toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[The Barbarian]

Ever worked in seismology, Barbarian?

Had to learn how to triangulate seismograms to locate earthquakes and find their magnitude. And a little bit of work learning how seismic waves show what's underground for petroleum geology. Would you like to learn how it's done?

Barbarian:
No, that's wrong. In fact, we can even visually observe it in some cases. The magma from Muana Loa, for example, is mantle that erupted from a hot spot that broke through the Earth's crust.

So magma is mantle now?

Much of it comes from the mantle. Not all. Some is melted crust that has been subducted and then rises again.

Did you know magma is liquid?

With the pressure off, it is. Also gas comes out of solution, and helps it move. Even then it goes very slowly.

Due to the temperature difference between the Earth's surface and outer core, and the ability of the crystalline rocks at high pressure and temperature to undergo slow, creeping, viscous-like deformation over millions of years, there is a convective material circulation in the mantle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology)

Barbarian observes::
the additional weight pushed the core down into the mantle.

(Stipe declines to answer)
So you're just guessing. No evidence at all, um?

(Stipe refuses again)

Barbarian observes:
Seafloor spreading is the result of mantle material rising up and pushing the crust aside. This goes on in centimeters per year. So we know it's a slow process.

So the way you know that isostacy must act slowly is because plates move slowly?

And the fact that we can observe it using seismic waves, that show it is extremely viscous.

Have I read you correctly there?

Reading isn't one of your top skills, Stipe.

Barbarian observes:
They don't seem to have changed much on the whole. And the evidence is that the areas affected by continental glaciation, actually got lower, not higher.

I notice you still haven't the grace or humility to address a man's ideas according to his description of them.

So far, you haven't been able to explain them. Last time I asked, you declined to answer.

Glaciation wasn't the cause of continental uplift. It was the result.

I know you want us to believe that, but here we are, with the glaciated part of the continent still depressed and rebounding. So that's not a realistic claim.

 

[some other dude]

Had to learn how to triangulate seismograms to locate earthquakes and find their magnitude. And a little bit of work learning how seismic waves show what's underground for petroleum geology.

Our kids learn that in eighth grade science. :chuckle:



And the rest of his jumbled mess is just what you'd expect from somebody who gets his knowledge from Wikipedia.

 

[Stripe]

Had to learn how to triangulate seismograms to locate earthquakes and find their magnitude. And a little bit of work learning how seismic waves show what's underground for petroleum geology. Would you like to learn how it's done?

Not necessary. It sounds like you did a paper once. That would have been, what? 30 years ago?

Locating an epicenter is fundamental stuff. It's a good place to show how assumptions on the Earth's interior are necessary. Triangulation is generally done assuming a homogeneous interior such that all P&S wave arrival times that travelled a similar distance did so at the same rate. This assumption is fine if all you're doing is locating an epicenter and estimating its depth. But if you're interested in a little more precision you are required to analyse the nature of the rock between source and receiver.

There is no way to look at all that rock (even when it is within the range of a drill) so what you do is propose a model and test it.

Due to the temperature difference between the Earth's surface and outer core, and the ability of the crystalline rocks at high pressure and temperature to undergo slow, creeping, viscous-like deformation over millions of years, there is a convective material circulation in the mantle.

Assumption, assumption, assumption. Nobody has ever seen mantle convection nor slow creep. Although it is certain that rock does deform under pressure, you are remiss to insist that your model must be accepted. And you are very remiss to suggest that your model is fact.

You need to show some humility and honesty and address the ideas you hear according to how they are presented instead of bulldozing through your own agenda and insisting everything be interpreted against it.

Barbarian observes::the additional weight pushed the core down into the mantle.(Stipe declines to answer)So you're just guessing. No evidence at all, um?

That wasn't a question from you. It was, as best I can tell, a mistake. My response was in the hope you might better explain what you were trying to say. :thumb:

Reading isn't one of your top skills, Stipe.

You're dissembling. Is my assessment of your explanation acceptable?

So far, you haven't been able to explain them. Last time I asked, you declined to answer.

What was the question again?

I know you want us to believe that, but here we are, with the glaciated part of the continent still depressed and rebounding. So that's not a realistic claim.

When mass is removed, the land rebounds.

 

[Stripe]

Our kids learn that in eighth grade science. :chuckle: And the rest of his jumbled mess is just what you'd expect from somebody who gets his knowledge from Wikipedia.

:chuckle:

I wonder if Barbarian has ever had to pick a Pwave arrival on a seismic waveform.

 

[some other dude]

(Barbie furiously googles Pwave) :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Had to learn how to triangulate seismograms to locate earthquakes and find their magnitude. And a little bit of work learning how seismic waves show what's underground for petroleum geology. Would you like to learn how it's done?

Not necessary.

It's not as easy as you might expect from Google. The separation isn't always nice and neat, and there are other waves from other sources that make it difficult.

It sounds like you did a paper once.

Taught it to some engineers.

That would have been, what? 30 years ago?

Pretty close. But since I teach science, it happens to fit nicely into earth science. So I have to keep up. For example, there wasn't any recognition of slab pull 30 years ago.

