tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post1933214567954948158..comments2023-10-29T06:33:26.576-07:00Comments on Oil Is Mastery: An Expanding Earth OutlineOilIsMasteryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13457713647671999890noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-86902590602488941512020-04-17T03:25:06.572-07:002020-04-17T03:25:06.572-07:00togel online
bandar togel terpercaya
agen togel
...<a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">togel online</a><br /><br /><a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">bandar togel terpercaya</a><br /><br /><a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">agen togel</a><br /><br /><a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">judi togel</a><br /><br /><a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">Keluaran Togel</a><br /><br /><a href="https://linktr.ee/togel888" rel="nofollow">daftar togel</a>mantapjiwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13739292392624159516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-69638829460223832132018-03-18T17:14:35.822-07:002018-03-18T17:14:35.822-07:00Do you need Personal Loan?
Business Cash Loan?
Uns...Do you need Personal Loan?<br />Business Cash Loan?<br />Unsecured Loan <br />Fast and Simple Loan?<br />Quick Application Process?<br />Approvals within 24-72 Hours?<br />No Hidden Fees Loan?<br />Funding in less than 1 Week?<br />Get unsecured working capital?<br />Email us:urgentloan22@gmail.com<br />Application Form:<br />=================<br />Full Name:................<br />Loan Amount Needed:.<br />Purpose of loan:.......<br />Loan Duration:..<br />Gender:.............<br />Marital status:....<br />Location:..........<br />Home Address:..<br />City:............<br />Country:......<br />Phone:..........<br />Mobile / Cell:....<br />Occupation:......<br />Monthly Income:....<br />Email us (urgentloan22@gmail.com)URGENT LOAN OFFER WHATSAPP +918929509036https://www.blogger.com/profile/05012516565440710656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-53906839886461042092012-04-04T03:05:18.260-07:002012-04-04T03:05:18.260-07:00wow that's really amazing.
Quality Dentist Hig...wow that's really amazing.<br /><a href="http://www.me-dentalpractice.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Quality Dentist Highfields</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-14922103128054568212008-11-14T07:51:00.000-08:002008-11-14T07:51:00.000-08:00I have a three-part series of posts dealing with t...I have a three-part series of posts dealing with the discussions in the comments above -- see Part 1 <A HREF="http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/" REL="nofollow">here</A>.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-1846470682915620702008-11-12T08:06:00.000-08:002008-11-12T08:06:00.000-08:00BrianR:I appreciate your continued time and effort...BrianR:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your continued time and effort.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-89883156436606380232008-11-11T11:30:00.000-08:002008-11-11T11:30:00.000-08:00Anaconda ... sorry this is taking a bit longer tha...Anaconda ... sorry this is taking a bit longer than I wanted ... I'm pulling together a lot of information and having to do it in the evenings ... I should have something posted by this weekend. Thanks for your patience.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-67779757565210580752008-10-31T17:27:00.000-07:002008-10-31T17:27:00.000-07:00BrianR:Take your time, all the time you need.No wo...BrianR:<BR/><BR/>Take your time, all the time you need.<BR/><BR/>No worries.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to see what you come up with:-)Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-67574839353053258932008-10-31T15:51:00.000-07:002008-10-31T15:51:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "Why is it so hard for you to admit...Anaconda says: "Why is it so hard for you to admit a harmless mistake (jumping to the conclusion that Cascadia has a "trench overfilled w/ sediment"), or that subduction theory has weaknesses for that matter?"<BR/><BR/>Holy crap ... I said it was gonna take a while and within an hour you want me to admit mistakes?<BR/><BR/>You are an odd one Anaconda.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-67785488498993747442008-10-31T15:44:00.000-07:002008-10-31T15:44:00.000-07:00BrainR:You want to discuss why the paper I linked ...BrainR:<BR/><BR/>You want to discuss why the paper I linked demonstrates subduction.