Man Made Global Warming, Concensus or No? Rating Options

[Omega892R09]

LOL Omega,

It's kind of hard to prove a negative.....as in impossible.

That is not what I am asking you to do at all so you stop the side-stepping!

If you think man has had a direct cause in a global climate event, then the burden is on YOU to prove it.

I have pointed to numerous sources of accurate information on this but it would seem that folk here are to frightened to read it.

All you all can do it would seem is quote obfuscating propaganda from the usual suspects or cite papers out of context. For example, sure 'Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change'(and I am familiar with the earth's history including the biological aspects, but that does not say anything about the experiment we are now perpetrating on the earth by massive increases in the production of GHGs, not to mention other polutants of atmosphere and water worldwide.

I note that you have written very little yourself on this topic other than to affirm your opinion.

Perhaps a study of the excellent 'Oceanography' by Tom Garrison will enhance your understanding of the mechanisms and issues that underpin our present knowledge.

[Omega892R09]

You know about the Argos system, right? 3000 little sensors around the globe's oceans which measure temps down to 2 km? The system has been in place since 2002-2003, and has measured a net cooling of the oceans, albiet slight, since that time.

How could I not have heard of this seeing as you frequently allude to it?

I have already explained that a few years of reported lower temperatures in some section of the global oceanic volume does not by itself point to an overall cooling, certainly not globally, for it is too short a time frame to be of itself significant. As I have written before a drop over a few years may not, and does not in this case, mean that the longer term temperature trend has been reversed.

Whatever, you should be aware that the ARGOS research has been re-evaluated in the wake of discovered bias in measurement. In short the reported cooling was spurious.

See (and please follow some of the links):

Ocean Cooling. Not.

This is what happens when you gleefully pronounce using suspect sources.

One of the characteristics of this debate is that old contrarian sources are raked up time and time again, sources based on outmoded or flawed studies which have to be answered time and time again as anybody new to this debate grasps straws to support their, wishful, thinking.

These tactics were familiar from the long running tobacco industry propaganda against medical findings that linked smoking to health issues and deaths.

Read the exxon_report.pdf at:

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Old ideas and out of context thinking are also prevelant in that bee of lunks viz Expanding Earth. But more of that in the appropriate thread.

[lunk]

Yes, the pollution we are putting into the atmosphere, should and can be reduced.
There are many different pollutants, that we are putting into the atmosphere every day, through additives in fuels, and heavy metals from coal fired power plants.

For instance, the lead that was added to gasoline is now banned here, because it was deemed poisonous, but it was replaced with molybdenum, an even more toxic poison!

Low grade coal containing mercury, is burned in power plants,
releasing mercury into the air.
Plastics eventually break down and go somewhere too,
most of which contain unnecessary BPA,
a well known carcinogen and artificial estrogen,
that messes up the males in all species. (and causes breast cancer in animals)

But the GHGs, like methane, is lighter than air,
and rises up, out of the Earths atmosphere, into space.
And carbon dioxide, although heavier than air, is the food of plants, and without it plants will die, of suffocation, and will no longer produce the oxygen that animal and human life needs to breath and live.

We are almost out of CO2!
If the levels get much lower, life on this planet
will be drastically changed.

Has anyone checked to see if there is a correlation between the the drop in sunshine hitting the surface of the Earth (global dimming) and the tiny increase in CO2, recently?

If plant life doesn't get enough sunlight,
it won't absorb as much CO2, and the atmospheric percentage of
CO2 would increase, and the percentage of oxygen in the air
(that we somehow never hear about) would decrease!

lunk

[Omega892R09]

As far as the world's oceans go, modern science has not even begun to map and understand all the massive volcanoes that span the globe and spew out massive amounts of heat energy.

You are joking! No!

HMS Challenger began the process in the 1870s and there have been many other surveys since. How do you think the US Navy, amongst others, manages to navigate its Nuke's around the globe in the deeps in safety?

