|Jul15-12, 04:33 PM||#18|
Rather than starting with a conclusion and presenting the mechanism it is likely more effective to present the suite of observational anomalies and then present the mechanism. (i.e. The observational anomalies should logically support the mechanism.) It is seems that there are a suite of observational anomalies in three separate scientific fields that can be used to support the existence of a new mechanism.
As the Firestone paper noted there is high temperature residue at multiple locations in both North America and Europe that coincides in time with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling period (12,900 years before present). The Firestone researchers did not look for other observational evidence before formulating their hypothesis that an extraterrestrial impact caused the multiple burn marks on the planet’s surface.
The next two papers provide additional observational evidence that there is a cyclic event that abruptly changes the geomagnetic field and depending on the location of the strike can also cause volcanic activity.
Monogenetic volcanoes do not share the same magma chamber and hence would not be expected to erupt at the same time. The fact that the five monogenetic volcanoes erupt at the same time and that they coincidentally capture the once in 30,000 to 100,000 year geomagnetic excursion supports the hypothesis that the physical cause of the geomagnetic excursion and the simultaneous eruptions is the same.
There are a couple of dozen additional geophysical papers that provide additional support for the assertion that something is forcing the geomagnetic field and that what forces the geomagnetic field occasionally causes volcanic eruptions. The geophysical papers in question are interesting in that they support the assertion that there is a cyclic forcing event but do not help with understanding the fundamental mechanism.
The Researchers in the above paper speculate that a solar process could be the physical cause of the geomagnetic anomalies. The next step is to look for astronomical observations to see if there is support for a hypothesis that there is a cyclic solar change that is causing the geomagnetic changes and to see if the observations can be used to define the mechanism.
If you are interested I can outline the next set of observations in the astrophysics section of this forum, later this year.
|Jul15-12, 10:52 PM||#19|
The paper you quote was written in 1997 which is prior to the discovery of and confirmation that there are archeomagnetic jerks. Below is a paper that notes there is a 100k year pseudo cycle in the geomagnetic field intensity. There is also a pseudo 41 k year cycle in the geomagnetic field. Other researchers have, however, noted that the orbital parameters are not not physically capable of causing sufficient changes to the liquid core to cause the “geomagnetic dynamo” to initiate an excursion or to cause an increase the geomagnetic field intensity. Another theory proposed to explain the geomagnetic excursions conceding with the termination of the interglacial period is ice sheet build up cause a geomagnetic excursion and ice sheet melting causes changes to the "dynamo" to increase the intensity of the geomagnetic field. That hypothesis fails as the geomagnetic intensity increases thousands of years before the ice sheet melting and as others have noted the geomagnetic excursion occurs at the termination of the interglacial period prior to the ice sheet build up. (The ice sheet affecting dynamo hypothesis does not explain the Younger Dryas period which occurred during the initiation of the interglacial period.) There is a problem with cause and effect.
Archeomagnetic jerks are likely not caused by orbital parameters affecting the “geomagnetic dynamo”. (the archeomagnetic jerks are too rapid and too frequent). The archeomagnetic jerks appear to be a paradox, something that cannot be explained by the assumed mechanism. There is evidence of burn marks on the surface of the earth. The burn marks have been dated to 12900 years which coincides with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate event. There is evidence of a geomagnetic excursion at the time of the Younger Dryas and at the termination of glacial periods and interglacial periods.
I have as noted above been looking through astronomical papers looking for observational evidence to explain what is observed. What I have found appear to be interesting. I will take a crack at presenting the astronomical observations late this year.
At this time, I have not further comments concerning the geomagnetic field or the burn marks.
|Jul19-12, 02:46 PM||#20|
|Aug6-12, 04:53 AM||#21|
A new study about the Carolina bays.
Rodriguez et al, 2012; Burning peat and reworking loess contribute to the formation and evolution of a large Carolina-bay basin, Quaternary Research 77 (2012) 171–181 doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2011.11.004
Anyway, that should deal with some wild speculations. However it should also raise new questions as they also find Pleistocene coastal–marine deposit, with shells beyond carbon dating (>40,000 years). Would that raise questions about sealevels during the ice age, not being so low?
|Sep8-12, 06:10 PM||#22|
The surface deposits all along the eastern US coastal plain are quite intriguing in their stratigraphy. The sea levels at present are similar to those seen at the termination of the Wisconsin Glaciation. However, the Illinoian Glaciation was both more extensive in glacial cover, as well as in the resulting much higher post-melt sea level. The coastal-marine deposits seen across the Lake Mattamuskeet basin are there because the entire Albemarle/Pamlico Peninsula was likely submerged at 80ka, as noted in the QR paper. Heck, if the coast continues to sink due to retreat of the LGM glacial-isostatic forebulge, it will be back under the Atlantic again in another few thousand years.
If only I could get comfortable with the author's assertion that the Carolina bays are being developed across this landscape. Seems to me they are simply being inundated and buried, similar to those along the Chesapeake shoreline of Virginia's Eastern Shore.
|Sep9-12, 03:08 AM||#23|
Update: In a recent publication the early Weichselian glaciation is shown (fig 1, page 241). It doesn't get closer to Beijing than the Putorana mountains, central north Siberia.
So if these sea levels rises combined suggest a more eustatic character, how about the sea levels recorded in the marine isotopes?
I think I keep my signature below VVV a bit longer.
|Similar Threads for: Carolina Bays|
|North Carolina State University's Physics Program||Academic Guidance||8|