<BR/><BR/>Fine.<BR/><BR/>But I'm still patiently waiting for a paper demonstrating a "trench overfilled w/ sediment".<BR/><BR/>BrianR, there may not be a paper that demonstrates a "trench overfilled w/ sediment" proposition.<BR/><BR/>Might you be humble enough to acknowledge that fact, if, in deed, it turns out to be the case?<BR/><BR/>Why is it so hard for you to admit a harmless mistake (jumping to the conclusion that Cascadia has a "trench overfilled w/ sediment"), or that subduction theory has weaknesses for that matter?<BR/><BR/>It's not a crime to admit to making a mistake or that a theory has certain weaknesses.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, all your gyrations to avoid any admission of the kind, come off slightly ridiculous, thus my jocular rejoinder.<BR/><BR/>Relax a little.<BR/><BR/>As I've already indicated, I'm happy discuss the McNeill paper and why it demonstrates subduction.<BR/><BR/>But I'm also still waiting for a response to my question regarding the necessity of an equal amount of subduction zones for the roughly 40,000 miles of sea-floor spreading observed around the world.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-80165223815871823892008-10-31T14:33:00.000-07:002008-10-31T14:33:00.000-07:00Okay ... so now you're serious and want to talk ab...Okay ... so now you're serious and want to talk about it? Honestly, it's hard to keep up w/ your mood swings. Like I said, I will put together a post anyway just in case you decide again that I'm a disgrace and arrogant and want nothing to do with me. It's an area I'm interested in anyway, so it'll be fun.<BR/><BR/>Remember, I said there is no sea-floor expression of a trench ... so, it's not about "finding" a trench per se. This is about demonstrating to you that the Cascadia subduction zone has a distinctly different physiography as a result of a high degree of sedimentation and significant accretionary wedge. This may not be posted for another week or two due to other things going on in my life ... don't get impatient. In the meantime, if you don't have access to journals, look up some active researchers in this field of study, they will often put links to their papers on their personal websites.<BR/><BR/>Re McNeill et al., you say: "If a "trench" does exist farther offshore beyond the study area, you'd think that would influence the study area enough to be mentioned at least in passing."<BR/><BR/>Again, it's not about a trench "existing" on the sea floor ... read what I say in my original comment way above - trench overfilled w/ sediment and there's also a significant accretionary complex. <BR/><BR/>In terms of McNeill et al. not mentioning it in passing, they do talk about the sedimentation history with this statement:<BR/><BR/>"The central Cascadia forearc basin is currently almost entirely filled (see bathymetric base map of Fig. 3). Holocene hemipelagic sedimentation has been minimal compared to the Pleistocene glacial period. During the Pleistocene, submarine canyons transported the majority of sediments directly to the abyssal plain and submarine fans, such as the Astoria fan (Nelson, 1976)."<BR/><BR/>This is key.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-68279869452251857362008-10-31T14:00:00.000-07:002008-10-31T14:00:00.000-07:00BrianR:It wasn't clear you wanted to discuss it.Bu...BrianR:<BR/><BR/>It wasn't clear you wanted to discuss it.<BR/><BR/>But since you ask. First, you never gave a description of where the "trench" was located.<BR/><BR/>So I linked a paper that had a detailed discussion and diagrams of an area I thought where the trench would be located.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you state the "trench" is farther offshore beyond the boundary of the McNeill study area, then fine, I'll wait for documentation for where the "trench" is located.<BR/><BR/>Hey, I'm not infallible.<BR/><BR/>I will add this: If a "trench" does exist farther offshore beyond the study area, you'd think that would influence the study area enough to be mentioned at least in passing.<BR/><BR/>But as I already said, I could be wrong. so in all seriousness, I do await presentation of papers or paper (hopefully linked or an extended passage) that points to and describes this covered over trench.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-2391201192328787112008-10-31T09:03:00.000-07:002008-10-31T09:03:00.000-07:00Anaconda ... nice one. I suppose you are really pl...Anaconda ... nice one. I suppose you are really pleased with yourself. I don't know why I thought engaging you again would be different. I guess I'm an optimist.