How do you think we know of mid-ocean ridges, ocean hotspots (e.g. Hawaii), black smokers and deep ocean trenches? You know the ones along back island arcs where subduction zones are active.

Try that book on Oceonography I cited in another post.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: May 21 2009, 11:42 AM

[Omega892R09]

For instance, the lead that was added to gasoline is now banned here, because it was deemed poisonous, but it was replaced with molybdenum, an even more toxic poison!

Lead, or rather tetra-ethyl-lead, has been banned from petrol, to you gas(oline), over here since the early 1990s.

But there is much more heavy metal poisoning of waterways and fishing grounds. Sanders will probably be aware of the terrible Minimata mercury poisoning in Japan during the 1950s caused by dumping from a plastics factory.

Many synthetic organic chemicals, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons, have been implicated in widespread deaths of oceanic mammals which are at the top of the food chain and thus concentrate the toxins massively. Such poisons affect the immune and reproductive systems and have been found in high concentrations in animals which have stranded themselves.

There is now thought to be no reef, or beach or oceanic organism on earth that does not have some plastic material within its bounds.

As for running out of CO2! I would think that the soft drinks industry could make up any shortfall quickly but I don't see it panning out like that RSN (Real Soon Now as Jerry Pournelle used to write in BYTE).

[lunk]

Plants were here first!

[Trapster]

Well,

We are speaking in circles now.

Design and run an experiment that will prove man made emissions are causing global warming. With the slim .6 of a degree in global warming over the last 100 years and the dramatic .5 degree in global cooling seen in the last several years.....I'd say that any claim that this has been caused by man is in very thin ice indeed.

Then show me any evidence that will prove that adding a carbon tax in the USA will reduce global carbon emissions.

Want to reduce the toxic pollutants caused by burning coal for electricity? Build 100 4th Generation High Temp. Pebble Bed nuclear reactors across the country.

[lunk]

I don't know about the radioactivity from nuclear reactors.
But simply drill a hole in the ground deep enough, just about anywhere,
and it will get hot enough to boil water, pipe the steam to a generator,
condense the steam, and pump it back down the hole.
Free energy forever,
after the initial set up costs,
which would be minimal,
compared to a nuclear reactor.

No pollution at all!

(edit) added link

Another way is to find a pocket of steam, underground, already there,
in a rift valley, perhaps:

http://www.bgr.de/geotherm/projects/kenia.html

Grandpa would be proud,
I wish they would credit him,
for coming up with the idea,
in the first place.

This post has been edited by lunk: May 22 2009, 11:08 AM

[Omega892R09]

Well,

We are speaking in circles now.

No. You are opinionating from a point of ignorance.

As it happens such experiments have already been run. They are called Climate Models. Some recent climate models have proved wonderfully predictive of climate change as it has evolved over time but of course like all true science they can always be refined as new data arrives.

Such refining should not be thought of as fudging.

Climate models come in various forms of which you would be aware if you had researched the literature, some of which I have cited again and again!

With the slim .6 of a degree in global warming over the last 100 years and the dramatic .5 degree in global cooling seen in the last several years.....I'd say that any claim that this has been caused by man is in very thin ice indeed.

That is total crap as you would know if you had studied any authoritative literature on the subject. You display a woeful lack of knowledge about the state earth science in general as is evidenced by your recent remark about mapping oceanic volcanoes demonstrates so please do some study before trotting out such trite nonsense.

Then show me any evidence that will prove that adding a carbon tax in the USA will reduce global carbon emissions.

I have already stated my doubt about the veracity of carbon taxation, many times - YAWN!

Want to reduce the toxic pollutants caused by burning coal for electricity? Build 100 4th Generation High Temp. Pebble Bed nuclear reactors across the country.

Plus more windfarms and solar, the later preferably using more efficient technology which is available.

