The BIOGEOGRAPHY of the Ice Age

We are limited by what we know.

That’s why I’m always looking around for interesting new tidbits about life on Earth and Evolution.

Folds within folds of harmonic cumulative poetry in motion down the cascade of time.

So many obvious things that we never think about, until someone mentions them.

Specially to right now, I just watched this video and realize as much as I’ve thought about ice ages and snowball Earth the transition in between, I’d never thought about tundra and how that might changes a it’s pushed closer to our Earth’s mid-region. Now I do. It’s beautiful thing to be an Earth Centrist. :slight_smile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0NdFvRqZ10

Atlas Pro

 

 

excuse typo gotta run, don’t want to risk disappearing this thread by editing. :wink:

 

Just seems like time to discuss something more fun.

Interesting video. Thanks.

I have been intrigued by S. W. Carey’s expanding Earth hypothesis. I looks to me like the continents today might be what’s left after the last cooling and solidification of the surface. We are told that the length of the day has increased significantly and that such increase is consistent with an increase in diameter.

I’ve never seen anyone even consider that a volume increase without a mass increase would happen as a result of radioactive decay. This probably wouldn’t account for the total size change, but I think it could be part of it.

Best figures I can remember are that the sea floor spreading we know about would account for an increase in size from a mostly continuous solid surface of about 65% of the current diameter to the 8000 miles of today. In other words, the Earth may have developed a mostly continuous crust when the diameter was about 5200 miles.

I would like to see how the climate would have looked through such an expansion.

Bob you are a funny fella. Do you investigate any this of this stuff for yourself?

Expanding Earth was a thing that made sense to a few serious scientists back a hundred years ago. Then modern observations of Earth became sophisticated, then extremely sophisticated and accurate. In the world of Physical Reality “Expanding Earth hypothesis” has gone the way of “phlogiston theory.”

I was looking up various articles that look at it from a moderne educated perspective - the then I found that my old pal Peter Hadfield has made a video that covers the main point - google is there for further investigation, even if it seems to be running with a few cylinders missing these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8

 

Bob, I’ll never know but I would love to know if you actually take any of this stuff serious or if tossing nonsense, and creating confusion and stultification is your goal one.

Well, not you personally, so much as the leaders of your tea-partier, alt-right thinking, jesus-pimps, trump adoring tribe, the one’s who send out their oddball anti-science and anti-rational constructive dialogue messaging via FAUX NEWS and internet social media manipulators and such.

Thanks for the link CC. I watched the series of 3. I read one of those “history of the whole earth” books a while back and I seem to remember it was pretty sure it was humans that caused the quaternary extinction event, and I wasn’t familiar with that term. But I guess it’s “just a theory”.

I’ve heard of the 5 great extinctions, and the 6th one, that’s us, definitely us.

:slight_smile:

Funny video. Problem with it is that he dwells on an increase in mass which is not necessary and is a red herring. We have all seen an ice skater spin at different rotational speeds by extending or retracting his/her arms. No change in mass of course. The length of the day has been documented as increasing over time indicating that the rotational speed of the earth has been decreasing. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Grade35/6Page58.pdf An expanding Earth would rotate more slowly with no change in mass.

We understand that the Earth gives off more heat into space than it gets from the Sun. The excess comes basically from the nuclear fission in the core. That fission is what keeps the mantle semi-fluid. Evidence of the radioactivity is seen at every volcano site. Fission produces particles that in total have approximately the same mass but a lower density than the original particle.

Fission particles can include oxygen and hydrogen. When these are combined water molecules are produced. The water produced inside the Earth, flashing into steam, is a large part of what drives a volcanic eruption.

It is generally accepted that the planets were formed by accretion. It should be no surprise that the heavy - radioactive - elements would be some of the first to clump together and that they would tend to migrate towards the core in a molten body.

I do not discount plate tectonics but one cannot discount the obvious expansion shown by the sea floor spreading. If one “rolls back” the sea floor spreading the continents come together rather nicely into a sphere more or less 65% the present diameter.

From my layman’s perspective, it looks like we see in the continents a smaller Earth as it cooled and the crust solidified the last time. It is generally accepted that this cooling and formation of a solid crust did happen at some point in Earth’s history. I have seen no explanation of why one super continent several thousand feet higher in elevation than the rest of the surface would have formed in a particular spot as the globe cooled.

I do not discount plate tectonics
That's nice of you
I have seen no explanation of why one super continent several thousand feet higher in elevation than the rest of the surface would have formed in a particular spot as the globe cooled.
Have you ever studied geology?

You can start by googling ring of fire. This is exactly why we have scientists and others who dedicate their lives and minds to studying this stuff, so we can learn about our Earth. You’ll find it really does makes sense. The point is that notions of Earth appreciably enlarging over time is over the top.

The truth is way more fascinating than simplistic out of date notions. But you gotta do the work yourself, and it’s easier than every simply use some critical thinking when deciding who to listen to. There is definitely an entire different texture and language between serious science and the dreamers and dilettantes and hucksters.

For the serious beginner might i recommend

James Sadd, Earth Revealed - video geology course - What a scientist sounds like.

Earth Revealed: Introductory Geology, originally titled Earth Revealed, is a 26-part video instructional series covering the processes and properties of the physical Earth, with particular attention given to the scientific theories underlying geological principles.
The telecourse was produced by Intelecom and the Southern California Consortium, was funded by the Annenberg/CPB Project, and first aired on PBS in 1992 with the title Earth Revealed.
All 26 episodes are hosted by Dr. James L. Sadd, professor of environmental science at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California.

=============================

FREE PHYSICAL GEOLOGY VIDEO LECTURE SERIES:
Earth Revealed, by Dr. James Sadd
https://www.learner.org/resources/series78.html

Looks like the series could be interesting, if a bit out of date. Your link didn’t connect, but I found the site. And yes I have studied geology as a layman, not professionally.

I suppose you have seen this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#/media/File:Vom_wachsenden_Erdball.jpg.

Any idea why day length would vary if not for an expanding Earth?

Do you accept that there was/is significant radioactive decay producing lots of heat in the Earth’s mantel/core?

Do you accept that fission produces little change in mass but significant change in volume/density?

Have you observed that if we “roll back” the sea floor spreading from the mid-ocean ridges the continents - out to the continental shelves - fit together rather nicely all around a globe roughly 65% of the current diameter?

Do you have an explanation for how the single super continent - out to the edge of the continental shelves - would have formed several miles higher than the rest of the Earth’s surface 2.5 to 4 billion years ago? And how the parts that broke up from that super continent have maintained their elevation?

How about an explanation of how the continents came to be covered with several miles of sediment. Could it be possible that the entire Earth was covered with an ocean for several/many million years when it was smaller in diameter?

Of course the biggest question is why the mid-ocean ridges are where they are and apparently have not drifted here and there like the continents. To me, an expanding earth gives more plausible explanations for the Earth as we see it today. Plate tectonics is probably responsible for some or even most mountain building at the edge of the continents, but it does not appear to be consistent on all the coasts.

Off the top of my head,

Any idea why day length would vary if not for an expanding Earth?
Earth Moon dynamics
Do you accept that there was/is significant radioactive decay producing lots of heat in the Earth’s mantel/core?
Sure, once that cools plate tectonics stops
Do you accept that fission produces little change in mass but significant change in volume/density?
What is "significant." <1%,<10%, >50%. I haven't read anything on that particular aspect of fission byproducts so would appreciate if you could link to something specific I could learn from.

I do know that molten oceanic crust produces granite which takes up more space - which is what makes continental crust lighter thus buoyant and floating on top oceanic crust, but actual volume increase I’d image, just guessing here, <5% increase in volume.

I also know that Earth is constantly being bombarded with way more micrometeorites than previously imagined. But all that is chump changed compared to our Earth’s size.

Have you observed that if we “roll back” the sea floor spreading from the mid-ocean ridges the continents – out to the continental shelves – fit together rather nicely all around a globe roughly 65% of the current diameter?
Sure. Brings us right back to the ring of fire. In the middle there's a oozing suture that's actually spending and at the edges, there are deep ocean trenches that swallow that extra crust in a surprisingly different ways. Well, so far as the what the subducting tongue does, sink or warmup enough to expand enough to become buoyant and start pressing up against the continental crust it was diving under.
Do you have an explanation for how the single super continent – out to the edge of the continental shelves – would have formed several miles higher than the rest of the Earth’s surface 2.5 to 4 billion years ago? And how the parts that broke up from that super continent have maintained their elevation?
There was never "The Single Super Continent" - it was small island arch growing into continents, them nonstop colliding with and careening around each other, then moving on until the next meeting.

Mountain ranges, not entire continents rise up miles above the mean continent.

Himalayas - India. Alps - Africa. Sierra mountains running all the way down the western spin of North and South America - the Pacific Ocean plate. And so on.

Could it be possible that the entire Earth was covered with an ocean for several/many million years when it was smaller in diameter? How about an explanation of how the continents came to be covered with several miles of sediment.
NOPE!

As it happens I’m from the Colorado Plateau perhaps one of the most astounding examples of continental scale subsidence and the accumulation of dozens of thousands of feet worth of sedimentation during the hundreds of millions of years worth of stretching and subsidence, Earth’s tectonics shifted around and started squeezing western part of the American continent, raising the entire plateau and allowing the Colorado River to carve the Grand Canyon, revealing all those layers that used to be buried deep within Earth.

Of course the biggest question is why the mid-ocean ridges are where they are and apparently have not drifted here and there like the continents.
What makes you think that ridge hasn't been shifting? Have you ever read anything stating it's been stable? Please to cite that article - lets have a look at it. I say this because sounds like someone is pulling your leg.
Plate tectonics is probably responsible for some or even most mountain building at the edge of the continents, but it does not appear to be consistent on all the coasts.
This is arm waving. WHAT does not appear consistent on all the coasts?

Identify it and I’ll beat you plate tectonics will help you understand mysteries such as why the West Coast of North and America looks different from their East Coast.

To me, an expanding earth gives more plausible explanations for the Earth as we see it today.
More Plausible? So how much expanding are you imagining? What features does and "expanding Earth" explain that plate tectonic does not. Can you list any?
The average density of oceanic crust is 3.0 g/cm3, while continental crust has an average of 2.7 g/cm3.

https: //joidesresolution_org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Ocean-Crust-Density_pdf


okay should have gone with the 10%.

And I did leave out the mantle which weighs in at

The mantle has a density of 4.5 g/cm3.
Well okay crust is what 33% - now that can make a appreciable difference. Yeah, like make the crust float on the Mantle.

But is it enough to qualify as an expanding Earth? Satellite measurements have not produced any evidence for an expanding Earth.

What could be missing here? Perhaps it’s a matter of perspective? Take a large orange cut it in half and our mantle is relatively thinner than the skin on a orange. Perhaps a bit closer to the skin on an apple.

https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/3-2-structure-of-earth/

crust, not mantle.

excuse other typos :-\

Lots of issues to talk about. Start with a super-continent such as Pangaea or Columbia (Nuna) or pick another one. The geology guys trace the continents we have today back through several configurations. Point is they all started somewhere.

The currently accepted assumption is that the Earth’s diameter was then just about what it is today and that the part of the surface that was not dry land - continent - was ocean. Today the bottoms of the world’s oceans are several thousand feet below current sea level and the continents are several hundred to several thousand feet above sea level. Without a change in the Earth’s diameter, it should follow that the difference between the ancient dry land - the ancient continents - and the bottom of the ancient oceans was about the same as it is today, several thousand feet.

Given the above, I question how the postulated ancient super-continents came to form several thousand feet higher than the surrounding ancient oceanic basin. You will note that neither the “ring of fire”, the oceanic trenches at the edges of the current continents nor the mid ocean ridges responsible for sea floor spreading did not exist at that time. These features began to appear only as the parts of the ancient super-continent began to separate.

I find no explanation for a mechanism for forming the parts of the ancient continents several thousand feet higher than the surrounding ancient oceanic basin with the assumption of an 8000 mile diameter Earth. An expanding Earth provides a simple explanation for that process.

As for having no expansion today, I would say it is the same reason we have no “heavy bombardment” today. We are already through that period in the formation of the Earth. I would expect the expansion due to fission to subside as the fissionable material was used up.

I can speculate, and it is purely speculation, that one possible reason we don’t see craters on Earth as we do on the Moon is because the Earth was covered by water during that period. That might also account for the distribution of sedimentary deposits around the globe if the continents were submerged.

I would expect the expansion due to fission to subside as the fissionable material was used up.
That's a What If.

What if I had a portable hole, imagine all things I could do!

 

What do you know about this expansion of fissionable material?

Please offer some sources!

Have any numbers?

TimB, leave mine out of it. :wink:

Pangaea or Columbia (Nuna) or pick another one
Do you appreciate that Columbia is well over a billion to a billion and half years older than Pangaea?
Point is they all started somewhere.
Sure and you can bet they started small and grew with time. First volcanoes breaking the surface of the oceans, only to be smashed to bits by those early tides the like of which we can't imagine. But with time continental margins grew and with more time mountain chains and island arc formed, always moving around on the surface of the mantle, they'd inevitably collide and join to make bigger continents. Then super continents. Where's the confusion Logic?
I find no explanation for a mechanism for forming the parts of the ancient continents several thousand feet higher than the surrounding ancient oceanic basin with the assumption of an 8000 mile diameter Earth.
How seriously have you looked? I mean it's you haven't even registered the difference in density between mantle, ocean crust and continental crust. Buoyancy pretty well explains how continents build up. Do you know that the tallest mountains on Earth are undergirded by the deepest continental crust. Why is that? Can you explain that?

Here’s an article that might help: https:// io9.gizmodo - com/a-history-of-supercontinents-on-planet-earth-5744636

I’ve occasionally corresponded with this dude for a decade now, and a few years back got to spend three days at the Grand Canyon attending one of his seminars. Fun weekend. This may help convey a better visceral impression how continents built up.

Good luck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toJDBi-WqFo

 

Fission produces particles that in total have approximately the same mass but a lower density than the original particle.
You know I can usually ferret out where weird claims come from with a little judicious googling - but trying to find anything discussing the density changes driven by fission has been snake eyes. Except that from other incidental reading I get the sense that whatever that density change is, is very very small. You seem to accept that it must be humongous - why? What is that based on?

 

The length of the day has been documented as increasing over time indicating that the rotational speed of the earth has been decreasing. https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Grade35/6Page58.pdf An expanding Earth would rotate more slowly with no change in mass.
No mystery there.
Days on Earth are getting longer as the moon slowly moves farther away from us, new research shows.

Days on Earth Are Getting Longer, Thanks to the Moon
By Samantha Mathewson June 05, 2018

https: //www - space - com/40802-earth-days-longer-moon-movement - html

The moon is about 4.5 billion years old and resides some 239,000 miles (385,000 kilometers) away from Earth, on average. However, due to tidal forces between our planet and the moon, the natural satellite slowly spirals away from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches (3.82 centimeters) per year, causing our planet to rotate more slowly around its axis.

Using a new statistical method called astrochronology, astronomers peered into Earth’s deep geologic past and reconstructed the planet’s history. This work revealed that, just 1.4 billion years ago, the moon was significantly closer to Earth, which made the planet spin faster. As a result, a day on Earth lasted just over 18 hours back then, according to a statement from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. [Earth Quiz: Do You Really Know Your Planet?]

“As the moon moves away, the Earth is like a spinning figure skater who slows down as they stretch their arms out,” study co-author Stephen Meyers, a professor of geoscience at UW-Madison

Logic, has some of this made sense to you?

Have you learned anything?

Were you impressed with Ranney’s talk and the visuals?

Where you able to come up with some information about nuclear decay and the resultant materials volume changes?

And if not, does that give you pause?