Stephanie Buchanan
@stephXskystory • 2,232 subscribers
Earth geometry, magnetic structure, & space weather. Background in math, physics, and quantum chemistry. Interested in the deeper pattern.
Videos
Ocean Heat Source 05: Adiabatic compression doesn’t explain the deep ocean warming observation. Test type: Empirical, an audit of the Johnson 2026 data product and calculation workflow. The idea is basically this..as water sinks, the pressure rises and warms its in situ temperature a little, even without adding heat. So, I traced the Johnson 2026 warming map through the full workflow to see which temperature variable it actually uses. It uses Conservative Temperature, which removes that reversible pressure warming effect. So, the abyssal warming acceleration is still there after the compression effect has been taken out. Adiabatic compression can change the local thermometer reading a little. It can’t produce the Johnson warming signal itself. One mechanism crossed off... next. More details:
Stephanie Buchanan22,973 görüntüleme • 12 saat önce
Ocean Heat Source 04: Now that I’ve pinned down the abyssal warming pattern, it’s time to investigate possible sources. I’m working through five main possibilities: 1. Adiabatic compression : could the water only appear warmer because it moved deeper and got squeezed? This one is already looking weak. 2. Redistribution and isopycnal heave: could density layers be moving up and down and shifting existing heat around? 3. Antarctic Bottom Water and overturning: could changing deep ocean circulation be carrying warmer water into the abyss? 4. Geothermal and hydrothermal heating : could heat be entering from the seafloor, ridges, or vents? 5. Electromagnetic induction and ohmic heating: could changing magnetic fields drive electric currents, and could enough of that electrical energy turn into heat? I’ll need my electromagnetic solver to finish that last test. Now, we get to see which mechanisms survive testing.
Stephanie Buchanan13,801 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce
I tested whether Earth's gravity and inertia geometry independently recovers the proposed ECDO pole Np'. The static gravity axis (orange) was just 9.45° away from Np'. One independent P-wave tomography model, UNICA25, (pink) was only 2.16° away. The family balanced lowermost mantle preferred-axis center (blue) is still 18.81° away. UNICA25 is the only P-wave tomography model in the current set, so my next question is whether this reflects a P-wave vs. S-wave distinction, improved oceanic coverage with this model, or maybe another inversion assumption.
Stephanie Buchanan27,541 görüntüleme • 24 gün önce
ECDO vs. EDC: the geometry seems to like a coupled crust and mantle. The biggest difference between the two theories is what moves during the proposed reorientation. ECDO, as proposed by Ethical Skeptic ☀, has the moving shell extending from the surface down to the core–mantle boundary. EDC, as proposed by SpaceWeatherNews, uses a much shallower shell, roughly 100 km deep, above the low-velocity zone. So, I tested that difference directly. First up: LIPs and LLSVPs. Across every tomography model in the analysis, the alignment held up better when the crust and mantle stayed together. Applying the exact 85º crust-only correction made the fit worse. Then, I checked five major hotspot tracks. Same story. The hotspot trails were best preserved without a large independent crustal rotation, and even letting the Euler pole wander around the globe could not rescue an 85º crust-only shift. At this point, the geometry is being pretty stubborn: the crust wants to stay with the mantle. That is strong evidence against the exact shallow shell geometry tested here. It supports preservation of crust–mantle coupling during any large reorientation. One caveat: a brief out and back excursion could restore the original alignment. That version would need to be tested using records formed during the temporary displaced interval. Apparently, the theory found another level.
Stephanie Buchanan17,108 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce
Daha fazla içerik yok.