[Omega892R09]

Another way is to find a pocket of steam, underground, already there,
in a rift valley, perhaps:

http://www.bgr.de/geotherm/projects/kenia.html

Grandpa would be proud,
I wish they would credit him,
for coming up with the idea,
in the first place.

I think that you will find that Iceland is well advanced in the use of geothermal energy. There was even a project mooted for Southampton (England near here) but that died.

Getting rid of nuclear waste is always a problem as the tons of material build up, and also the problem of decommissioning old power stations. This latter being a chicken having come home to roost in the UK. We had two such stations in my one time home county of Gloucestershire, at Berkley and Oldbury, which have been decommissioned.

Perhaps plate tectonics offers a solution, but one that may have a big problem.

It is now understood that where there are subduction zones that the old ocean crust recycled. Some of it, probably the denser basalt, descends to be absorbed by the upper mantle. The upper mantle is thought to be more like bubbling porridge than soup because of the more solid pieces of part molten basalt. Where the ocean bed descends a part of it is parred off onto the continental edge as a sort of wedge, another part is melted from the heat of friction and rises as magma through the crust to for volcanic outlets. This magma is quite different to that at the mid-ocean ridges being more viscous.

If radioactice waste could somehow be injected into the bottom of the basalt bellow the sediment of ocean floor as it approaches a subduction zone then it would be reabsorbed into the mantle. It could be some few million years before it resurfaced. The danger is that it may escape being subsumed and appear in a near future volcanic event on the continental crust side of the subduction zone. As it is known that water in the sediment is processed through such volcanic systems then radioactive tracers could be used to test the theory and practice before dangerous quantities are disposed of in this way but that would take time of course - a bit like waiting for your dog to give up that swallowed gem.

[lunk]

If radioactice waste could somehow be injected into the bottom of the basalt bellow the sediment of ocean floor as it approaches a subduction zone then it would be reabsorbed into the mantle. It could be some few million years before it resurfaced. The danger is that it may escape being subsumed and appear in a near future volcanic event on the continental crust side of the subduction zone. As it is known that water in the sediment is processed through such volcanic systems then radioactive tracers could be used to test the theory and practice before dangerous quantities are disposed of in this way but that would take time of course - a bit like waiting for your dog to give up that swallowed gem.

Omega,
that was exactly the question I asked years ago!
What a great idea.

But I ran into a problem,
...I couldn't find an actual subduction zone.

I know, they talk about them, and they are supposed to be everywhere, and we're given rough overviews of how the pacific plate is somehow slipping under the continents. But I looked everywhere, and couldn't find any actual specific location on this globe, as to where to build a radioactive disposal site, that would be subducted under the continent, ...any continent.

[lunk]

I think that you will find that Iceland is well advanced in the use of geothermal energy.

I checked into that , it seems that the Icelanders were using geothermal energy for heating back into the late 1700rds. Their first electric power generating station, (using the idea from my grandfathers' work in Kenya from 1955) wasn't built until 1970.

The history of geothermal energy development in Iceland goes back a long ways. Icelanders have been using geothermal hot water for bathing and washing since the country was first settled. But the first trial wells were not sunk until approximately 1775-1776. Additional geothermal wells were sunk in the 1920s and 1930s intended for space heating. This geothermal development continued to grow and today well over 90% of Icelandic homes are heated with hot water.

Then in the early 1970s, Iceland began developing geothermal power plants and harnessing geothermal for electricity generation. The first geothermal plant was the Svartsengi Power Plant, situated in the south-west of the country, near the Keflavík International Airport on the Reykjanes peninsula.

http://mannvit.is/Englishversion/Energy/Ge...malDevelopment/
(edit) getting my dates right.

This post has been edited by lunk: May 22 2009, 04:16 PM

[Omega892R09]

But I looked everywhere, and couldn't find any actual specific location on this globe, as to where to build a radioactive disposal site, that would be subducted under the continent, ...any continent.

