Lithospheric drip in Basin and Range
Belba Grubb
About all this amateur can say on the subject is that this is the
first time that a post in Dave Barry's blog http://preview.tinyurl.com/lkdgfv
has led more or less directly to my checking out something at
physorg.com (see link to article in above URL).
:-)
Well, that, and also that the lack of elevation changes at the
surface, as described in the physorg.com article, would seem to a good
argument, too. But in an environment like the Basin and Range, maybe
it's not impossible.
Barb
----------
Well, somebody's got to say it: "Lithospheric Drip" would be a great
name for a rock band.
Florian
> http://thrustacline.blogspot.com/2009/05/lithospheric-drip.html .
>
> About all this amateur can say on the subject is that this is the
> first time that a post in Dave Barry's blog http://preview.tinyurl.com/lkdgfv
> has led more or less directly to my checking out something at
> physorg.com (see link to article in above URL).
>
> :-)
>
> Well, that, and also that the lack of elevation changes at the
> surface, as described in the physorg.com article, would seem to a good
> argument, too. But in an environment like the Basin and Range, maybe
> it's not impossible.
Yet another bogus interpretation arising from the bogus assumption that
high velocity = low temperature = sinking
People should read Anderson's paper about tomography interpretations:
http://www.mantleplumes.org/TomographyProblems.html
--
Florian - http://www.entartometre.com
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident - Arthur Schopenhauer
jo...@curtis.ms
> http://thrustacline.blogspot.com/2009/05/lithospheric-drip.html.
>
> About all this amateur can say on the subject is that this is the
> has led more or less directly to my checking out something at
> physorg.com (see link to article in above URL).
>
> :-)
>
> Well, that, and also that the lack of elevation changes at the
> surface, as described in the physorg.com article, would seem to a good
> argument, too. But in an environment like the Basin and Range, maybe
> it's not impossible.
>
suberged like Titan or Europa, where the ocean is over 100 kilometers
deep. An example of basin and range is the cordillera produced by
rapidly spreading East Pacdific Rise
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid_ocean_ridge/media/EPR_relief_image_600.jpg
where newly created lava burries older crust
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=74685102310
John Curtis
Belba Grubb
(Florian) wrote:
> Yet another bogus interpretation arising from the bogus assumption that
> high velocity = low temperature = sinking
>
> People should read Anderson's paper about tomography interpretations:
>
> http://www.mantleplumes.org/TomographyProblems.html
That's interesting. I'm still digesting it. In the meantime, here is a
link to the original paper's abstract, for those of us on the outside
of science looking in: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/245
An original thought from yesterday, after posting: Here I sit,
currently not too far from a wee little bit of ophiolite (Stark's
Knob, near Schuylerville, NY). It's a big earth, and there has been a
lot of time and a lot of activity, and now we recognize and find
mantle samples above the crust in many places (compared to which,
Stark's Knob is rather insignificant). If a lithospheric drip (or, per
Anderson, a cold, dense sinker, which would be an even better name for
a rock band) exists; and since we now have the idea of one, let's go
out and find one in the field. Then let's compare what we find with
what the numerical models show may be going on under Nevada, and start
bringing the two together. Oh, I realize it's nowhere near that
simple, but it's not impossible, either. Though the presence of this
in a region like Basin and Range makes it a lot more complicated.
Anyway, this morning, I found this: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/245
, which seems to indicate that field studies are ongoing, but I know
too little to really make much sense out of it all.
Step one: Read up more on Basin and Range.....
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
> self-evident - Arthur Schopenhauer
Actually there are six stages:
Fourth, it becomes an orthodoxy/superstition.
Fifth, it is forgotten.
Six, it is rediscovered.
Truth is a hoop snake, y'see: http://www.kellscraft.com/WhatTheySayInNewEngland/P3022569.JPG
Belba Grubb
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n6/abs/ngeo526.html
On May 29, 6:21 pm, j...@curtis.ms wrote:
> Earth is currently 71% underwater. Perhaps early Earth was totally
> suberged like Titan or Europa, where the ocean is over 100 kilometers
> deep. An example of basin and range is the cordillera produced by
> rapidly spreading East Pacdific Risehttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid...