<BR/><BR/>Did you still want to discuss the McNeill et al. paper? I responded about the details of that paper and you respond with that comment. Do you disagree with me re McNeill et al.? Like I keep saying, I'd rather discuss details and data from specific locations or studies ... looks like you don't. Fair enough.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-84304995312494819472008-10-30T22:04:00.000-07:002008-10-30T22:04:00.000-07:00Your Eminence,We, unwashed groundlings patiently a...Your Eminence,<BR/><BR/>We, unwashed groundlings patiently await your return from the great ivory tower. Master of the academy have forbearance, not all the little people of the internet have access to the great libraries hosted in the hollowed halls of academia.<BR/><BR/>We humbly await your discerning directions to the great trench of Cascadia.<BR/><BR/>Your most obedient internet groundling,<BR/><BR/>Anaconda of the little peopleAnacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-16521095471875762272008-10-30T16:22:00.000-07:002008-10-30T16:22:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "Laundry lists of papers that aren'...Anaconda says: "Laundry lists of papers that aren't available on the internet are not helpful."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"Lists without ready access for the reader tend to be a substitute for substantive scientific argument."<BR/><BR/>Anaconda, give me a break, I give you a list of references and since you don't have access, it's somehow MY fault. Go to a library. This is ridiculous ... if I didn't give you a list and pontificated on my own you would've attacked me for not backing up my statements and you would've asked for peer-reviewed papers, right? If I had given you one, you would've said 'well, that's just one paper, hardly a wealth of data' ... Do you want me to photocopy all the relevant papers, read and analyze them, highlight the relevant passages, and mail them to you? Go to your local library and do the research! It's not that difficult.<BR/><BR/>Now on to the McNeil et al. paper.<BR/> <BR/>Anaconda says: "The seismic profiles presented clearly exclude the possibility of a trench and "trench" is not used in the paper as a descriptive of any geological feature."<BR/><BR/>Look at Fig. 1 ... none of the seismic-reflection profiles even extend to the trench. This study is focused on the forearc region (which is stated in the title, abstract, and introduction). So, the reason the paper doesn't discuss the subduction zone proper is because it's not focused on it! I'm sorry, but you can't pull out a paper that doesn't discuss the thing you are interested in and then turn around and criticize it for not discussing the thing you are interested in. This paper is about unconformity development in the forearc basin sedimentary succession. <BR/><BR/>I started gathering information about Cascadia, but I get the impression I might be wasting my time. Whatever I present to you will be dismissed for one reason or another.<BR/><BR/>I'll do it anyway for any other readers of this thread.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-32551447012219490002008-10-30T13:34:00.000-07:002008-10-30T13:34:00.000-07:00After Research, A response to BrianR:It was not my...After Research, A response to BrianR:<BR/><BR/>It was not my intention to respond to BrianR's last comment until re-engaged in the discussion. However, I had raised the lack of a trench in the so-called Cascadia Subduction Zone in the course of discussion.<BR/><BR/>Immediately, BrianR came back with: "Cascadia trench is over-filled with sediment, does not have sea-floor expression ... also has significant accretionary complex."<BR/><BR/>To which I said: "If the Cascadia "trench" is full of sediment why aren't the others, too. This is the first I've read of a Cascadia "trench" full of sediment."<BR/><BR/>To which BrianR stated other "trenches" didn't have the Columbia River depositing sediment and he presented a laudry list of papers, preumably to suggest, scientific back up for his position.<BR/><BR/>That's where I left it.<BR/><BR/>But I decided to look at the papers cited (as per BrianR's suggestion), anticipating further discussion on the topic.<BR/><BR/>None of the seven papers were readily available on the internet (my version, anyway).<BR/><BR/>Laundry lists of papers that aren't available on the internet are not helpful. One must also be careful that laundry lists are not a substitute for actually presenting a case.