It would probably have to be done at sea where the basalt underlayer, i.e. below the sediment, is located. If it is tried on the continental side of the Beniof zone then one would have to go through a layer of molten magma before reaching the descending basalt ocean base.

Subduction zones do exist, many sciences support the fact. Geologists, minerologists and biogeographers, and others, support plate tectonics and the features produced by them.

Do you really believe in this expanding earth hypothesis or is it just a discussion point?
I ask that because I cannot believe that anybody who has a grasp of the current knowledge in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, oceanography, stratography to name a few could think there is anything in it.

Explain high mountain ocean sediments and the rock formations that explain how the shape of the continents, and their very coherence, over the life of the earth have changed. Where was there space for oceans on a smaller globe. Oceans of water are know to have existed in hadean times. The great size of some land creatures should not be taken as an indicator of less gravity for smaller volume does not indicate less mass. Size is often a function of some other quality such as temperature or balance of gases in the atmosphere, it is also related to metabolic rate. After the large dinosaurs most creatures were small. Did the earth suddenly expand only to shrink again in the Eocene when large mammals abounded?

No, there is much nonsense in the expanding earth idea, much knowledge quietly ignored.

[Omega892R09]

But I ran into a problem,
...I couldn't find an actual subduction zone.

Here is a little something that will help you out there:

GeoMapApp

Runs fine if a little slow but then it is a Java app'.

[lunk]

The idea of burying radioactive waste in the ocean floor so that it may subducted under a continent, is a discussion point.
Nuclear power generation is a great idea, if a way of disposing of the radioactive waste were to be discovered.

I was brought up with the theory of plate tectonics, like everyone else.
It wasn't until I started looking
deeper into it, that I saw that it is just a theory.
...with some flaws.

Before Wegener there were other theories on the Earth's development. creation, inflation, space debris globing on to the Earth, with gravity, and such.

The originator of the expanding earth theory, Samuel Carey showed that the position of the continents could be explained on a balloon, as it expanded the continents split up and got further apart, in the same way as we see today, on the Earth.

I'm sure you know about the mid ocean rifts, where new ocean floor is constantly being made. But did you know that these mid ocean rifts connect together world wide?
Historically, many land creatures were massively bigger than land creatures can be today, today, the reason for this is that there must be more gravity today then there was before. The only way that this could happen is if the Earth is more massive today. In fact, if you take away the oceans the world would be 1.7 times smaller ((edit) I mean the Earth today is 1.7 times as big as it was, without the oceans), if you put all the continents back together, without them, on a smaller globe.

The continents of today, will fit together perfectly on a much smaller globe. Trace and cut them out, they are like jig-saw puzzle pieces, there is only one way for them to fit, and they do, on a smaller globe, without overlaps or chunks missing!

The fossil records show that the same dinosaurs were on every continent, world wide.

Oh yes, the ancient, shallow seas, that are now found on mountain tops...

The surface of the Earth was much smoother when it was younger, as it grew, the solid crust was in compression in some places and wrinkled up, forming mountains and mountain ranges. Where the tensile strength of the surface crust was the weakest, it rifted, always lower than the surrounding land. Water flows down to the lowest point.
This explains "U" and "V" shaped valleys,
U shaped valleys are rifts where the Earth is stretching apart,
and V shaped valleys are where the crust is in compression caused by the re-curving of the Earth, as it grows.

So back to our discussion point, should nuclear waste be buried off a continental shelf in the deep sea basalt layer?

If the Earth is growing, the oceans could drop down, like they did from the ancient seas. And what was buried today, could become land, in the far distant future.
...and I don't know how to post a warning to the inhabitants of the world that will be read 7 million years from now.

The process of Earth growth can be described, with existing physics, as crystalline growth from inside the Earth.