> where newly created lava burries older crusthttp://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=74685102310
Thank you - that is a a start. Wow! They were really lucky to have
their instruments buried that way!!
Barb
oriel36
What have people against the fact that the Earth is almost totally a
rotating viscous composition with a thin and gorgeous surface crust ?.
Why the opposition to the rotational signatures that show up as the
MAR or the predominance of orientation parallel with the daily
rotation of the Earth ?.
Why introduce another lava lamp concept to the rotating viscous
composition such as 'mantle drip' when these things are hideous and
unimaginative offshoots of thermal convection.Were you here for
blobtonics -
http://surgingwaves.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-deblobbing-responsible-for.html
How about 'Superpiles' -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215184306.htm
How about the convecting mantle that doesn't convect and creates
hotspots -
http://www.kidsgeo.com/geology-for-kids/0048-volcanic-hot-spots.php
Why not assume that the upcoming GOCE data will add another indication
that a complete overhaul of interior composition and dynamics with
arguments geared towards stationary (thermal convection) or
rotational (differential rotation) conclusions or working principles.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
emotion intoned: news:dc177a20-6b8b-4d76-8a08-
500475...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com:
> http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/245
Belba,
First of all the reference you cite above is actually referring to a deep
structure under the Sierra Nevada, this is distinctly different from the
basin and range. Secondly the primary evidence cited therein is from
xenoliths, so it is evident that they are not necessarily talking about any
large scale downward migration of mass but the very reverse of it.
Finally seismic work is extremely valuable and useful, but it has to be
taken in context. Given the seismic velocities at depth it is very low
resolution and cannot be expected to reveal fine structure. It is often
unable to reveal even coarse structure due to unknowable factors such as
composition and temperature.
Lastly I would invoke a simple argument against the hypothesis of
"lithospheric drip". Assuming the contradicitions about locations can be
resolved and this phenomenon is actually ocurring beneath the crust of the
basin and range and not the Sierra, why did it not "sink" into the mantle
before given that it must be more dense than its surroundings to do so? If
it was a portion of one of the fault-block wedges that was dipped into
depth tectonically, did its viscosity decrease to the point that it could
flow due to increased temperature? If so would that not reduce its density?
It is also true that higher pressure increases the melting point, so how
could a low density melt descend into a high density partial melt in the
mantle and displace equally, or more vicous fluids?
I am pointing out these questions for you simply to elucidate the fact that
current news may not necessarily be representative of the science that was
done in the first place.
Enjoy your journey,
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
don findlay
> On May 30, 3:29 pm, Belba Grubb <trungsister...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sorry: the link to the original paper's abstract is actually:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n6/abs/ngeo526.html
> >
> > On May 29, 6:21 pm, j...@curtis.ms wrote:
> >
> > > Earth is currently 71% underwater. Perhaps early Earth was totally
> > > suberged like Titan or Europa, where the ocean is over 100 kilometers
> > > deep. An example of basin and range is the cordillera produced by
> > > rapidly spreading East Pacdific Risehttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid...
> > > where newly created lava burries older crusthttp://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=74685102310
> >
> > Thank you - that is a a start. Wow! They were really lucky to have
> > their instruments buried that way!!
> >
> > Barb
>
> What have people against the fact that the Earth is almost totally a
> rotating viscous composition with a thin and gorgeous surface crust ?.
I can imagine an old and crinkly one, but a thin and gorgeous surface
crust? .. with lithospheric drip? (I don't think so.)
>
> Why the opposition to the rotational signatures that show up as the
> MAR or the predominance of orientation parallel with the daily
> rotation of the Earth ?.
>
> Why introduce another lava lamp concept to the rotating viscous
> composition such as 'mantle drip' when these things are hideous and
> unimaginative offshoots of thermal convection.Were you here for
> blobtonics -
...and subduction sucks.. Subduction sucks and the lithosphere
drips, .. And ask Stuart about that mantle wind....