Locating an epicenter is fundamental stuff. It's a good place to show how assumptions on the Earth's interior are necessary.

None whatsoever. The composition of the crust is well known, since we can just dig in and look at it. Continental crust is largely made of granite, and oceanic crust is mostly basalt. The speed of seismic waves is essentially the same in both. In fact, the speed stays very constant until it gets down to the Mohorovicic discontinuity, which marks the transition from crust to mantle.

Triangulation is generally done assuming a homogeneous interior such that all P&S wave arrival times that travelled a similar distance did so at the same rate.

Evidence, remember?

This assumption is fine if all you're doing is locating an epicenter and estimating its depth.

Epicenters don't have a depth, Stipe. Epicenters are on the surface. "Epi" means "on top." The actual point of movement at the fault is called the "focus" or occasionally, the "hypocenter." You see the etymology now?

But if you're interested in a little more precision you are required to analyse the nature of the rock between source and receiver.

Show us that Stipe, and how seismologists use it.

Due to the temperature difference between the Earth's surface and outer core, and the ability of the crystalline rocks at high pressure and temperature to undergo slow, creeping, viscous-like deformation over millions of years, there is a convective material circulation in the mantle.

Assumption

Evidence. No geologist doubts the fact that pressure solidifies the rock in the mantle. It's why the outer core is liquid and the inner core is solid, even though it's hotter.

You need to show some humility

Stipe, you act as though you can google a few things and then become knowledgeable about things you don't understand. Your complete lack of humility in that regard has made you a laughingstock.

Is my assessment of your explanation acceptable?

I don't think even you believe it is, Stipe.

(Stipe insists that the ice age was due to uplift)

I know you want us to believe that, but here we are, with the glaciated part of the continent still depressed and rebounding. So that's not a realistic claim.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:
Had to learn how to triangulate seismograms to locate earthquakes and find their magnitude. And a little bit of work learning how seismic waves show what's underground for petroleum geology. Would you like to learn how it's done?It's not as easy as you might expect from Google. The separation isn't always nice and neat, and there are other waves from other sources that make it difficult.Taught it to some engineers.Pretty close. But since I teach science, it happens to fit nicely into earth science. So I have to keep up. For example, there wasn't any recognition of slab pull 30 years ago.None whatsoever. The composition of the crust is well known, since we can just dig in and look at it. Continental crust is largely made of granite, and oceanic crust is mostly basalt. The speed of seismic waves is essentially the same in both. In fact, the speed stays very constant until it gets down to the Mohorovicic discontinuity, which marks the transition from crust to mantle.Evidence, remember?Epicenters don't have a depth, Stipe. Epicenters are on the surface. "Epi" means "on top." The actual point of movement at the fault is called the "focus" or occasionally, the "hypocenter." You see the etymology now?Show us that Stipe, and how seismologists use it.b]Due to the temperature difference between the Earth's surface and outer core, and the ability of the crystalline rocks at high pressure and temperature to undergo slow, creeping, viscous-like deformation over millions of years, there is a convective material circulation in the mantle.[/b]Evidence. No geologist doubts the fact that pressure solidifies the rock in the mantle. It's why the outer core is liquid and the inner core is solid, even though it's hotter.Stipe, you act as though you can google a few things and then become knowledgeable about things you don't understand. Your complete lack of humility in that regard has made you a laughingstock.I don't think even you believe it is, Stipe.

Well, Barbarian. It sounds like you are a genuinely knowledgable person and you might have a lot to offer.

(Stipe insists that the ice age was due to uplift)I know you want us to believe that, but here we are, with the glaciated part of the continent still depressed and rebounding. So that's not a realistic claim.

But you have to learn some humility. Others on TOL also have knowledge. We may not have the years of practice at being pedantic about trifling matters, but if you wish to discuss an idea, you have to appreciate first what that idea entails. And you have to appreciate it may not rely upon ideas you hold dear.

Peace.

 

[The Barbarian]

But you have to learn some humility.

Coming from Stipe, who thinks he can simply Google and become knowledgeable.

Others on TOL also have knowledge.

I know a way to appear to know everything; only talk about things you know.

We may not have the years of practice at being pedantic about trifling matters

If you don't use scientific terms as they are used by scientists, then you cannot hope to speak about scientific issues.

It's always astonishing to see that people suppose that they can learn all the science they need by listening to some commentator who never got a degree.

It's more interesting, and it's more difficult than you comprehend, Stipe. And getting the vocabulary correct is critical to understanding.

There's no royal road to science, either.

 

[Stripe]

Coming from Stipe, who thinks he can simply Google and become knowledgeable.I know a way to appear to know everything; only talk about things you know. If you don't use scientific terms as they are used by scientists, then you cannot hope to speak about scientific issues.It's always astonishing to see that people suppose that they can learn all the science they need by listening to some commentator who never got a degree.It's more interesting, and it's more difficult than you comprehend, Stipe. And getting the vocabulary correct is critical to understanding.There's no royal road to science, either.