Single atoms from space, are attracted toward the gravitational center of the Earth, and because they are so small, they pass through the surface crust and join to the Earth, causing the crystals within, and thus the Earth, to grow, ever so incredibly slowly. As the Earth's mass increases, it attracts more and more atoms from space, and the crystals within, grow faster.

There is too much existing evidence that disputes the popular notion of continental drift, and confirms the Growing Earth theory.

I can list much more, if you like.

(edit) wrong word spelt right and math

This post has been edited by lunk: May 24 2009, 01:12 PM

[Omega892R09]

I was brought up with the theory of plate tectonics, like everyone else.
It wasn't until I started looking
deeper into it, that I saw that it is just a theory.

It is a theory in the scientific sense where there is a high degree of confidence in the correctness of plate tectonics as provided by the current state of knowledge in many scientific fields. Paleontology, bio-paleontology, stratigraphy, geology, mineralogy, oceanography, seismology (including seismological tomography, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism.

Warren S Carey's theory of expanding earth did not survive the assaults from the last three of those namely seismology, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism, except in his own continuing boistrous presentations up until he died.

Thus multi-dimensional scientific analysis supports plate tectonics.

Expanding earth is simply so far out that it isn't even wrong, it fails on so many points not least of which in explaining the existence of large oceans such as the Panthalassa evidence of the existence of which is widely spread because of the break up of Pangea whereby sub-continents of Australia/New Guinea/New Zealand, India, Africa, Laurasia and Baltica, South America and Antarctica moved asunder in varied different ways involving moving across and up the globe with varied rotations as they went.

The known age of the Pacific sea floor is also against an expanding earth and the fact that there was water there is proven by the under sea mounts, and guyots that exist in the wake of the hot spot currently in the region of Hawaii.

I could go into lengthy explanations of theory behind the above statements but feel this is the wrong thread, and maybe even the wrong forum for such detailed discourse.

There for I will use the shorthand method of a few web pointers:

That Neal Adams has used sleight of hand, aka artistic license, is provided in these clips:

Re: Neal Adams Conspiracy of Science: Pangea

RE: Neal Adams Science Project

The following forums provide interesting and enlightening exchanges:

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In this next one read the replies by SkinWalker
SciForums.com

In that above the banned Oil is Master is responsible for a web site promoting Expanding Earth and Abiogenic oil. Hum!:

oilismastery.blogspot.com

I could go on in similar vein but that would be to over-egg the pudding at this stage.

It should be noted that in the later part of the 19th and early 20th centuries that some proposed a shrinking earth hypothesis.

Historically, many land creatures were massively bigger than land creatures can be today, today, the reason for this is that there must be more gravity today then there was before.

False assumption.

There are other reasons for the development of large creatures such as metabolic rate, temperature (large creatures have a more favorable volume to surface area ratio in cold climes and vice versa) and availability of suitable nutrients amongst them.

The only way that this could happen is if the Earth is more massive today. In fact, if you take away the oceans the world would be 1.7 times smaller ((edit) I mean the Earth today is 1.7 times as big as it was, without the oceans), if you put all the continents back together, without them, on a smaller globe.

So when were there no oceans?

The continents of today, will fit together perfectly on a much smaller globe.

No they don't actually, besides see my notes about the age of the Pacific sea floor above and the movements of the Pangea fragments post break up.

The fossil records show that the same dinosaurs were on every continent, world wide.

That only proves that the continents were once joined but you are aware that during the age of the dinosaurs there was a growing gulf between many of the subcontinents.

Also the fossil record WRT small oceanic organisms and those pre-Pangea is damning of any expanding earth theory.

You are aware that there were oceans as far back in time as the Hadean.

EDIT:

BTW lunk. Do I have it right that you are in the Vancouver Island area?

If so there is much interesting geology near and under you which supports the existance of Benioff Zones.

Also I read a book, still have it around, that may interest you. It is "Passage to Juneau" by Jonathan Raban.

