Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:


Yes there is so much less CO2 than O2, that any displacement of O2 by CO2 is less than a drop in a bucket, so to speak. There doesn't appear to be any risk of running out of oxygen as a result of it being displaced by carbon dioxide.

But lets see if I'm getting this ideal gas law...

PV=nRT

Or

P=nRT/V

P=pressure
n=number of moles
R=8.314... (constant)
T=temperature
V=volume

It seems there is consideration of weight because...

One mole of CO2 is about 44 grams.

One mole of O2 is about 32 grams.

So looks like, when CO2 displaces O2, it increases n.

If temperature and volume stay the same, and the number of moles increases, pressure increases.

But then again, if pressure increases, so does temperature.

I think the formula is T=PV/nR.

n is Avagrado's number https://www.uky.edu/~garose/avogadro
It's the number of protons and neutrons (particles) in 1 mol (22.4 cubic liters) of gas. From this the mass of different molecules can be determined by weighing the same volume of different gasses at the same temperature.
They often use PV = nRT where R is the heat index value and T is the temperature in kelvins.
With emissions from fossil fuels, that increases the number of particles in the troposphere. The tropopause suggests that the atmospheric pressure in the troposphere should be increasing as a result. Some of the research I'm pursuing will consider such a scenario.

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

And what does a magnetic flip do?

Swan wrote:

Not totally known, but if and when north becomes south and versa, the deep ocean currents might stop or reverse, bringing cold water to the surface, reducing the temp of the Earth. The north pole is currently wandering, as you no doubt know

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Not totally known, but if and when north becomes south and versa, the deep ocean currents might stop or reverse, bringing cold water to the surface, reducing the temp of the Earth. The north pole is currently wandering, as you no doubt know

I don't find the north pole wandering to be an issue. Magnetic fields determine the emissions of a CRT, right?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

And what does a magnetic flip do?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

And what does a magnetic flip do?

Not totally known, but if and when north becomes south and versa, the deep ocean currents might stop or reverse, bringing cold water to the surface, reducing the temp of the Earth. The north pole is currently wandering, as you no doubt know

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

Temperature is not affected by magnetic fields.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

When the next ice age hits every old rubber tire on Earth will be burned for heat

They had to quit using shredded rubber from tires for roadway bedding. It generated heat and started burning from compression. Place some water tubes through it and you have steam for a steam driven turbo generator.
The next ice age is too far away to matter. When this warm period is over will the next cool period include a bigger Little Ice Age?
At least you're well insulated. You weigh watt? 200kg?

Actually the Earth is overdue for a magnetic flip that could begin a new ice age tomorrow.

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Im a BM wrote:
In September, 1995, an issue of the journal Nature came out with a beautiful cover picture about reversal of the magnetic poles. Volume 377... Maybe it's worth looking up the reference. But this field of research has come a long way since 1995.


I'm surprised that this discussion doesn't seem to include the one reason anyone might really CARE how soon the next magnetic field reversal will occur.

The earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays coming from the sun away from the equator and toward the poles. Even well past the poles.

When the magnetic field reverses again, as it surely will within the next few centuries and maybe as soon as tomorrow, nothing will stop cosmic rays from bombarding all our electronic devices with charged particles.

Radio communication will have to make some innovative adjustments.

If it happened today, it might force a temporary end to the biggest wars. A lot of weapons depend of electronics being free of interference from cosmic rays.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

This was the plot of the disaster movie, 2012, starring John Cusack.

Actually the magnetic poles of the Earth reverse periodically and this did not begin in 2012.

Since the forces that generate our magnetic field are constantly changing, the field itself is also in continual flux, its strength waxing and waning over time. This causes the location of Earth's magnetic north and south poles to gradually shift, and to even completely flip locations every 300,000 years or so, and we are overdue at this point in time.

You proud of your piece of toilet paper hanging on your trailer wall

There is no research on this topic I could find that suggests Earths magnetic poles would flip.

There is research showing magnetic north is not constantly in the same spot. It moves around. But it is not reasonable to conclude, based on this, that the poles would flip.

Crackpot theories that make no sense, as usual, from the local hobo ranting and raving in Climate Debate: SWAN!

Lol just because you are too ignorant to do research, is not my problem.

Is it true that Earth's magnetic field occasionally reverses its polarity?
Yes. We can see evidence of magnetic polarity reversals by examining the geologic record. When lavas or sediments solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition.

