my comments refer to the sea of Japan so if somebody wants to discuss that sea do not do it in a reply to me when I have provided references, one of which is the East Coast of Japan.
It is obvious that in some cases warmer SSTs from geological activity will provide a column of warmer water, not necessarily vertical, from geological source to the surface, the other option being cumulative effect, which I have already mentioned.
I would like to think we can advance our scientific understanding, not reverting into frivolous and vexatious argument over what a child can understand
I prefer to ponder solutions and advancement rather than burn oxygen in futility.
It is the same exasperation Mr Kooks experienced except Kooks appeared to have scientific training. The scientist got banned and the gatekeeper of much garbage is hindering progress.
No such thing as water vapour? The second Law of thermodynamics is wrong? Let him publish an article on these things but I do not want my occasional genuine considerations spoiled and abused. Life is too short.
Thank you Jerry, for the basic scientific concepts you have taught me.
Bye.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Thank you for this information. An it caused something to click in my memory. Here at PSI the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics is a big deal. But I have never actually read here .the REAL reason why.
One must start with the definition of energy–the capacity to do WORK. But the 2nd Law dictates only a small portion of the energy is consumed in doing work and the majority of energy becomes HEAT.
Which is why internal combustion engines must be cooled to prevent the engines to destroy themselves. It takes much WORK to move the plates; hence much, much, much, much heat be produced and removed from the engine which moves continents. And you have just described how some of this heat is being removed from the geological heat engine..
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
There are a number of people who do not accept geothermal activity affects SST’s.
Whilst the Red Sea is a confined area it does prove the water heating effect of geothermal activity.
Of course, all the Earth’s oceans are confined but with a much greater dispersal factor which brings into account, cumulative effect.
There are also a lot of hot water hydrothermal vents associated with the Galapagos Islands. This area is nearer to where El Nino’s originate.
You have a good day yourself.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH.
“In questions of Science, the authority of a thousand is mot worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” (Albert Einstein)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have just reread this article and I see my comment about the 7 millimeter sea level increase drew my attention away from Mr. Kamis’s great SCHOLARSHIP. So this morning I’m going back to watch and listen to the entire video.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and PSI Readers,
After Kamis’s video I find that my comment (Jerry Krause April 9, 2024 at 7:51 pm | #) is right on. and Kamis is right on. Except he does not consider how the locally heated surfaces of the earth interact with the earth’s atmosphere. One point he did not make was that El Niño events are random and the localized geological activity are random. However, El Niño events are short lived while the influence of the geological activity at the ocean bottoms is not.
But Kamis clearly makes the point of how the ocean surfaces are heated and where the atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, and other atmospheric trace gases, except for ozone, originate.
Have a good day,.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James, Herb and Others,
James hasconvinced me that “Evidence Shows That Geological Features Play Major Role In Recent Ocean Heat Uptake”.’ Do we agree that ENERGY is the capacity to do WORK? Prior to this this new idea we have been considering that the SUN was the Earth’s major source of Energy and I can not remember James referring to what was major source of ENERGY which drives Continental Drift. Any comments about this issue?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
The source of energy is: E = M x C^2
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James Edward Kamis and Those Who Claim to be Scientists,
While I am not now certain my comments are valid, I am sure the observations that James Edward Kamis has brought to our attention are. So I am not going to let this James’ efforts to be forgotten.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James Edward Kamis and Those Who Claim to be Scientists,
“He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.” (Albert Einstein)
The elites of geology have had a terrible history: the earth stands still, erratic boulders and glaciation, continental drift which James is bring back to our attention. There should be no controversy that the SUN’s energy emissions have nothing to do with continental drift.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
When I began reading “The Feynman Lectures On Physics” I made a terrible mistake. For the first lecture was titled “Atoms in Motion” and the first section stated basically nothing about atoms. The second section titled “Matter is made of atoms” did. Here, he began “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”
I now see this beginning omitted the most fundamental and critical factor of physics. And I ask what was this critical factor of PHYSICS? I ask to see if you, a reader, would have made the same mistake that I, and maybe Feynman, made.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Thank you for your comment (MattH. April 14, 2024 at 9:16 pm | #.) It keeps the critical necessary discussion going if we are going to learn anything. For when you wrote “Thank you Jerry, for the basic scientific concepts you have taught me.”,you were wrong. For I agree with Galileo, who wrote: “We cannot tach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
When you make reference to the coast of Japan you are drawing attention to the fact there is a Sea of Japan.
This morning I finally remember there this phenomenon STATIC ELECTRICITY. And the simple instrument termed the electroscope. We all have a memory problem as we forget what we once knew. So as soon as I remember something I am going to bring if to your, and other PSI readers, attentions. And hopefully involve others in our discussions.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Here is an example of the uphill battle that he faces. Leslie Musk in his book “Weather Systems” (1988) wrote in its introduction “Increases in global carbon dioxide concentrations , decreases in stratospheric ozone levels and the regional problems of acid rain may have serious consequences for Man’s well-being, while the nightmare possibility of the ‘nuclear winter’ is the one scientific experiment which must never be tested.” If James idea of volcanic influence upon the earth’s surface temperatures has any validity the source of the energy needed to cause continental drift most be nuclear.
Have a good day
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Here is an example of the uphill battle that he faces. Leslie Musk in his book “Weather Systems” (1988) wrote in its introduction “Increases in global carbon dioxide concentrations , decreases in stratospheric ozone levels and the regional problems of acid rain may have serious consequences for Man’s well-being, while the nightmare possibility of the ‘nuclear winter’ is the one scientific experiment which must never be tested.” If James idea of volcanic influence upon the earth’s surface temperatures has any validity the source of the energy needed to cause continental drift most be nuclear.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
If nuclear is the source why do the continents drift in different directions?
Take a look at a map of Pangea before the continents started drifting. It looks like an object (or objects perhaps a comet) punched a hole in it. The waves created in the liquid interior would still be causing disturbances on the surface.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You ask: “If nuclear is the source why do the continents drift in different directions?”
Two words common to CHEMISTRY and the NATURAL universe: homogenous and heterogenous. The volcanic features of the EARTH are clearly heterogenous.
have a good day.
(Fixed your e-mail address, you have been getting sloppy lately) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Two words common to chemistry are homogenous and heterogenous. The simple answer to your question is the volcanic features of the Earth are heterogenous.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Are volcanoes the cause of continual drift or the result?
Reply
Jerry Kruase
| #
Hi Herb,
If volcanic activity is not the cause of continental drift, What so you propose is the cause of continental drift? Or, do you propose there has been no continental drift?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
In your area the volcanoes are a result of one plate moving under another plate. In Hawaii all the islands wee formed from the same source as the plate moved over the hot spot. Volcanoes are a result of shifting plates creating weak points in the crust allowing the liquid interior to penetrate the crust.
If the impact of an object caused the break up of Pangea a mere 360 million years ago, the energy from the impact would still be reflecting off the interior of the crust, continuing the movement of the plates.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Volcanoes are a result of shifting plates”. Again I ask: what is moving the plates?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Again, I will say the energy that broke Pangea into plates is still moving the plates.
Reply
``````Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I will rephrase my question.s. Is radoatopm fro,m the Sun moving the ‘plates’? Is the gravity to the Sun’s was moving the ‘plates? Is the reality due to the moon’s mass? What is the source of the energy that broke Pangea into plates? We seem to agree that some ENERGY is involved.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I see I am making my common mistakes. Is the gravity due to the Sun’s mass moving the ‘plates? Is the gravity due to the moon’s mass moving the plates?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
The energy is not rom gravity from the sun or the moon. The plates move in different directions. It is not nuclear energy. Radioactive elements decay at a set rate, their half life. For 3.6 billion years the energy from the sun and moon remained the same while nuclear energy declined. 360million years ago that changed as energy was added. That energy gave momentum to plates that continues to this day. When plates collide that energy creates mountain ranges. The Cascades are still growing. Tha Appalachians, near me were created long ago and were once higher than the rockies but energy from the sun in the form of wind and rain has erased some of the mountains that the earlier energy created. The plates will keep moving until they lose the energy they were given.
The mistake you continually make is to believe that mass creates gravity. Mass creates inertia, energy creates movement.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You concluded “Mass creates inertia, energy creates movement.” I came here this morning pondering inertia. For a friend, who is into guns, told us at breakfast a previous morning, a comparison of a low mass, low velocity bullet relative to a more massive, high velocity bullet. He told us the low mass, low velocity bullet would shatter a plate when shot at the plate while the more massive, high velocity bullet would punch a hole, the diameter of the bullet, through the plate while leaving the remainder of the plate undamaged.
Would you have anticipated this result of the more massive, high velocity bullet? Ponder this as I ponder it.
Haave a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
After pondering I conclude another factor that needs to be considered is a difference in the bullets composition. if the lower velocity bullet is ‘softer (less rigid) it could expand as it pasted through the plate and shatter the plate by this perpendicular force.
Have a good day
Reply
tim castell
| #
Ya know, after reading all of these back-&-forth comments, which I found rather intriguing, I forgot what the article was about! Y’all have a good day and come on back for more!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tim,
The title of this article tells you what James’ article is about. You have to listen to his hour plus video to learn that after decades of scholarship, James considers the ‘sudden warming of a localized portion of the Pacific Ocean establishes (supports) his understanding of the role volcanic activity has to play in causing continental drift. For he reasons that solar activity could not cause the ‘sudden’ warming.
He had yet to explain how it is that world wide El Niño events have not been observed to last more than two years.
The give and take which you mention is what I term discussion. And I note the fact you consider it ‘intriguing”. So please join in..
Have a good day
Reply