<BR/><BR/>But I did find one scientific paper that did address the geologic profile and structure off the Oregon coast (where a good portion of "Cascadia" lies).<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.activetectonics.coas.oregonstate.edu/main_pages/paper%20files/McNeill2000forearc.pdf" REL="nofollow">Tectonics of the Neogene Cascadia forearc basin: Investigations of a<BR/>deformed late Miocene unconformity,</A> McMeill, Goldfinger, Kulm, Yeats, GSA Bulletin; August 2000; v. 112; no. 8; p. 1209–1224; 10 figures. <BR/><BR/>The figures and discussion are useful and shed light on the issue of a "trench" and whether it has been covered over by sediment as alleged by BrianR.<BR/><BR/>This particular paper presents no evidence of a trench that has been "coverd over".<BR/><BR/>The seismic profiles presented clearly exclude the possibility of a trench and "trench" is not used in the paper as a descriptive of any geological feature.<BR/><BR/>And when I say "trench" I mean a significant geologic structure, at least in depth and width.<BR/><BR/>(I don't present quotes from the linked paper because nothing even came close to a "trench" discussion.)<BR/><BR/>This exercise highlights the danger of presenting laundry lists.<BR/><BR/>One scientic paper cited and linked is more informative to the reader than twenty papers on an unavailable list.<BR/><BR/>As I stated before: Lists without ready access for the reader tend to be a substitute for substantive scientific argument.<BR/><BR/>In other words, authority run amok.<BR/><BR/>Which brings up another aspect of BrianR response.<BR/><BR/>(I wanted to let sleeping dogs lie, but since I'm writng...)<BR/><BR/>BrianR responded to my citing the total length of sea-floor spreading ridges (roughly 40,000 miles) with (after first ignoring it), "Amount? As in volumes? At what rates? Is this the primary argument against subduction? This could be an interesting theoretical thought exercise, but how 'bout we stick to observations and data from the "alleged" subduction zones."<BR/><BR/>This is called "throwing dust into the air". <BR/><BR/>Why?<BR/><BR/>Because nowhere does subduction theory, that I'm aware of -- there are vast amounts of papers on the subject -- postulate or define: "Amount", "volume", or "rates".<BR/><BR/>Rather, subduction depends on qualitative descriptions.<BR/><BR/>So, if my question of equal subduction for equal sea-floor spreading is simply a "thought exercise", so is the whole concept of subduction.<BR/><BR/>My question was easy enough to understand and the import was clear. The fact that BrianR responded with "I don't understand what you mean," and attempted to invalidate the question, suggests he doesn't have a good answer.<BR/><BR/>BrianR, how about this type of response: "That's an interesting challenge and it makes sense. If the Earth has a constant diameter, then there must be an equal amount of subduction. I don't have an answer right now, let me research the issue. It may turn out to be a paradox in Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory."<BR/><BR/>But instead, we get "throwing dust in the air."<BR/><BR/>That's not the way to conduct a meaningful discussion.<BR/><BR/>But I understand: To admit any weakness in subduction theory is to possibly begin to see the ediface crack (surely, the ediface isn't that weak).<BR/><BR/>But that's the wrong attitude in a discussion using the scientific method as the perameter for discourse.<BR/><BR/>The proper scientific attitude is to admit the weaknesses of our position as well as state the strengths.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-15789440752283456352008-10-29T13:14:00.000-07:002008-10-29T13:14:00.000-07:00BrianR:Sounds good.BrianR:<BR/><BR/>Sounds good.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-87497560249900106642008-10-29T12:26:00.000-07:002008-10-29T12:26:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "It's your proposition that the Cas...Anaconda says: "It's your proposition that the Cascadia "trench" has been covered over. Fine. Enunciate your proposition by quoting the relevant passages from the papers you cite in support of your proposition."<BR/><BR/>I will go ahead and spend some time gathering information from papers then. It may take some time ... research is work (and I have a day job). <BR/><BR/>"In order for subduction theory to account for a constant diameter Earth, there must be an EQUAL amount of subduction compared to sea-floor spreading ridges."