(Plate Tectonics - all arse and no face!)
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
>
> > How about 'Superpiles' -
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215184306.htm
>
> > How about the convecting mantle that doesn't convect and creates
> > hotspots -
>
> >http://www.kidsgeo.com/geology-for-kids/0048-volcanic-hot-spots.php
>
> > Why not assume that the upcoming GOCE data will add another indication
> > that a complete overhaul of interior composition and dynamics with
> > arguments geared towards stationary (thermal convection) or
> > rotational (differential rotation) conclusions or working principles.
Hello Don,
Glad to hear from you again...I thought you went missing exploring the
Speewah
By the way, I am really cross against Oriel, he refuses to tell me
what that planet (spin
Jean-Paul
Belba Grubb
> I am pointing out these questions for you simply to elucidate the fact that
> current news may not necessarily be representative of the science that was
> done in the first place.
>
> Enjoy your journey,
Thank you for the clarification, and yes, I am enjoying it very much,
even the confusing parts....
Barb
----------
"Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to
investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy
observation in life."
-- Marcue Aurelius
brad
brad
>
> - Show quoted text -
OH,OH!! That second one is called " India: Fastest Continent
Because...."
Both address "lithospheric drip".
Brad
Krubozumo Nyankoye
>
> Thank you for the clarification, and yes, I am enjoying it very much,
> even the confusing parts....
>
> Barb
> ----------
> "Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to
> investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy
> observation in life."
> -- Marcue Aurelius
It is often the "confusing" parts that make the journey a journey in the
first place.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
intoned:
news:c4eff79c-b446-4e2a...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Where? I don't see that term in either. I also don't see the parallel
between the compressional environment of India/S Asia and the Basin &
Range. Care to elaborate?
oriel36
It beats me when I see guys still trying to promote these 'convection
cell' ideas when it is just easier to step back,take a wider view of
planetary features just as Wegener once did,and spot the possibilities
offered by planetary rotation -
http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/tshank/projects/p_dispersal.htm
The seamless chain of the mid-Atlantic ridge and its fracture
zones,even the noticeable split at the Equator, indicates a
rotational component in crustal evolution and even I can afford to
suggest that by a lag/advance mechanism due to differential
rotation,the crust is generated symmmetrically off the central ridge.
When a person in an Earthquake region experiences an event,what they
are ultimately experiencing is a result of the Earth's rotation and
the fluid dynamics of its interior but as scientists have the interior
of the Earth organised around 'convection cells' and a taffy
composition,they never enjoy this possibility.
What made the opponents of Wegener look bad,at least from today's
perspective,is that they insisted on a mechanism for continental drift
rather than accept the fossil and strata evidence linking Africa with
the Americas.Nowadays,even with imaging power of the entire Earth's
surface,there is every indication that the mechanism which causes the
Earth to deviate from a perfect sphere is the same one which affects
the surface crust.
brad
????
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171150.htm
>
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017145232htm
>
> > OH,OH!! That second one is called " India: Fastest Continent
> > Because...."
>
> > Both address "lithospheric drip".
> Where? I don't see that term in either.
1) According to Dr. Wangs' model the *root* under Tibet broke off and
sank. As a consequence
Tibet *bobbed up*(rose).
2) Reread the last paragragh of the second article.
Seems self explanatory. Perhaps, not.
As near as I know basin and range province is product of extension.
So I was puzzled by the
original post also.Myreply concentrated on missing roots.
> I also don't see the parallel
> between the compressional environment of India/S Asia and the Basin &
> Range. Care to elaborate?
I didn't draw a parallel between those 2 provinces.
Brad
brad
>
> It beats me when I see guys still trying to promote these 'convection
> cell' ideas when it is just easier to step back,take a wider view of
> planetary features just as Wegener once did,and spot the possibilities
> offered by planetary rotation -
No one denies that rotation is important. But, why aren't the
continents
assembled along the Equator? They've had plenty of time to attain
that
configuration.