Passage to Juneau: A Sea and Its Meanings

I picked it up and read because I had done sailing like the author and was interested in that part of the world particularly because of its maritime history. It is an interesting account that provides much colour in the way of local history and geography.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: May 25 2009, 11:42 AM

[lunk]

Yes that is a good question, where did all the salt water come from?
Short answer: from fresh water mixed with salt.

Long answer: the crystalline salt domes grew, the earth expanded, fresh water rushed down into the gaps and dissolved some of these previously underground salt domes.
Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the galaxy,
water is 2/3rds hydrogen.There is a considerable amount of oxygen chemically locked into the Earth. So it is conceivable that water could be generated within the Earth itself, as a chemical byproduct of Earth Growth, and the oceans are constantly being added to, at the mid ocean rifts.
...but they aren't changing much because the mid ocean rifts are widening.

The age of the ocean floors is a good indicator of the directions the continents, should appear to be moving. (see attachment)

Notice that the age of the oldest part of the ocean floor is less than 200 million years old, most of it is less than 65 million years old, which is new, compared to the and the continents that are as old as 5000 million years?

(in reality they move the same way that the last years bark on a tree does, as that tree, grows.)

All the continents are moving away from each other, this is logically impossible without growth of the Earth.

But lets see what the experts say about the direction that they must assume each continent is going relative to each other:

Does anyone else see a discrepancy between the theorized past movement of the continents and the actual documented historical facts?!

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Pangea_animation_03.gif)

Think of how heavy a continent must be, how much inertia it must have, just slipping about, changing directions, la tee da, perhaps we should gear a generator to their movement, think of how much energy we could harness, and by us, slowing down all these continents, we would be stopping earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes, with all the energy we could ever need.
...if plate tectonics was true, that is.

 crustageposterprocessed.jpg ( 252.59K ) Number of downloads: 2


The crustal age of the ocean floor disprove the current theory of plate tectonics.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Wegener_Alfred_signature.jpg/180px-Wegener_Alfred_signature.jpg)
Alfred Wegener
(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/S_Warren_Carey.jpg)
Samuel Warren Carey

respectfully, lunk

[eyeswideoopen]

climate change = globalist lies

"Climate Change" is a political agenda for the purpose of controlling our economy and by definition our country. If you look at the provisions of the Morganthau Plan, you should be able to see that what was planned for post WWII Germany is precisely what they are implementing in this country.

An economy needs energy to produce. The entire climate change agenda is about restricting the use of energy, restricting the use of natural resources and by definition, restricting growth and development of the economy.

One element of the Climate Change Agenda is the cap and trade system. What it really is - is a tax and re-distribute system - with Al Gore skimming off the top for his participation in the trading system. Tax energy usage to make it prohibitive - and redistribution of the taxes to the create the "green economy" - green as in greenbacks for the parasites and green as in gangrene for our economy and our way of life.

I don't even understand why people discuss it as if it's a legitimate question. Climate change is political and scientific fraud.

[tumetuestumefais...]

Last solar flux 10.7cm proxy data
- the sun is keeping oscillation around the very minimum.

A historic reconstruction of the total solar irradiance from NOAA - it fits well the narrative history of the cool and warm periods.

The global mean temperature IS KEEPING TO SINK since 2005 - so there is no GW at the time - which is in the good agreement with the solar lowest minimum in last 100 years. On the contrary it looks like to disprove the CO2 GHE immediate dependence of the global mean temperature.

NOAA was forced to change the solar activity prediction considerably - they now expect cycle 24 maximum at 90 sunspots in 2013. The NASA which was just keeping to move their prediction curves every month a month ahead was also forced to radically change the previous predictions to 50-115 (av. 85) sunspots maximum in 2013.