<BR/><BR/>Amount? As in volumes? At what rates? Is this the primary argument against subduction? This could be an interesting theoretical thought exercise, but how 'bout we stick to observations and data from the "alleged" subduction zones.<BR/><BR/>While I'm researching peer-reviewed papers (that include data and observations), I would recommend you do the same ... so we can communicate about the specific parts of Cascadia, the different fracture zones, submarine fans, and so on. We will then be able to have an efficient and hopefully effective discussion that doesn't go off on tangents. Any of those papers I list above about Cascadia and sedimentation are good (first thing I do when cracking open a new paper is check out the list of references and try and find 3-5 papers that are good for background and context).<BR/><BR/>Hopefully I'll have some information for you to evaluate in a few days ... and I'll probably put it on my own blog so I can embed images/illustrations. I'll link to this thread.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-40040450027853591992008-10-29T11:49:00.000-07:002008-10-29T11:49:00.000-07:00BrianR:I thought the discussion was left off at an...BrianR:<BR/><BR/>I thought the discussion was left off at an equanimous point.<BR/><BR/>As I ended my previous comment:<BR/><BR/>"In concluding, you've made your point: Each side has evidenciary items they can point to on their side of the argument. Conversely, each side can point to paradoxes embedded in the other side's case.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, that is a good place to leave it for now."<BR/><BR/>It's your proposition that the Cascadia "trench" has been covered over.<BR/><BR/>Fine. Enunciate your proposition by quoting the relevant passages from the papers you cite in support of your proposition.<BR/><BR/>It's not my job to argue your papers. That's your job to give specifics on the papers you cite.<BR/><BR/>It's not that I don't want to argue specifics; provide the relevant passages and I'll respond accordingly.<BR/><BR/>BrianR says: "Show me the evidence that subduction does not occur."<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you read the post and reviewed the citations.<BR/><BR/>I'll not repeat the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>What I did point out was simple enough:<BR/><BR/>"In order for subduction theory to account for a constant diameter Earth, there must be an EQUAL amount of subduction compared to sea-floor spreading ridges.<BR/><BR/>There is roughly 40,000 miles of sea-floor spreading ridges. There simply hasn't been identified an EQUAL amount of subduction zones."<BR/><BR/>And, no, it's not speculative. The amount of sea-floor spreading ridges is a measured observation.<BR/><BR/>So, please don't lecture me on facts. I provided a salient fact. How you respond is your choice.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the Cascadia Subduction Zone is a good place to start. I discussed the Cascadia Subduction Zone in a previous comment, but didn't get any takers.<BR/><BR/>On a lighter and hopefully more conciliatory note, it's regrettable you were offended by previous comments I made. I apologize for those comments.<BR/><BR/>As I already said, "Perhaps, that is a good place to leave it for now."<BR/><BR/>I look forward to other opportunities:-)Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-76593073346095128052008-10-29T09:53:00.000-07:002008-10-29T09:53:00.000-07:00Anaconda ... I'm not going to, again, get into the...Anaconda ... I'm not going to, again, get into these rhetorical "discussions" that you obviously enjoy. Remember, you said I was a disgrace to my field and arrogant? I don't want to go down that path. <BR/><BR/>You say: "The hypothesis you present postulates that the entire length of the "trench" has been neatly covered over. The scientific evience is limited for that proposition."<BR/><BR/>Read the papers! Let's look at the details ... what specific evidence are you talking about? Give me specifics ... which dataset? Which paper? Which authors? Which part of the region? <BR/><BR/>If you don't want to discuss specifics, fine ... if you'd rather pontificate about dogma in science and such, that's great ... you clearly enjoy those discussions. Others reading this can engage you in that if they like. <BR/><BR/>But, if you (or anyone else reading) wants to look at the data in these papers and discuss what they mean, I'm game. You are expressing extreme skepticism that subduction occurs (and OIM, who is silent on the issue, proclaims not only subduction but any kind of covergence/compression to be a "myth"). Let's stay on that specific topic. Let's look at the data. Let's pick some of those papers and study them. We can pull out the data and observations and discuss interpretations.<BR/><BR/>You say: "Each side has evidenciary items they can point to on their side of the argument. Conversely, each side can point to paradoxes embedded in the other side's case."<BR/><BR/>Show me the evidence that subduction does not occur. Specifically that ... not speculative, if not intriguing, theoretical claims ... I'm interested in data and observations from the Earth. As I've listed above there is a wealth of information that has led researchers to an interpretation of subduction. Debunk those papers. Let's address specific data.<BR/><BR/>Do you want to start w/ a specific subduction zone (maybe Cascadia as you have some interest in it)?BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-82221821888870168542008-10-29T09:15:00.000-07:002008-10-29T09:15:00.000-07:00BrianR:Your time and attention are appreciated -- ...BrianR:<BR/><BR/>Your time and attention are appreciated -- you've provided a lot of information. Rest and relax, at least regarding this discussion.<BR/><BR/>The 'Wilson Cycle' is really the "grand formulation" of Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory designed to incorporate the element of time, geologic time.<BR/><BR/>Also, known as the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cycle" REL="nofollow">Supercontinent Cycle.</A><BR/><BR/>And, of course, according to this "grand" theory, just about every mountain range is due to subduction.<BR/><BR/>How convenient.<BR/><BR/>Of course, that also explains why every paper "pays homage" to Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory.<BR/><BR/>Geology is rooted in this theory.<BR/><BR/>As stated in the <A HREF="http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html" REL="nofollow">Wilson Cycle, And A Plate Tectonic Rock Cycle:</A> <BR/><BR/>"Nothing in geology makes sense except in terms of plate tectonic theory."<BR/><BR/>It's clear, should Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory ever be seriously called into question, all geology would be deeply humbled.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the Columbia River has pumped out a great deal of sediment over time. But sedimentary fans have a defined extent, even the 'Mighty Mississippi'. The hypothesis you present postulates that the entire length of the "trench" has been neatly covered over.<BR/><BR/>The scientific evience is limited for that proposition.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru-Chile_Trench" REL="nofollow">Peru-Chile Trench</A> has many seperate rivers feeding into it from the Andes Mountain range, not as big as the Columbia for sure, but I haven't read of any areas that have been "filled in", perhaps there is material on that issue.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the extent of volcanic activity near the Mariana Trench, I'll stand corrected.<BR/><BR/>But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. In order for subduction theory to account for a constant diameter Earth, there must be an EQUAL amount of subduction compared to sea-floor spreading ridges.<BR/><BR/>There is roughly 40,000 miles of sea-floor spreading ridges. There simply hasn't been identified an EQUAL amount of subduction zones.<BR/><BR/>But let's focus on an answer you provided to one of my questions: "It was ... it was called geosynclinal theory."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosyncline" REL="nofollow">Geosynclinal theory</A> was widely held in the geology community to explain the development of mountains, prior to the subduction revolution.<BR/><BR/>Briefly it held that vertical crustal movement was primarily responsible for orogeny development. <BR/><BR/>Do I hear echoes of an expanding Earth?<BR/><BR/>Presumably, many geologic papers expanded on and defined and offered proof for this theory, whole laundry lists in fact. Most building on its antecedents.<BR/><BR/>I suppose this whole generation of geologists was wrong, or at least that's the way today's geologists think.<BR/><BR/>Was each and every paper debunked?<BR/><BR/>I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>Yet, each and every Geosynclinal theory paper was cast aside, never the less. Apparently today's geologists don't feel the need evaluate each and every paper because they are derivative of a theory today's geologists think is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Am I right?