>
> The seamless chain of the mid-Atlantic ridge and its fracture
> zones,even the noticeable split at the Equator,
But, where were the ridges in the past? According to you N-S is the
only configuration possible.
>indicates a
> rotational component in crustal evolution and even I can afford to
> suggest that by a lag/advance mechanism due to differential
> rotation,the crust is generated symmmetrically off the central ridge.
Only because you refuse to see the past.
> When a person in an Earthquake region experiences an event,what they
> are ultimately experiencing is a result of the Earth's rotation
Says Whom?
>and
> the fluid dynamics of its interior but as scientists have the interior
> of the Earth organised around 'convection cells' and a taffy
> composition,they never enjoy this possibility.
Reread my two sentences above. There must be more to it than rotation!
Brad
oriel36
> On Jul 12, 2:28 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It beats me when I see guys still trying to promote these 'convection
> > cell' ideas when it is just easier to step back,take a wider view of
> > planetary features just as Wegener once did,and spot the possibilities
> > offered by planetary rotation -
>
> No one denies that rotation is important.
No one actually recognises how long it takes the planet to turn once
so that is how much people regard daily rotation let alone its
rotational effects in all disciplines including geology.
http://www.grand-illusions.com/articles/longitude/page04.shtml
From the table of values above you can construct the Earth's shape and
rotational characteristics yet not a single individual recognises what
those values represent and without an appreciation of different
latitudinal speeds,it is almost impossible to consider the rotational
dynamics of the viscous interior composition and its effects on the
surface crust.
The Earth's Equatorial circumference is 24901.5 miles as a geological
fact so that 1 degree of geographical distance there is 69.17
miles.The value of 69.17 miles also represents the rotational speed at
the Equator in 4 minutes so that the Earth turns through 24901.5 miles
in 24 hours.At 60 degree latitude,the Earth rotational speed is a much
slower 34.67 miles every 4 minutes and its shows up as a slower
twilight effect compared to the rapid transition from daylight to
darkness at the Equator.
Scientists do not believe that the Earth rotates in 24 hours and opt
for a different 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value which has no link
with planetary shape or rotational characteristics and cannot explain
the twilight effect at different latitudes.It is therefore no surprise
that planetary dynamics of the viscous interior in not considered as
the driving mechanism that links planetary shape with crustal
evolution and motion,Unlike other times when I would chase you around
begging questions as to how the entire length of crustal evolution off
the MAR is explained using 'convection cells',this time I set the
standard of discussion at the most basic possible fact and the correct
answer to it - how long does it takes the Earth to turn once ? - if
you give an answer other than 24 hours it will spare me and you a lot
of time and effort.
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
I give the wrong link in the last response,here is the correct one
containing all the information on planetary shape and rotational
characteristics -
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
The Earth's Equator turns 24901.5 miles every 24 hours and rotational
speeds diminishes towards the poles with the effect that there is a
rapid transition from daylight to darkness at the Equator and a longer
twilight moving towards the geographical poles as the rotational
speeds diminish.
Unfortunately we live in an era where nobody accepts the relationship
between the Earth's circumference and rotation in 24 hours for
scientists insist on an alternative 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value
for rotation through 360 degrees which amounts to something akin to
accepting a flat Earth belief.It is for this reason that planetary
dynamics never factors in with geology,climate studies or even this
lovely insight into twilight which even kids can enjoy.
Even though the proof for rotation in 24 hours is a 100% certainty
and simply enjoyable in technical and historical terms ,there is no
authority in existence to accept it and then it becomes something far
more impoortant - an issue of basic intelligence.
palsing
> Scientists do not believe that the Earth rotates in 24 hours and opt
> for a different 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value
Up to your old trick of hijacking a thread, are we?
Pay no attention to Oriel, he is no geologist, no astronomer, no
physicist, no meteorologist, he is really not much of anything... but
he sure talks a good game... and answers any and all criticism with
name-calling, and then promptly repeats almost everything over and
over again...
\Paul A