Are pyrenees currently growing?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by elchapero, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, I don't.

    Correct.

    Wrong.

    However that's not the only work they've co-authored on the Mediterranean basin.

    statement of fact.

    This is the second time I've typed this post, consequntly I've lost the references I had, however, more modern work suggests a dual rupture mechanism occurs that incoporates strike slip motion as well as thrust motion.

    Wrong.

    Stop trolling, it's obvious a typo.

    Yes, it is.

    Right, because governments don't hire scientists, do they.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Wrong.
    The mainstream scientific literature accepts it as a nascent subduction trench that has a dual rupture mode accommodating both strike slip and thrust components that is propogating southwards.

    All of which, is, by the way, completely irrelevant. It's not a point I'm interested in debating with you any further, because it is an offtopic aside - the original point was the relationship between the Hikurangi trench and its backarc basin, as a much simpler analog of some of what is happening in the Mediterranean.

    Take a moment to think about it.

    We were originally talking about whether the western mediterranean basin was opening or closing.

    First it's opening, then it's closing, and now it's opening again? Make up your mind.

    That still makes little or no sense.

    No. The fact that the Aegean plate is moving generally Southwestwards at a rate of 25mm/year does not imply that the Mediterranean basin is opening, rather than closing - in fact, given that Africa is moving northward at 5mm/year then if the Agean plate is moving southward at 25mm a year, then the pair of them are converging at 30mm/year.

    The only thing that requires an openining of a new sea in that area is your expanding earth toy model. The mainstream model of plate tectonics allows a spreading zone to be subducted - an example is the east Pacific rise.

    You're changing the facts to fit your model. That's not science.

    Oh god NO!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No, I disagree with your interpretation of them, there's a difference.

    You're starting to sound more and more like a religous fundamentalist than a scientist.

    No, it is not the model which fails in this region, it is your understanding of the model that fails.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    First you say that to be a diapir, a mantle upwelling must pierce through the lithosphere, then you deny that a mantle upwelling piercing through the lithosphere as it happens in a backarc is a diapir. You contradict yourself.


    Because this is strike-slip-subduction transition as shown by Lebrun et al (2010) Tectonics 19, p688.
    But you denied it (!)


    Oh, so you identify a strike-slip fault from a global tectonic model and not from its seismicity. That would explain a lot of your garbage!


    No.


    Irrelevant. Peer-reviewed scientific paper must be the primary source. And peer-reviewed scientific papers prove that you are wrong, the fault along that ridge is a strike-slip fault according to seismic evidence.

    Lebrun et al (2010) disagree with you. Lebrun et al have evidence to prove their point, you have zero. You're wrong.


    Yes this is what is called a strike-slip-subduction transition as shown by (Lebrun et al (2010) Tectonics 19, p688), you know , the paper you denied a few lines above… Go Figure...

    How convenient, just when your contradictions are showing...

    Simpler? With multiple overlapping mantle flows and extension basins? No, it is not simpler.


    You introduced the eastern basin in post #26 with this assertion "Secondly, the Aegean Sea is in the Eastern Mediterranean basin, which we've both agreed will close, not the Western Mediterranean...". Then I replied that this assertion did not reflect my position "Not exactly. The fact that a running mantle flow is heading south-west does not necessarily mean that the basin will completely close. It all depends on the level of extension in the back-arc."

    You got confused all by yourself by mixing eastern and western. My position is clear and always remained the same during the whole thread:
    - The western basin has been opening for 30 My and continue to do so by expansion of the tyrrhenian sea. This is not a prediction, this is what we can conclude from multiple evidence.
    - The Estern basin is crossed by a mantle flow (anatolian/Agean) currently moving West then making a turn to the Southwest in the aegean sea. In the future it should reach Libya. As the front of this flow progresses, the Aegean sea is expanding. Now, either there is a strong uplift in the agean sea as it happens in anatolia, and the crust will emerge so that the eastern Med basin will be technically closed, or there is no uplift and the aegean sea will remain a sea, so that the eastern basin Med basin won't be close.
    Damn, Is that so difficult to understand?