<BR/><BR/>Moving on to your response to my list of thrust-fold belts that don't have a connection to subduction:<BR/><BR/>In summary:<BR/><BR/>Subduction, here, subduction, there, subduction, everywhere...<BR/><BR/>That seems to be the answer...look hard enough and you'll find subduction lurking under that rock, somewhere.<BR/><BR/>Per, the 'Wilson Cycle'.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I don't find that particularly persuasive.<BR/><BR/>Which gets us back to basics. Science has limited tools to see below the Earth's surface. Yes, I know seismic imaging can do wonders, still it's based on certain assumptions and has certain limitations.<BR/><BR/>There are other "imperfect" tools, as well.<BR/><BR/>I think science needs to be voluntarily humble, or else sometime down the road, a forced humiliation will occur by the course of events that even the most creative defenders of the faith won't be able to refute.<BR/><BR/>In concluding, you've made your point: Each side has evidenciary items they can point to on their side of the argument. Conversely, each side can point to paradoxes embedded in the other side's case.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, that is a good place to leave it for now.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-24085159293435538382008-10-28T21:09:00.000-07:002008-10-28T21:09:00.000-07:00Anaconda ... I've responded to your list of North ...Anaconda ... I've responded to your list of North American fold-thrust (F-T) belts from the Wikipedia page with a few comments. These are just my comments from memory ... I didn't dig up the appropriate references ... perhaps I'll do that another time. I've provided enough references today.<BR/><BR/>The most important thing about that table is the age column (the middle column). Many of these F-T belts are associated w/ ancient convergent margins.<BR/><BR/>(1) Rocky Mountains: The Rockies are actually a very interesting problem ... there is still some fascinating debate about their origin. Ideas about 'flat slab' subduction and such. Plus, they are 'thick-skinned' system, meaning they involve basement uplifts (e.g., Front Range, Uinta Mts., Bighorn Mts., etc.) and not just shortening of sedimentary cover.<BR/><BR/>(2) Western Sierra Madre Range: Honestly, I've never read any papers about these mountains. Essentially they are the southern extension of the entire North American Cordillera, but I'd have to do some digging to learn more. Fun!<BR/><BR/>(3) Wyoming-Utah Thrustbelt: This is also known as the Sevier belt and much of the structural deformation is associated with the Cretaceous convergent margin (that is also responsible for the now-exhumed Sierra Nevada continental arc). The extensive Cretaceous strata exposed in Utah and Colorado are interpreted as foreland basin deposits associated w/ this orogen.<BR/><BR/>(3) Appalachians: I love the Appalachians! Very cool geology. This orogen is more challenging to unravel because of their age (Late Paleozoic). There are a couple different orogenic phases recorded in there ... related to assembly of Pangea. <BR/><BR/>(4) Eastern Sierra Madre Range: As I said above, don't know much about these Mexican mountains.<BR/><BR/>(5) Ogilvie Mountains: Associated w/ extension of Cretaceous convergent margin system mentioned above for Sevier F-T belt.<BR/><BR/>(6) Brooks Range: Many show how this range is an amalgam of many F-T belts that have accreted over time (called 'accreted terranes'). It's a complex history with convergence (and compressional tectonism) related to multiple episodes. Like the others, I'd have to do some more digging to really find out the nitty-gritty. Or you can, I've spent too much time on this today.<BR/><BR/>Anyway ... a lot to cover.<BR/><BR/>Also, I am still interested to hear OilIsMastery's ideas on mountain building, especially those w/ evidence for reverse/thrust faulting and folding (i.e., compression) within the context of an Earth where convergence is a "myth".BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-81837471470799606372008-10-28T20:11:00.000-07:002008-10-28T20:11:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "lithospheric flexure seems mo...Anaconda says: "lithospheric flexure seems more consistent with an expanding globe that causes flexture -- deformation due to the curvature of the globe relaxing."