However there are people, who study closely the statistical dependence between Julian and Sun cycles - they predict even much less solar activity of cycle 24 - at 30-50 sunspots and maximum in 2014-2015. (After my close inspection of the study I would say there is unbeatable dependence proofs between Jupiter and Solar cycles and has quite an astounding predictive potential - for example the current minimum was much better predicted with this models derived from the Julian cycles statistics, than by the official NOAA and NASA estimations made by "panel consensus" - which in fact just 4 years ago predicted the cycle 24 maximum be "exceptionaly high" (I think at 140 sunspots) and beginning 2006. In fact the reality of current minimum far exceeded even the David Archibald's "cold" predictions the IPCC community was laghing at - he already in 2005 predicted the cycle 24 beginning 2008 and being low. Contrary to that some people like Hathaway several times falsely predicted the start of the cycle 24 and were forced to radically change their predictions after the sun behaved in absolutely opposite maner than they expected.)

There are over 30 000 US scientists who expressed disagreement with the AGW hypothesis - http://petitionproject.org

There indeed really isn't a consensus on AGW. There are papers actually completely disagreeing with the official account - as e.g. here or here - on the other side there are quite really crazy and unsubstantiated predictions of "a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100." propagated from MIT CGCC.
Such - especially in the scope of the recent solar activity developments - utterly improbable "predictions" backed by the name of the renowned universities make me think this whole AGW hypothesis is a political scam to push the global carbon tax - as could be clearly seen by the most outspoken alarmists as James Hansen, pushing carbon tax hardly in US Congress, threatening with the "Venus scenario", "boiling of the oceans" and other absolutely improbable ecoterrorist stuff. I would bet that if the Niromo predictions from the Jupiter cycles are right, we will soon face the switch of the "global warmists" into intermediate "climate changists" and then to "global coolists", but their alarmist agenda and proposed global policies will remain simmilar and their "cherry picking science" will continue.

my 0.02$

[Omega892R09]

Yes that is a good question, where did all the salt water come from?
Short answer: from fresh water mixed with salt.

Long answer: the crystalline salt domes grew, the earth expanded, fresh water rushed down into the gaps and dissolved some of these previously underground salt domes.

Salt water existed before salt domes, that is where the salt in the domes came from when shallow seas evaporated. This allowed salt domes to rise, more like pillars in reality, through the less dense overlaying crust. So where did all that salt come from originally?

Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the galaxy,
water is 2/3rds hydrogen.

There is a considerable amount of oxygen chemically locked into the Earth.
Sounds good but it does not work like that.
The most abundant element [on the earth] is oxygen existing as O2 in the free state where it comprises 20.9 by volume and 23% by weight of the atmosphere.

46.6% by weight of the earth's crust is oxygen being the major constituent of silica materials, this tends to make continental crust lighter than the underlying lithosphere and thus supported by isostasy. This is why continents can float about on the lithosphere plates driven by the convection currents in the asthenosphere and also by the pull of the more dense undersea basalt floors as they move into destructive margins. Oceans cover about three quarters of the globe and oxygen comprises about 89% by weight of the water in those oceans. Proportions of oxygen from J.D.Lee, 'Concise Inorganic Chemistry'.

So it is conceivable that water could be generated within the Earth itself, as a chemical byproduct of Earth Growth, and the oceans are constantly being added to, at the mid ocean rifts.
...but they aren't changing much because the mid ocean rifts are widening.

Water could indeed be generated from within the earth but not as a byproduct of earth growth.
Mineralogist JD Smyth has calculated that spinel structure woodsleyite, found at depth in the mantle, could contain a water molecule. This would amount to there being more water below the earths surface than above it. This information comes from R. Fortey, 'The Earth: An Intimate History' (worth a read BTW) but I have been unable to track down the article in which these calculations are laid out. However the nature of the work of Smyth can be judged from:

[Thermodynamics of mantle minerals – I. Physical properties

I will have more to say about this in a future post, hopefully.

The age of the ocean floors is a good indicator of the directions the continents, should appear to be moving. (see attachment)

Notice that the age of the oldest part of the ocean floor is less than 200 million years old, most of it is less than 65 million years old, which is new, compared to the and the continents that are as old as 5000 million years?