    Wrong, again. And that is because you don't pay attention. The 25 mm/year figure is the North/south component of the motion vector. So the agean sea is moving southward away from the balkans at 25 mm/year, which according to your simplistic view of lithosphere kinematics, means that the aegean sea is expanding at a rate of 25 mm/year, or 5 times faster than your estimate regarding the closure of the Mediterranean basin. Both assertion are evidently absurd and reflect the lack of pertinence of your simplistic kinematic model.

    The correct interpretation is that peeped by Le Pichon & Kreemer (2010) Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2010. 38:323–51:
    "Whatever its origin,the asthenospheric rise [under anatolia] led to uplift and the establishment of a progressive topographic gradient between the uplift and the subduction zone toward which Anatolia is moving. This scenario is similar to the effect of the Afar plume on the motion and topography of Arabia. In both cases, the beginning of the motion (for Anatolia) or the rapid increase of motion (for Arabia) coincides with the initiation of the uplift."
    "...possibility to explain the proposed lateral asthenospheric flow would be the asthenospheric rise below the East Anatolian Plateau with concomitant topographic uplift and outward spreading of the asthenosphere. This asthenospheric rise was initiated 13–11 Mya. By 8 Mya, volcanism that has been attributed to the rapid rise of the asthenosphere extended over the whole plateau(Keskin2007,Sengo ̈retal.2003).Furthermore, the systematic decrease of elevation from the 2000-m-high plateau to the Aegean Sea now clearly reflects the presence of a gradient in gravitational energy that must contribute to the westward motion of Anatolia."

    It is just a mantle flow running down the gravity gradient. And that's all.

    How do you think you sound? You contradict yourself and ignore evidence just because you have a kind of faith in plate tectonics and can't support the idea that it is wrong. I have no faith in no theory, plate tectonics or earth expansion. I use the theory that explains coherently all the facts and is the most fertile. It happens that the earth expansion theory is a better theory than plate tectonics. So what? No big deal, life goes on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Once more.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh please, in this post, you reply "no it doesn't" to my statement that "The Puysegur trench illustrates a strike-slip-subduction transition, not a reversal of subduction" as shown by Lebrun et al (2010) Tectonics 19, p688

    This is your global kinematic tectonic model. It shows a convergent component about 40 mm/y across the boundary, thus predict subduction, not a strike-slip/subduction transition.


    You misrepresent what I said. I said that it will depend on the rate of uplift in the back arc.


    If you do it on purpose, it is even worse.


    Non sense because according to your own simplistic way to interpret GPS measurements, the balkans and agean seafloor diverge at 5 times that rate.
    The correct interpretation as a subcrustal mantle flow dragging the crust on its back does not present this fatal flaw.


    The cause is the "asthenospheric rise below the East Anatolian Plateau". Nothing else is required.


    Done and redone in this post, with your deny of diapirism in back-arcs or your denial of strike-slip/subduction transition south of New-Zealand

    You will never admit it, because it would mean that you failed to discredit the expanding earth theory, which is clearly your ultimate goal. All along these discussions, you've have shown no interest in the logic that lead clever scientists to conclude that Earth must be growing. I truly wonder why you despise this theory so much :scratchin:

    By contrast, my goal is to show that this theory is a huge step forward in our understanding of the evolution of Earth and the solar system, and must not be ignored for irrational reasons.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Right, because the plate being subducted in the Puysegur trench is the over riding plate in the Hikurangi trench, therefore a reversal has occured. Get it?

    No.
    That's your wrong interpretation of my kinematic model. There's a difference.
    My kinematic model recognizes that there is a significant lateral component to the motion (the fault has na averge 30mm/year motion), and that it is this motion that the Alpine fault accomodates.
    My kinematic model realizes that the convergent component of the plate motions is responsible for the uplift of the Southern Alps - which is partially kept in check by the high erosion rate.

    I do no such thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No. Once again, this isn't my interpretation, this is your interpretation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Nope.

    Nonesense.

    More nonesense.

    Still more nonesense.