And unfortunately your post is demonstrably wrong on every point.

An idea may be discussed, understood and extremely useful regardless of the participant's adherence to your precious pedantics. Yes, even scientific ideas. It helps to be precise, but with a little grace and humility the common mistakes we all make can be processed or even ignored without wasting pages on them.

This is TOL. We're interested in the discussion of good ideas. If that's not your cup of tea then perhaps you might want to find somewhere else to post. :up:

 

[some other dude]

... perhaps you might want to find somewhere else to post. :up:

What does it say about a troll like barbie who posts here for ten years and doesn't buy a subscription?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What does it say about a troll like barbie who posts here for ten years and doesn't buy a subscription?

'Trolls' don't tend to go into in depth descriptions of scientific understanding on a topic dude. Whether you agree/disagree you can hardly accuse Barb of not putting the effort into replies. Trolls tend to make regular dismissive insulting posts purely in an *attempt* to denigrate an opponent to their own position.

Hmmm....

lain:

 

[some other dude]

Oh look - I have a little leg humper chasing me across threads.

Isn't he cute?

 

[The Barbarian]

'Trolls' don't tend to go into in depth descriptions of scientific understanding on a topic dude. Whether you agree/disagree you can hardly accuse Barb of not putting the effort into replies. Trolls tend to make regular dismissive insulting posts purely in an *attempt* to denigrate an opponent to their own position.

Hmmm....

Everyone does what they can, with what they have, I suppose.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh look - I have a little leg humper chasing me across threads.

Isn't he cute?

Leg humper? :freak: That's not only inappropriate for here it's also just plain loony dude. Grow up for Pete's sake.

lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:\
Coming from Stipe, who thinks he can simply Google and become knowledgeable.I know a way to appear to know everything; only talk about things you know. If you don't use scientific terms as they are used by scientists, then you cannot hope to speak about scientific issues.It's always astonishing to see that people suppose that they can learn all the science they need by listening to some commentator who never got a degree.It's more interesting, and it's more difficult than you comprehend, Stipe. And getting the vocabulary correct is critical to understanding.There's no royal road to science, either.

And unfortunately your post is demonstrably wrong on every point.

No. You may think that it takes only a superficial look at the subject to understand it. But you're repeated failure here is testimony to how wrong that is.

And sloppy use of vocabulary is guaranteed to lead you astray. Learn the concepts and learn to use the terminology, and it will go better for you.

An idea may be discussed, understood and extremely useful regardless of the participant's adherence to your precious pedantics.

An example of what the details are important is your confusion about what causes waves to travel at different speeds in the crust. It's not the composition of the crust. It's the difference in the primary and secondary waves that make it happen. Because you don't know anything about the way waves work, this is a mystery to you.

Learn about it, and you'll see why.

Yes, even scientific ideas. It helps to be precise, but with a little grace and humility the common mistakes we all make can be processed or even ignored without wasting pages on them.

If you had the grace to accept that you messed up and go on, instead of trying to talk your way out of it, that wouldn't be a problem. We spend a lot of time, trying to disabuse you of misconceptions.

This is TOL. We're interested in the discussion of good ideas. If that's not your cup of tea then perhaps you might want to find somewhere else to post.

If you want to move on, feel free. Otherwise, it's going to be a good idea to know what you're talking about before you post.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:\Coming from Stipe, who thinks he can simply Google and become knowledgeable.I know a way to appear to know everything; only talk about things you know. If you don't use scientific terms as they are used by scientists, then you cannot hope to speak about scientific issues.It's always astonishing to see that people suppose that they can learn all the science they need by listening to some commentator who never got a degree.It's more interesting, and it's more difficult than you comprehend, Stipe. And getting the vocabulary correct is critical to understanding.There's no royal road to science, either.No. You may think that it takes only a superficial look at the subject to understand it. But you're repeated failure here is testimony to how wrong that is.And sloppy use of vocabulary is guaranteed to lead you astray. Learn the concepts and learn to use the terminology, and it will go better for you.An example of what the details are important is your confusion about what causes waves to travel at different speeds in the crust. It's not the composition of the crust. It's the difference in the primary and secondary waves that make it happen. Because you don't know anything about the way waves work, this is a mystery to you.Learn about it, and you'll see why.If you had the grace to accept that you messed up and go on, instead of trying to talk your way out of it, that wouldn't be a problem. We spend a lot of time, trying to disabuse you of misconceptions.If you want to move on, feel free. Otherwise, it's going to be a good idea to know what you're talking about before you post.

I should not have suggested that an epicenter has a depth. Earthquakes have depths (and epicenters).

 

[some other dude]

Stripe, when you grow up, don't you hope you can become a know-it-all too? :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

I should not have suggested that an epicenter has a depth. Earthquakes have depths (and epicenters).

I know a way to seem to know it all. Only talk about things you understand.

 

[some other dude]

I should not have suggested that an epicenter has a depth. Earthquakes have depths (and epicenters).

It was very mature and humble of you to correct yourself Stripe.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I know a way to seem to know it all. Only talk about things you understand.

:shut: