Muir Wood's "refutation" of Carey re: the Pacific is baloney and, to anticipate a later topic, a strawman.
This is what Muir Wood wrote in the article you linked: "...Professor Carey even argued that two pieces of accepted data about the Pacific Ocean, that its size has decreased while its perimeter has increased, were irreconciliable; but a simple demonstration can show that once larger than a hemisphere (the approximate size of the Pacific Ocean) the perimeter does decrease while the area increases." (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, Muir Wood's "simple demonstration" that the Pacific perimeter decreases while the area of the Pacific increases is valid only if the Pacific actually occupies more than a hemisphere (as Panthalassa in the Permian would have). Unfortunately, he is simply wrong when he says "the approximate size of the Pacific Ocean" is equal to or greater than a hemisphere; it is not. The surface area of the modern earth is 510 million sq km. The surface area of the Pacific is 165 million sq km, and even if you add all of the Southern Ocean (including the area south of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans), the Pacific would still be only 185 million sq km. You don't need a PhD to realize that the Pacific would have to be 255 million sq km in order to occupy a hemisphere. In short, the Pacific is significantly less than a hemisphere; it covers only about one-third of the globe. So, while Muir Wood's argument may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea, when Pantalassa still presumably covered more than a hemisphere on a constant-sized earth, say during the Triassic and Early Jurassic, it's not valid for the Pacific, especially since the Cretaceous.
So you are claiming that Muir Wood's refutation of "Pacific Paradox" is not valid, because it is not valid today but "may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea". Since today is not the age/epoch/era when take place the "Pacific Paradox", I am not convinced.
If I add the surface of the Atlantic ocean (which was closed at the time of Pangea) to the surface of the Pacific ocean, it give 165,000,000 km² + 106,000,000 km² = 271,000,000 km², which is more than 255,000,000 km². (adding surface of Southern Ocean and part of Indian Ocean would increase further)
So roughly speaking, the Pacific Ocean was more than one hemisphere at the time of Pangea. So after Pangea breakup, its perimeter increased whereas it surface decreased, and there is no topological issue here.
Two words: gaping gores. See paragraph 4 of
this.
I don't see your point.
Yes, the crank link is entertaining but does it really shed any light on any of this?
It does "shed light" on my personal beliefs.
BTW, why doesn't your link mention that global warming "hockey stick?"
Because
this page is about geology. The
page about meteorology and climate is here (please notice "
What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?" marked as "anticrank"). See also
this.
If you want a good example of a straw man, then I refer you to
this.
I fail to see a straw man in
this.
Well, before opening a new case/folder/subject, maybe we should finish/conclude the Arctic Paradox.
As for me, the conclusion is short : Carey made two claims ("all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic [...] since the Permian", "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension"), that appear to be unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science. I conclude that, in my opinion, he used a
straw man and was incompetent/untrustable.
How can you still say that Carey's claim that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" appears "to be unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science?"
I can still claim it appears to be unsupported because I still haven't see any evidence supporting this claim. Where are the damned evidence
that "all the continents have moved towards the north pole since the Permian [...] all the blocks moving from different directions converging on the Arctic by large angles"?
I still claim it is false/wrong according to mainstream science because I still see
mainstream science's paleogeographic maps showing something else that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" (but North America, Europe and Siberia moving to the North side-by-side between
Permian and
Jurassic).
Did you even look at the
Irving maps?
Yes, of course I did look.
Did you even look at the
Irving maps? All of the continents, except Antarctica, move north!
Indeed.
Now, if you're quibbling over the phrase "converged on the Arctic," as though Carey was saying that they "met in the Arctic," then obviously that is semantical doubletalk.
I don't see your point. What is the diferrence between "converged" and "met" in your opinion?
So let me try again: on a globe, the longitudes (i.e. the lines that run north and south) "converge" at the poles. Therefore, if the continents drift north, they must follow the longitudes, which means they must "converge on the north pole."
As I previously wrote, I think that
It is not because
Mollweide projection (
oval globe) show converging upper border, that the North side of the Earth is a triangle and continent which move norther than Arctic circle must converge and stack up there.
Could you show me an event (actual mesurement, or mainstream science reconstruction, but not EE reconstruction that I would not trust) were several location of one or some continents are moving to the North pole in the way you say? Could you show me those location following the longitudes and converging at the North pole, stacking up there?
So if you're suggesting that since North America and Eurasia were not circum-polar during the Permian (at least according to PT), then yes, strictly speaking, they did not converge on the "Arctic," which didn't exist yet. But they did converge on the North Pole, and there's no denying that.
If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I will never be convinced", then I am sorry for you. If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I am here to evangelise and will never give you a point", then I am sorry for you too.
So, we could've avoid all of this had Carey simply written "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the
North Pole, which is currently occupied by the Arctic and has been (according to plate tectonics) since the
Early Cretaceous.
I do not see what you mean by "all of this".
But, of course, I, Carey, maintain that on an expanding earth the continents didn't move northward at all. Rather, the latitudes on North America and Eurasia moved south as the earth expanded more in the southern hemisphere than in the north."
Of course.
But, before doing so, we probably need to clear up one more semantical problem. In saying that the "Arctic has been an area of extension" since the Permian, Carey was not claiming extension has been continuous and on-going since the Permian. He was simply saying that since the Permian, the only tectonic activity that has occurred in the Arctic has been extensional (i.e. divergent) and there has been no compressional (i.e. convergent) activity.
Maybe.
If that's so (and this is only an hypothetis, because until now I have never Carey explaning his "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension" in the way you say), then my previous comment about that would be obviously irrelevant.
If that's so, then i could answer that, according to mainstream science, since the Permian there has been mostly no change in the area currently inside the Arctic circle, some extensional activity (in
the "Amerasian Basin" and at the Gakkel Ridge), some compressional activity (between Alaska and eastern Siberia).
And the sentence would be wrong as for my understanding of mainstream science.
With respect to Carey's claim that "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension," which you also say is "unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science," I can finally provide links to the articles that I cited earlier which refer to Arctic extension now that I've made the grade on this blog by reaching the "20-post threshold."
Here are the articles about Arctic tectonics that I previously cited:
Not yet totaly read.
I was looking at these ones yesterday:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817203000436
I have 23 of the 24 maps sitting on my hard drive.
It seem those paleogeographic maps deal only with the Arctic region. I guess they are more precise and detailed than world paleogeographic maps. You are the lucky one.
Suit yourself. Whatever shall I do? :shrug:
Stay/keep up believing the EE fairy tale, such flat earther, creationists, mormons, Jehovah's witnesses (including the missionary/evangelism part)? Or go back to scientific and critical thinking? The choice is up to you.