    If your only goal in this thread is to promulgate your expanding earth theory, then I think we're done here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
  9. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    elchapero:

    . . . now . . . back to your original question, after all the fluff . . . . re: Pyrenees growing? . . .

    You 'betcha . . . but are they growing faster than they are being eroded (i.e., net growth) . . . don't know

    wlminex
     
  10. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Whatever, this is not a subduction reversal! This is a subduction reversal.
    Of course, if you don't know what is a subduction reversal, that explains a lot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Your kinematic model tells you that the Pacific plate is moving as a whole in one direction while the australian plate is moving as a whole in another direction, so this uniform relative motion should be reflected all along the margin. The fact is that the nature of the boundary varies along the margin from one subduction polarity to the opposite polarity via a strike-slip fault (that is even morphing with time to overthrusting). This mean that your plate-scale kinematic interpretation is totally bogus when dealing with real lithosphere boundaries which are regional features, much more complicated than your simplistic plate kinematic model suggests, because the lithosphere motions in these regions are actually dictated by regional mantle flows not by plate scale motions. Mantle flows drive tectonics, in opposition to the plate tectonics orthodoxy=sinking lithosphere drives plate tectonics.


    If you interpret de 5 mm vector in Africa as convergence, then you must interpret the 25 mm balkan/aegean vector as divergence, which implies that you must accept that your interpretation implies an opening of the Mediterranean sea in the Agean sub basin. And this contradict your statement that the Mediterranean sea is closing. Of course, this paradox arising from your interpretation of GPS data is completely bogus because it is not adapted to a complex region that must be interpret by the mean of mantle flows (the anatolian/aegean mantle flow in this case).


    As a scientist, my goal is to debunk the fallacies spread on fora, especially scientific fora. Claiming that the expanding earth theory is stupid/refuted/obsolete is a fallacy. So I won't leave you unless you quit spreading that fallacy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    The net growth is close to null at this time. The maximum uplift was observed during middle Eocene–middle Oligocene (Fitzgerald et al (1999) Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 173, 157–170)
     
  12. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Florian:

    " . . . .observed during middle Eocene-middle Oligocene??" . . . by whom . . . Eohippi? . . . or are you just "horsing around"!?

    wlminex
     
  13. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Florian & Trippy:

    You guys need to get "out-of-the-house" more often, and smell the roses (or pyrope garnets) . . . . Everyone knows when a (sic, deep-enough to originate in the diamond stability field) mantle diapir pierces a thin lithospheric plate portion, the net result is formation of possibly-diamondiferrous "lamproite"! If it pierces a thick lithospheric portion, we get possibly-diamondiferrous "kimberlite"! . . . although, I have seen a few diamondiferrous "greenstones" (mantle diapir material plastered onto bottom of lithosphere without getting to the surface). . . . also . . . . most such intrude/extrude along deep crustal fractures . . . be they strike-slip, steep-thrusts, normal. reverse, transverse, transform, or just cracks (zero displacement)

    wlminex
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Actually, it precisely is - it's a subduction reversal (including some migration, IIRC) resulting in a polarity change

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No it doesn't.
    It tells me that plates moving on the surface of a sphere behave as if they're rotating around a Euler pole which results in the convergent vector that varies as a function of distance from the pole and margin geomorphology.

    It also allows me to realize what happens when bouyant crust arrives at a subduction zone.

    No, it means that your understanding of my model is broken, and you're not considering the whole picture.

    No. This is just what you infer from my assertions, there's a difference.

    For a start off, I don't believe you're a scientist. I've seen nothing in any of your posts on various fora to support this assertion of yours, and even if you are a scientist, I doubt you're a geologist.

    Claiming that the expanding earth theory was refuted in/by mainstream science is not a fallacy, it is a statement of fact. The difference here is that you do not accept that refutation, but that's another story. It does not change the fact that mainstream geology considers Expanding Earth Tectonics refuted.

    But once again, I ask you, is your sole reason for being here, and participating in this thread to promulgate expanding earth tectonics.
     