Incredible as it may seem, the magnetic field occasionally flips over! The geomagnetic poles are currently roughly coincident with the geographic poles, but occasionally the magnetic poles wander far away from the geographic poles and undergo an "excursion" from their preferred state. Earth's dynamo has no preference for a particular polarity, so, after an excursional period, the magnetic field, upon returning to its usual state of rough alignment with the Earth's rotational axis, could just as easily have one polarity as another.

These reversals are random with no apparent periodicity to their occurrence. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more. The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.

Reversals are not instantaneous; they happen over a period of hundreds to thousands of years, though recent research indicates that at least one reversal could have taken place over a period of one year.

The USGS film Secrets in Stone tells the story of how records of magnetic reversals helped lead to the evolution of the plate tectonics theory.

Yawn, source USGS

No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In September, 1995, an issue of the journal Nature came out with a beautiful cover picture about reversal of the magnetic poles. Volume 377... Maybe it's worth looking up the reference. But this field of research has come a long way since 1995.


I'm surprised that this discussion doesn't seem to include the one reason anyone might really CARE how soon the next magnetic field reversal will occur.

The earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays coming from the sun away from the equator and toward the poles. Even well past the poles.

When the magnetic field reverses again, as it surely will within the next few centuries and maybe as soon as tomorrow, nothing will stop cosmic rays from bombarding all our electronic devices with charged particles.

Radio communication will have to make some innovative adjustments.

If it happened today, it might force a temporary end to the biggest wars. A lot of weapons depend of electronics being free of interference from cosmic rays.

I was reading that a magnetic field cannot block gamma rays.

Elsewhere I was reading that there's a lot of gamma radiation on the moon.

So what's protecting us from the moon's gamma radiation?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In September, 1995, an issue of the journal Nature came out with a beautiful cover picture about reversal of the magnetic poles. Volume 377... Maybe it's worth looking up the reference. But this field of research has come a long way since 1995.


I'm surprised that this discussion doesn't seem to include the one reason anyone might really CARE how soon the next magnetic field reversal will occur.

The earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays coming from the sun away from the equator and toward the poles. Even well past the poles.

When the magnetic field reverses again, as it surely will within the next few centuries and maybe as soon as tomorrow, nothing will stop cosmic rays from bombarding all our electronic devices with charged particles.

Radio communication will have to make some innovative adjustments.

If it happened today, it might force a temporary end to the biggest wars. A lot of weapons depend of electronics being free of interference from cosmic rays.

I was reading that a magnetic field cannot block gamma rays.

Elsewhere I was reading that there's a lot of gamma radiation on the moon.

So what's protecting us from the moon's gamma radiation?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In September, 1995, an issue of the journal Nature came out with a beautiful cover picture about reversal of the magnetic poles. Volume 377... Maybe it's worth looking up the reference. But this field of research has come a long way since 1995.


I'm surprised that this discussion doesn't seem to include the one reason anyone might really CARE how soon the next magnetic field reversal will occur.

The earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays coming from the sun away from the equator and toward the poles. Even well past the poles.

When the magnetic field reverses again, as it surely will within the next few centuries and maybe as soon as tomorrow, nothing will stop cosmic rays from bombarding all our electronic devices with charged particles.

Radio communication will have to make some innovative adjustments.

If it happened today, it might force a temporary end to the biggest wars. A lot of weapons depend of electronics being free of interference from cosmic rays.

I was reading that a magnetic field cannot block gamma rays.

Elsewhere I was reading that there's a lot of gamma radiation on the moon.

So what's protecting us from the moon's gamma radiation?

No, a magnetic field cannot deflect a gamma ray.

We don't really need any protection from the moon's gamma radiation.

I don't know where you read it, but the moon has less gamma radiation than the earth. Nobody tested any nuclear weapons on the moon, yet.

It takes at least half an inch of lead to keep out the gamma rays.

Cosmic rays have electric charge, where gamma rays do not.

Technically, alpha particles are not photons.

My point would be, it is surprising to see anyone having interest in discussion about reversal of the magnetic field, yet nobody seems to know about why anyone would care.

Of course, since it is 100% predictable that a magnetic field reversal WILL happen sooner or later, plans can be made for what to do about all the charged particles messing with our electronics.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In September, 1995, an issue of the journal Nature came out with a beautiful cover picture about reversal of the magnetic poles. Volume 377... Maybe it's worth looking up the reference. But this field of research has come a long way since 1995.


