The Absolute Amateur -
Prompted by a friendly comment, I would like to make it clear that I have absolutely no formal training whatsoever in these matters; I am only summarizing my thoughts on one or two (perhaps three) subjects I have been thinking about for some time, to express perhaps a different angle, and see if someone might be interested enough to discuss one or two points on them.
C'est tout...
Yes.
In fact, that would be one connected magma stream, driven by the core's superrotation. I had thought about and tried to model separate convecting streams, as in vertical loops between the surface and the core, but that did not work out very well.
Of course, there is thermodynamic convection involved, and you will probably find that under hot spots, but it is additional and not the driving force of continental drift. The result, as witnessed in the geography of the planet's surface, is asymmetric and directional; sheer mantle convection would produce more or less separate, singular, disconnected, point- or line-symmetric results, with mantle plumes and spreading sea floors surrounded by subduction zones. This is not the case.
Furthermore, continental drift driven by mantle convection would be changing direction locally all the time, as each geographic result would have an influence on the next by changing the location for the next heat accumulation and magma upwelling to take place, if I remember correctly.
The number of vertical loops, by the way, would have been three, in keeping with the strange triangular / triple strand geometry we find in the Earth's geography (but not because of it) - and they would still have been driven by the earth's core.
Sorry. This is referring to 'before' way back then, at the time I got interested in it (I'm pretty old).
Thank you. That is exactly what I posted it for. I don't know if a smiley is in order here, but I am thinking one.
Thank you for your kind hints, ryan_b. I'll tray to implement them on the next post.
The breaks I put in had a technical reason as well, BTW. My system kept running out of memory, and so I had to cobble the post together bit by bit and these served me as markers. I don't know the reason for this or if I am the only one experiencing it, but never mind. And Oh yes, I am indeed an amateur; I have now made that clear in my profile, so I hope that helps.
Yes, the oceans serve as a huge buffer (and deposit!) for CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIucNnxKick
They are sure to play a very significant role in both carbon deposit AND temperature regulation, directly or indirectly.
However, even a 1000 year lag in carbon dioxide response hardly explains a 100,000 year cycle or even just the periodic 10,000 year change in the earth's atmosphere, as shown in all graphs of the last million years. Or perhaps it does, but I wouldn't know how.
It does not explain the sharp atmospheric 180 ppm bottom boundary either - precisely because the ocean is so much richer in carbon dioxide.
What would be really interesting is an overall balance of the oceans' photosynthetic activity via algae, the conditions, limits and boundaries thereof and the sequestering of carbon in form of carbohydrates and lime, in context of the 100,000 year non- anthropogenic periodic natural climate change (I have a feeling that oceans and lime deposits might play their biggest role in longer-term effects, i.e. over millions of years- not so much in the "short term" as in millennial effects, but that's just a hunch).
But that would need a real joint effort, I suppose.
So I have just concentrated on the possible causes and effects of terrestrial photosynthesis in relation to natural climate change here.
Even a coming mini solar ice age over 50 years would be mini both in effect and duration, compared with the overall longer term effects at play in natural, periodic climate change (and the possible anthropogenic disruption of it).