  15. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Written in plain sight :
     
  16. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    The diamondiferrous kimberlite and lamproite only forms in old cartons, not in oceanic context. This is due to temperature gradient requirement that I won't detail here, but that you are certainly aware.

    By the way, talking about diamonds, there is an interesting paper in the current issue of Science providing evidence that diamonds older than 3.2 Ga contain only inclusion of peridotite, by contrast to younger diamonds that mostly contain inclusions of eclogite. Of course, it gives comes clues about the tectonics evolution during this period. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/434.full.pdf
     
  17. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    If there is a subduction reversal at the Puysegur trench, you must prove that the polarity of the subduction was opposite in the past. Show me the data. Can't wait.

    Locate the Euler poles for the Pacific plate and the Australian-Indian plate, and show us how much the rotations rate varies between the northern and southern island of New-Zealand.

    There is no relation between the dip of a slab and its age. It was proven by Serge Lallemand a while ago.


    Don't lie. You know exactly who am I, what is my speciality, and very likely the number of papers I coauthored in peer-reviewed journals, much like I also know who you are.

    You misspelled "it is a statement of a myth".
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Look at any reconstruction of the eastern gondwana margin and the paleo-pacific.

    Rule of laplace. I don't have to prove anything to you.

    You think that the age of the crust is the only thing that affects it's bouyancy?

    I'm not.

    No I don't - if I did, I would have phrased it differently.

    And you know next to nothing about me.
     
  19. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Florian: Thanks for your comments/reference.

    Eclogitic diamonds are produced "shallower" than peridotitic diamonds, though both originate within the diamond stability field. Lamproites occur primarily in proximity to old mobile belts (subduction?) where (I think) subducted basaltic crust enters the eclogititic realm. True "kimberlites" (with attendant peridotitic stuff) tend to be found in association with the older, thicker craton regions. This is because (again, I think) thicker craton roots extend deeper into the (sic, peridotitic) subcrustal mantle. It is interesting to note that most (if not all) diamonds (be they eclogitic or peridotitic) appear to be xenocrysts - "plucked from the mantle" as the matrix (mantle diapir?) rises - diamond radiometric ages greatly pre-date the matrix (lamproite or kimberlite) in which they are found.

    Thanks for your interesting comments/wlminex
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  20. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    ps/Florian:

    You're not Florian M - - - - - - - O, that I attended UNM with, are you? . . . If so, HOWDY!

    Bill M - - - - - R
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Neither an invitation, nor a challenge, just incidentally.
     
  22. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Yes. Carbon crystallises at great depth (>140 km), so diamonds either form in the lithospheric mantle or in lithosphere that got buried in the lithospheric mantle (subduction context). For the later, i.e. eclogitic diamonds, the carbon comes from the surface and this leads to different C12/C13 ratio compared to diamonds formed in cratons. I think they are also usually smaller because they had less time to grow.

    The slow growth at great depth and resistance also explains why they are usually xenocryts. Indeed, it is more likely that the diamonds were present in the source of the matrix where they had the time to grow in the right conditions, then got transported from great depth by the magma that later formed the matrix, rather than crystallised within the matrix at shallower depth and no sufficient crystallisation time.

    And I'm a different florian. Ask Trippy, he knows which florian I am.
     
  23. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    "Rocks in the mountains shine like diamonds" (music diddy)

    Florian:

    Thanks for your knowledgeable comments re: diamonds, etc. Added note: in additon to depth of origin, whether lamproite/kimberlites are diamondifferous also depends on emplacement history and conditions (e.g., residence time during emplacement, temp, oxidation environment, etc.) - in transit. Depending on such extant variables, we can get diamonds, CO2, carbonate, carbon, etc. (preferably the former!). Arizona kimberlites appear 'non-diamondifferous" due to two-stage emplacement history in which kimberlite 'magma' (if so . . or hydro-mush) resided at an intermediate, cooler, lower P) crustal level for a while prior to final emplacement (Ref. Tom McGetchin, deceased). Possible diamond 'resorption/oxidation' based on observed cubic voids ( i.e. molds) in matrix. I worked on these with LANL several years back.

    wlminex
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2011

Share This Page