I'm surprised that this discussion doesn't seem to include the one reason anyone might really CARE how soon the next magnetic field reversal will occur.

The earth's magnetic field deflects cosmic rays coming from the sun away from the equator and toward the poles. Even well past the poles.

When the magnetic field reverses again, as it surely will within the next few centuries and maybe as soon as tomorrow, nothing will stop cosmic rays from bombarding all our electronic devices with charged particles.

Radio communication will have to make some innovative adjustments.

If it happened today, it might force a temporary end to the biggest wars. A lot of weapons depend of electronics being free of interference from cosmic rays.

I was reading that a magnetic field cannot block gamma rays.

Elsewhere I was reading that there's a lot of gamma radiation on the moon.

So what's protecting us from the moon's gamma radiation?

No, a magnetic field cannot deflect a gamma ray.

We don't really need any protection from the moon's gamma radiation.

I don't know where you read it, but the moon has less gamma radiation than the earth. Nobody tested any nuclear weapons on the moon, yet.

It takes at least half an inch of lead to keep out the gamma rays.

Cosmic rays have electric charge, where gamma rays do not.

Technically, alpha particles are not photons.

My point would be, it is surprising to see anyone having interest in discussion about reversal of the magnetic field, yet nobody seems to know about why anyone would care.

Of course, since it is 100% predictable that a magnetic field reversal WILL happen sooner or later, plans can be made for what to do about all the charged particles messing with our electronics.

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

You still didn't answer my question.

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

I must therefore assume you don't know.

It's not good conversation to insult people for having different theories than you do.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

You still didn't answer my question.

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

I must therefore assume you don't know.

It's not good conversation to insult people for having different theories than you do.

Magnetic forces do not crystalize molten iron, what happens as iron cools certain crystals are formed, magnetism merely orients the crystals and as the ore cools, the crystals are them oriented according to the field present at the time of cooling.

CIAO

8 years of college, flushed as you are here

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

You still didn't answer my question.

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

I must therefore assume you don't know.

It's not good conversation to insult people for having different theories than you do.

Magnetic forces do not crystalize molten iron, what happens as iron cools certain crystals are formed, magnetism merely orients the crystals and as the ore cools, the crystals are them oriented according to the field present at the time of cooling.

CIAO

8 years of college, flushed as you are here

Actually I'm confused... hypothetically...

say I'm in California, and the evidence of the crust here says the crystals were oriented south here, but when I go to New York the evidence of the crust there says the crystals are oriented north there.

Is that how this search for evidence went along the ocean sea floor? Maybe I misunderstood the NOAA article.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

You still didn't answer my question.

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

I must therefore assume you don't know.

It's not good conversation to insult people for having different theories than you do.

Magnetic forces do not crystalize molten iron, what happens as iron cools certain crystals are formed, magnetism merely orients the crystals and as the ore cools, the crystals are them oriented according to the field present at the time of cooling.

CIAO

8 years of college, flushed as you are here

Actually I'm confused... hypothetically...

say I'm in California, and the evidence of the crust here says the crystals were oriented south here, but when I go to New York the evidence of the crust there says the crystals are oriented north there.

Is that how this search for evidence went along the ocean sea floor? Maybe I misunderstood the NOAA article.

You are confused because you are trying way too hard to confuse me and you are doing this in the wake of all the other failures before you.

Well you aren't from California because if you were you would know that the rocks move, rather radically.

You may now resume masterbating

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:


No you can't prove the Earth's poles have flipped by studying the magnetic signature in rocks.

Sounds to me like those rocks were around before the Earth was created and started spinning.

Maybe they had no magnetic signature until about 12000 years ago, and since then the magnetic force has only moved them in the same direction.

You are not required to believe in science, but can you elaborate as to why chinks eat live monkey brains?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/2_midocean_ridges/activities/seafloor_spreading.html#:~:text=When%20the%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field,the%20theory%20of%20plate%20tectonics.

When the Earth's magnetic field reverses, a new stripe, with the new polarity, begins.

Such magnetic patterns led to recognition of the occurrence of sea-floor spreading, and they remain some of the strongest evidence for the theory of plate tectonics.

However monkey brain eaters can clearly not see magnetic patterns.

CIAO

From your source...

" Most basalt magmas contain abundant molten iron. As magma starts to harden into rock, iron-rich minerals solidify first. Their crystals are pulled into alignment..."

Your theory assumes it had to be magnetic force that solidified the iron.

Thus when you see the iron solidifying in different directions back and forth, you conclude the polarity is switching.

But I'm saying the rocks were probably formed before the earth even became magnetic.

We have different theories.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

Yes.

There are no rocks from the early earth as the Earth was still molten. However you are as I said allowed to theorize that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Now take your thorazine

You still didn't answer my question.

How do you know it was magnetic forces that crystallized the molten iron?

I must therefore assume you don't know.

It's not good conversation to insult people for having different theories than you do.

Magnetic forces do not crystalize molten iron, what happens as iron cools certain crystals are formed, magnetism merely orients the crystals and as the ore cools, the crystals are them oriented according to the field present at the time of cooling.

CIAO

8 years of college, flushed as you are here

Actually I'm confused... hypothetically...

say I'm in California, and the evidence of the crust here says the crystals were oriented south here, but when I go to New York the evidence of the crust there says the crystals are oriented north there.

Is that how this search for evidence went along the ocean sea floor? Maybe I misunderstood the NOAA article.

You are confused because you are trying way too hard to confuse me and you are doing this in the wake of all the other failures before you.

Well you aren't from California because if you were you would know that the rocks move, rather radically.

You may now resume masterbating

You must be as confused trying to make sense of NOAA's explanation and diagram of the ocean floor and it's magnetic history as I am?

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

How about we revisit your NOAA link?

So the ships are sailing across the ocean and getting readings from ocean floor about the magnetic orientation of the crust's crystal structure.

How do they know that the orientation of the structure has changed over history.

We're they, say, floating in one spot and observed a north oriented structure, and then they sailed 1000 miles east and observed a south oriented structure? Is that how they put together their theory?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

How about we revisit your NOAA link?

So the ships are sailing across the ocean and getting readings from ocean floor about the magnetic orientation of the crust's crystal structure.

How do they know that the orientation of the structure has changed over history.

We're they, say, floating in one spot and observed a north oriented structure, and then they sailed 1000 miles east and observed a south oriented structure? Is that how they put together their theory?

I bet you have fun being retarded

Sediment and Rock Samples Recovered from the Challenger Deep, Southern Mariana Trench
Fryer, P. B.
Abstract
Sediments collected with push cores during Nereus hybrid-ROV traverses within the trench axis of the Challenger Deep were squeezed onboard ship (R/V Kilo Moana) to extract pore fluids. The squeeze-cakes were analyzed by XRD, SEM, Raman spectroscopy and electron microprobe. The analysis reveals an assemblage of clays, and volcanic ash that contains plagioclase, clino-pyroxene, opaques and, glass. Chlorite is present as are hydrated iron oxides and fragments of diatoms. The sediment is predominantly very fine-grained and video from both the Nereus traverses across the Challenger Deep in 2009 and from the Deepsea Challenger submersible dive by James Cameron in 2012 indicate recent resurfacing of the trench axis. This is consistent with the high degree of deformation and frequency of earthquakes in the southern Mariana forearc north of the trench. An apron of self-derived talus blankets the lower part of the inner trench slope and fines from submarine landslides are the likely source of the trench axis sediment. Rock samples collected using Nereus from deep (10,879 m) on the incoming plate south of the Challenger Deep are partially altered microgabbros with interstitial glass containing microtubules similar to those observed in a variety of marine settings in lavas and hypabyssal igneous rocks. The tubules are presumed to be caused by tunneling of lithoautotrophic microbes into the glass. The rocks were collected from a site at the base of a fault scarp where large columnar-jointed blocks are draped with sediment. The igneous basement of the subducting plate south of the Challenger Deep is, as yet, undated, but it may be younger than the Jurassic Pacific Plate subducting beneath the southeastern Mariana forearc. There is the suggestion of a boundary between and the Pacific Plate and the shallower sea floor (Caroline plate?) subducing beneath the southernmost arm of the Mariana Trench. Early interpretations by Hegarty and Weissel (1988) and more recently by Lee (2004) are that the chain of seamounts striking NNW, colinear with the Lyra Trough, might mark such a boundary. Age dating of the microgabbro recovered with Nereus should help to solve this question.

How about you revisit the hospital pharmacy

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

How about we revisit your NOAA link?

So the ships are sailing across the ocean and getting readings from ocean floor about the magnetic orientation of the crust's crystal structure.

How do they know that the orientation of the structure has changed over history.

We're they, say, floating in one spot and observed a north oriented structure, and then they sailed 1000 miles east and observed a south oriented structure? Is that how they put together their theory?

I bet you have fun being retarded

Sediment and Rock Samples Recovered from the Challenger Deep, Southern Mariana Trench
Fryer, P. B.
Abstract
Sediments collected with push cores during Nereus hybrid-ROV traverses within the trench axis of the Challenger Deep were squeezed onboard ship (R/V Kilo Moana) to extract pore fluids. The squeeze-cakes were analyzed by XRD, SEM, Raman spectroscopy and electron microprobe. The analysis reveals an assemblage of clays, and volcanic ash that contains plagioclase, clino-pyroxene, opaques and, glass. Chlorite is present as are hydrated iron oxides and fragments of diatoms. The sediment is predominantly very fine-grained and video from both the Nereus traverses across the Challenger Deep in 2009 and from the Deepsea Challenger submersible dive by James Cameron in 2012 indicate recent resurfacing of the trench axis. This is consistent with the high degree of deformation and frequency of earthquakes in the southern Mariana forearc north of the trench. An apron of self-derived talus blankets the lower part of the inner trench slope and fines from submarine landslides are the likely source of the trench axis sediment. Rock samples collected using Nereus from deep (10,879 m) on the incoming plate south of the Challenger Deep are partially altered microgabbros with interstitial glass containing microtubules similar to those observed in a variety of marine settings in lavas and hypabyssal igneous rocks. The tubules are presumed to be caused by tunneling of lithoautotrophic microbes into the glass. The rocks were collected from a site at the base of a fault scarp where large columnar-jointed blocks are draped with sediment. The igneous basement of the subducting plate south of the Challenger Deep is, as yet, undated, but it may be younger than the Jurassic Pacific Plate subducting beneath the southeastern Mariana forearc. There is the suggestion of a boundary between and the Pacific Plate and the shallower sea floor (Caroline plate?) subducing beneath the southernmost arm of the Mariana Trench. Early interpretations by Hegarty and Weissel (1988) and more recently by Lee (2004) are that the chain of seamounts striking NNW, colinear with the Lyra Trough, might mark such a boundary. Age dating of the microgabbro recovered with Nereus should help to solve this question.

How about you revisit the hospital pharmacy

What does that have to do with the polarity of Earth flipping?

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

How about we revisit your NOAA link?

So the ships are sailing across the ocean and getting readings from ocean floor about the magnetic orientation of the crust's crystal structure.

How do they know that the orientation of the structure has changed over history.

We're they, say, floating in one spot and observed a north oriented structure, and then they sailed 1000 miles east and observed a south oriented structure? Is that how they put together their theory?

I bet you have fun being retarded

Sediment and Rock Samples Recovered from the Challenger Deep, Southern Mariana Trench
Fryer, P. B.
Abstract
Sediments collected with push cores during Nereus hybrid-ROV traverses within the trench axis of the Challenger Deep were squeezed onboard ship (R/V Kilo Moana) to extract pore fluids. The squeeze-cakes were analyzed by XRD, SEM, Raman spectroscopy and electron microprobe. The analysis reveals an assemblage of clays, and volcanic ash that contains plagioclase, clino-pyroxene, opaques and, glass. Chlorite is present as are hydrated iron oxides and fragments of diatoms. The sediment is predominantly very fine-grained and video from both the Nereus traverses across the Challenger Deep in 2009 and from the Deepsea Challenger submersible dive by James Cameron in 2012 indicate recent resurfacing of the trench axis. This is consistent with the high degree of deformation and frequency of earthquakes in the southern Mariana forearc north of the trench. An apron of self-derived talus blankets the lower part of the inner trench slope and fines from submarine landslides are the likely source of the trench axis sediment. Rock samples collected using Nereus from deep (10,879 m) on the incoming plate south of the Challenger Deep are partially altered microgabbros with interstitial glass containing microtubules similar to those observed in a variety of marine settings in lavas and hypabyssal igneous rocks. The tubules are presumed to be caused by tunneling of lithoautotrophic microbes into the glass. The rocks were collected from a site at the base of a fault scarp where large columnar-jointed blocks are draped with sediment. The igneous basement of the subducting plate south of the Challenger Deep is, as yet, undated, but it may be younger than the Jurassic Pacific Plate subducting beneath the southeastern Mariana forearc. There is the suggestion of a boundary between and the Pacific Plate and the shallower sea floor (Caroline plate?) subducing beneath the southernmost arm of the Mariana Trench. Early interpretations by Hegarty and Weissel (1988) and more recently by Lee (2004) are that the chain of seamounts striking NNW, colinear with the Lyra Trough, might mark such a boundary. Age dating of the microgabbro recovered with Nereus should help to solve this question.

How about you revisit the hospital pharmacy

What does that have to do with the polarity of Earth flipping?

You support Swan. What does he say? This forum needs to set parameters on acceptable behavior. How should forum rules apply to someone who claims is mentally ill? He claims he is a sociopath and as a result you cannot discriminate against him by having a different opinion.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually I understand the concept completely, just as I understand this

Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
179.23 USD
+2.58 (1.46%)today

Silly poo

How about we revisit your NOAA link?

So the ships are sailing across the ocean and getting readings from ocean floor about the magnetic orientation of the crust's crystal structure.

How do they know that the orientation of the structure has changed over history.

We're they, say, floating in one spot and observed a north oriented structure, and then they sailed 1000 miles east and observed a south oriented structure? Is that how they put together their theory?

I bet you have fun being retarded

Sediment and Rock Samples Recovered from the Challenger Deep, Southern Mariana Trench
Fryer, P. B.
Abstract
Sediments collected with push cores during Nereus hybrid-ROV traverses within the trench axis of the Challenger Deep were squeezed onboard ship (R/V Kilo Moana) to extract pore fluids. The squeeze-cakes were analyzed by XRD, SEM, Raman spectroscopy and electron microprobe. The analysis reveals an assemblage of clays, and volcanic ash that contains plagioclase, clino-pyroxene, opaques and, glass. Chlorite is present as are hydrated iron oxides and fragments of diatoms. The sediment is predominantly very fine-grained and video from both the Nereus traverses across the Challenger Deep in 2009 and from the Deepsea Challenger submersible dive by James Cameron in 2012 indicate recent resurfacing of the trench axis. This is consistent with the high degree of deformation and frequency of earthquakes in the southern Mariana forearc north of the trench. An apron of self-derived talus blankets the lower part of the inner trench slope and fines from submarine landslides are the likely source of the trench axis sediment. Rock samples collected using Nereus from deep (10,879 m) on the incoming plate south of the Challenger Deep are partially altered microgabbros with interstitial glass containing microtubules similar to those observed in a variety of marine settings in lavas and hypabyssal igneous rocks. The tubules are presumed to be caused by tunneling of lithoautotrophic microbes into the glass. The rocks were collected from a site at the base of a fault scarp where large columnar-jointed blocks are draped with sediment. The igneous basement of the subducting plate south of the Challenger Deep is, as yet, undated, but it may be younger than the Jurassic Pacific Plate subducting beneath the southeastern Mariana forearc. There is the suggestion of a boundary between and the Pacific Plate and the shallower sea floor (Caroline plate?) subducing beneath the southernmost arm of the Mariana Trench. Early interpretations by Hegarty and Weissel (1988) and more recently by Lee (2004) are that the chain of seamounts striking NNW, colinear with the Lyra Trough, might mark such a boundary. Age dating of the microgabbro recovered with Nereus should help to solve this question.

How about you revisit the hospital pharmacy

What does that have to do with the polarity of Earth flipping?

You support Swan. What does he say? This forum needs to set parameters on acceptable behavior. How should forum rules apply to someone who claims is mentally ill? He claims he is a sociopath and as a result you cannot discriminate against him by having a different opinion.

The rights and entitlements, are those granted by the site owner, outlined in the Terms of Service. This site is not a business, discrimination does not apply. Terms of Service only apply, if enforced by the owner.

Swan, is of course, an obnoxious jerk. No way it's just an online persona he created. He's the same offline, but probably learned so self control, the hard way. Still, it's unlikely anybody enjoys his company, and distance themselves as much as possible, interaction to a minimum. The constant stream of drugs,and mental illness, is a search for a kindred spirit, someone he can share his own experiences with. His gym, is likely physiotherapy, and fantasy. Inconsistent with sports training, exercise in general. Unable to stay focused on topics here, means he can't stay focused long enough to workout, and stick to it.