(in reality they move the same way that the last years bark on a tree does, as that tree, grows.)

All the continents are moving away from each other, this is logically impossible without growth of the Earth.

Only if you ignore the existence of subduction, Benioff, zones which is a big IF and here is why.

Austrian geologist Leonore Hoke has spent time in the high Andes of Bolivia taking and evaluating gas samples from almost every volcanic fumerole in that area. She found large quantities of water vapour, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide. In lesser quantities, but of great significance, she found helium and nitrogen.

There were two forms of helium. The lighter Helium-3 and the heavier Helium-4 the later results from the decay of uranium and thorium both of which enrich the earth's crust. In average continental crust there is about 100 million times more heavy than light helium. At deeper levels in the earth the ration shrinks to about 100000 times more heavy helium than light helium. Thus the source of helium can be traced.

Hoke found that the helium escaping in the Andean volcanoes was enriched in helium-3, by up to 500 times. Thus some helium comes from the mantle. No kicker to your 'there are no subduction zones' theory yet you think.

But the large quantities of water vapour suggested a wet source. This coupled with the finding of nitrogen, which could only have come from the sediment on the sea floor, indicated that the volcanic activity along the Andes, and around the remainder of the Pacific Ring of Fire (and a few other zones on earth) had to come from sea floor being subsumed near the junction with the ocean.

Cenozoic behind-arc volcanism in the Bolivian Andes, South America: implications for mantle melt generation and lithospheric structure. Leonore Hoke & Simon Lamb

Cenozoic behind-arc volcanism in the Bolivian Andes, South America: implications for mantle melt generation and lithospheric structure. Leonore Hoke & Simon Lamb

Note the reference to Charles Lyell in that URL.

Seismic records re-enforce the idea that the ocean floor is descending into the mantle along these zones.

The Western Cordillera of North America provides more evidence for subdction zones and right on your doorstep lunk so to speak with a subduction zone running along the western edge of Vancouver Island. This zone is couple with the Juan de Fuca Ridge further out and to the transform faults to the north and south. The San Andreas to the South and the Queen Charlotte to the North and this one runs from the South of Alaska into the Aleutian Trench. This fault has provided evidence of its activity in recent times and many times.

The higher silica content of magma typical of eruptions along such faults is responsible for the increased pressure that builds, due to large amounts of gas, which then results in such a violant event as typified by Mt St. Helens, Popocatépetl, Pinatubo, Pelée, Krakatoa, Ngauruhoe (NZ), Unzen (near Nagasaki), one of the series of explosions from which killed the french vulcanologists Maurice and Katia Krafft.

As the Western Cordillera zone develops then ocean sediments are also scrapped off to form an uplifted wedge along the edge of the continent. Such is the extent of these exotic terranes, over 200 in number having been formed from Alaska to Mexico each having a distinct lithography with one having been formed by the impress of a back island arc, making this area geologically complex. At some time in the future Vancouver Island itself will be pushed into union with the continent.

That really is enough for one post but I am planning something on the images that you have included, the second being normally used in conjunction with explanations of paleomagnetism.

As for the gratuitous provision of portraits of Wegener and Carey. That is interesting for one had ideas ahead of his time about continental drift and which theory had drifted into obscurity at his death. Which was sad because all he lacked were the tools to prove that some of his thinking had merit.

As for Carey, his expanding earth has now been discredited. Discredited may be a strong term where undermined would be a kinder choice but then Carey did continue to push his theory in spite of increasing scientific evidence reinforcing the validity of plate tectonics, and thus discredited sticks. A true scientist should be open minded enough to embrace scientific ideas based on solid findings.

PS. I had started a cross-sectional diagram to aid visual grasp of subduction zone as particularly applied to the Western Cordiller but other events and time caught up with me and I doubt that you have not seen the like.