<BR/><BR/>But the lithospheric flexure you discussed above was in relation to foreland fold-thrust belts and the load they emplace on the crust. <BR/><BR/>As I said it's difficult to point to a single paper for these issues, but if I had to for foreland basins it would be DeCelles & Giles, 1996, Basin Research, v. 8, p. 105-123. Jordan's chapter in the Busby & Ingersoll text I list above is good and goes over this topic.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying there isn't lithospheric deformation associated w/ divergent boundaries and the curvature of the Earth, but I'm confused on the mechanism of flexure w/r/t foreland basins. Links to others ideas on this or clarification from you appreciated.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-65607675239048488702008-10-28T20:02:00.000-07:002008-10-28T20:02:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "Mariana Trench seems to be relativ...Anaconda says: "Mariana Trench seems to be relatively isolated from volcanic activity. (Noted are a few sporadic spots of volcanic activity.)"<BR/><BR/>The Izu-Bonin-Mariana (IBM) volcanic arc is associated with the Marianas subduction zone. The Wikipedia page on IBM arc is actually quite comprehensive (see <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc" REL="nofollow">here</A>).<BR/><BR/>You noted "a few sporadic spots of volcanic activity" (reference?) ... whereas Baker et al. (2008) identified 76 volcanic edifices.<BR/><BR/>Baker, E.T., Embley, R.W., Walker, S.L., Resing, J.A., Lupton, J.E., Nakamura, K.-I., de Rode, C. E. J., Massoth, G. J. 2008. Hydrothermal activity and volcano distribution along the Mariana arc. J. Geophys. Res.113, B08S09, doi:10.1029/2007JR005423, 2008.<BR/><BR/>What other modern subduction zones do not have volcanic activity?BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-73058599711478903852008-10-28T19:55:00.000-07:002008-10-28T19:55:00.000-07:00Anaconda says: "If the Cascadia "trench" is full o...Anaconda says: "If the Cascadia "trench" is full of sediment why aren't the others, too."<BR/><BR/>Not all trenches have major rivers (like the Columbia) delivering sufficient amounts of sediment. There are other factors at play, of course, but a source of sediment is key. See one of my own posts (which you commented on) <A HREF="http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/06/01/sea-floor-sunday-20-cascadia-subduction-zone/" REL="nofollow">here</A> for an image showing the bathymetry. <BR/><BR/>If you want more general information on Cascadia subduction zone with respect to patterns of sedimentation see this sampling of papers:<BR/><BR/>BARNARD, W.D., 1978, The Washington continental slope: Quaternary tectonics and sedimentation: Marine Geology, v. 27, p. 79–114.<BR/><BR/>CARSON, B., 1973, Acoustic stratigraphy, structure and history of Quaternary deposition in Cascadia Basin: Deep-Sea Research, v. 20, p. 387–396.<BR/><BR/>DAVIS, E.E., AND HYNDMAN, R.D., 1989, Accretion and recent deformation of sediments along the northern Cascadia subduction zone: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 101, p. 1465–1480.<BR/><BR/>DUNCAN, J.R., AND KULM, L.D., 1970, Mineralogy, provenance, and dispersal history of late Quaternary deep-sea sands in Cascadia Basin and Blanco Fracture Zone off Oregon: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 40, p. 874–877.<BR/><BR/>KULM, L.D., AND FOWLER, G.A., 1974, Oregon continental margin structure and stratigraphy: a test of the imbricate thrust model, in Burk, C.A., and Drake, C.L., eds., The Geology of Continental Margins: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 261–284.<BR/><BR/>NORMARK, W.R., AND SERRA, F., 2001, Vertical tectonics in northern Escanaba Trough as recorded by thick late Quaternary turbidites: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 106, p. 13,793–13,802.<BR/><BR/>SHIPBOARD SCIENTIFIC PARTY, 1997d, Buried basement transect (Sites 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, and 1032), in Davis, E.E., Fisher, A.T., Firth, J.V., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, v. 168: College Station, Texas (Ocean Drilling Program), p. 161–212.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-65820986456622437392008-10-28T19:36:00.000-07:002008-10-28T19:36:00.000-07:00Remember you said fold-thrust belts that aren't, o...Remember you said fold-thrust belts that aren't, or never were, related to subduction ... that is key. Google the 'Wilson Cycle'.BrianRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04930245080333999989noreply@blogger.com