.
.
.
Earth Water
I was of the impression that our oceans were the result of chemical evolution within our atmosphere; before-during-after oxygen formed.
More & more I read >now< Earth Water isn’t Earth water, and was imported by asteroids, etc.
What the #@%*^
Most of the water in the earth was exsolved from the mantle.
“As of today, there are currently 1453 known potentially hazardous asteroids that could impact Earth and cause a real planetary catastrophe. Given the new diverse “snow globe” model of our solar system in relation to asteroids, how may more don’t we know about? It only takes one.
Of more pragmatic interest, this new paper suggests a diverse asteroid population stirred up in the ‘snow globe’ model was essential to bringing water to Earth.”
The_observer said:
.
.
.
Earth WaterI was of the impression that our oceans were the result of chemical evolution within our atmosphere; before-during-after oxygen formed.
More & more I read >now< Earth Water isn’t Earth water, and was imported by asteroids, etc.
What the #@%*^
This can’t be an unmanipulated image considering the size of the objects and their proximity to each other.
“Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, DeMeo and co-author Benoit Carry (Paris Observatory) examined the compositions of thousands of asteroids within the main belt. They found that the asteroid belt is more diverse than previously realized, especially when you look at the smaller asteroids.
This finding has interesting implications for the history of Earth. Astronomers have theorized that long-ago asteroid impacts delivered much of the water now filling Earth’s oceans. If true, the stirring provided by migrating planets may have been essential to bringing those asteroids.
This raises the question of whether an Earth-like exoplanets would also require a rain of asteroids to bring water and make it habitable. If so, then Earth-like worlds might be rarer than we thought.
The paper describing these findings appears in the January 30, 2014 issue of Nature.
Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) is a joint collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Harvard College Observatory. CfA scientists, organized into six research divisions, study the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the universe.
Genesis 1. 9
God said, “I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground.” And that’s what happened. 10 God named the dry ground “Land,” and he named the water “Ocean.” God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I don’t think we need go further.
Observer: key phrase is “much of”: not most of.
Different modellers end up with different answers but they are generally in the vicinity of 80% exsolved from mantle, 20% extraterrestrial.
Peak Warming Man said:
I don’t think
Thanks for the tip.
Peak Warming Man said:
Genesis 1. 9
God said, “I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground.” And that’s what happened. 10 God named the dry ground “Land,” and he named the water “Ocean.” God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
——————————————————————————————————————-I don’t think we need go further.
So he’s reviewing his own products?
dv said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Genesis 1. 9
God said, “I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground.” And that’s what happened. 10 God named the dry ground “Land,” and he named the water “Ocean.” God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
——————————————————————————————————————-I don’t think we need go further.
And it would appear that God speaks english.
So he’s reviewing his own products?
>>So he’s reviewing his own products?
Well there was no other bugger there to do it, he hadn’t breathed life into the dirt at that point you see, so I’ve got no problem with him reviewing his own body of work at all and in hindsight it was pretty good.
It’s a bit like a man alone on his own redoubt with just the lucky old sun, the four winds and assorted biodiversity, he’s going to start reviewing his own work, probably even start talking to himself.
can we keep the crap out of science threads?
ChrispenEvan said:
can we keep the crap out of science threads?
Have been of the impression for some time that a goodly proportion of earth H2O was from out there, asteroids etc, I’m just glad it’s not boiling off, courtesy of gravity largely.
Stars make water
Lots of people still dont know this
space has lots of areas full of water
the water is made by stars
whilst i, who have followed similar threads on this topic, have been under the impression that most water on earth was from the mantle and not from comets etc.
Peak Warming Man said:
Genesis 1. 9
God said, “I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground.” And that’s what happened. 10 God named the dry ground “Land,” and he named the water “Ocean.” God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
——————————————————————————————————————-I don’t think we need go further.
Stars make water
transition said:
Have been of the impression for some time that a goodly proportion of earth H2O was from out there, asteroids etc,
Yep. About 20%.
Study says young stars ‘shoot water bullets’
According to Dutch astronomers at Leiden University, a distant star is “shooting” water bullets into space. Astronomers say the amount of water released from the young sun-like Protostar is 100 million times what the Amazon Rainforest produces every second.
“If we picture these jets as giant hoses and the water droplets as bullets, the amount shooting out equals a hundred million times the water flowing through the Amazon River every second. We are talking about velocities reaching 200,000 kilometers (124,274 mi) per hour, which is about 80 times faster than bullets flying out of a machine gun,” said lead scientist and author of the study, Lars Kristensen.
The discovery was made by the Herschel Space Observatory, of the European Space Agency. The astronomers studied the lights of particles they saw while looking through the clouds of a young star in the constellation Perseus, about 750 light years from earth. Both oxygen and hydrogen atoms were detected and are believed to be created inside the star. When the drops of water are pushed out by the star’s gases, they are released as a superheated steam, before they are cooled by the surrounding space, just enough to condense them into water.
“We are only now beginning to understand that sunlike stars probably all undergo a very energetic phase when they are young,” added Kristensen. “It’s at this point in their lives when they spew out a lot of high-velocity material—part of which we now know is water.”
get real !
CrazyNeutrino said:
Stars make waterLots of people still dont know this
space has lots of areas full of water
the water is made by stars
I was told it was Gods tears caused my our wickedness.
>Stars make water
Rather fortunate, those blistering things that litter the universe do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
“In the universe
Much of the universe’s water is produced as a byproduct of star formation. When stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas.
On 22 July 2011 a report described the discovery of a gigantic cloud of water vapor containing “140 trillion times more water than all of Earth’s oceans combined” around a quasar located 12 billion light years from Earth. According to the researchers, the “discovery shows that water has been prevalent in the universe for nearly its entire existence”.
Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within our galaxy, the Milky Way. Water probably exists in abundance in other galaxies, too, because its components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the universe. Interstellar clouds eventually condense into solar nebulae and solar systems such as ours…”
Stars make water
————-
Mileys Cyrus makes my eyes water…
Genesis 1. 9
God said, “I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground.” And that’s what happened. 10 God named the dry ground “Land,” and he named the water “Ocean.” God looked at what he had done and saw that it was good.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I don’t think we need go further.
I think we do need to go a bit further
The Bible is full of nonsense, not much science in it all, which is a pity, its a pity too that the bible doesn’t have much critical thinking in it either, if it did, it wouldn’t exist I would imagine, but seeing the bible for what it is, it is this, it is 2000 year old story telling, imagined up by grumpy old men wanting to socially control others, one other thing about the bible is that it has never changed, while the rest of the world does!
Just in case anyone is confused…
The earth formed with a large amount of hydrogen, oxygen, water, OH, and other water-related species in its bolus. For tens of millions of years this was fairly well mixed up but gravitational sorting caused a general migration of less dense materials towards the surface, including water. This process, to some extent, continues today!
The observation that it was stars that produced this matter doesn’t alter the fact that most of the water that is now on earth exsolved from the mantle…
perhaps Noah’s flood was from an asteroid sweeping near earth’s atmosphere, or near earth.
What would happen of one did come very close, for a heads up you know. Not impact though.
> Astronomers say the amount of water released from the young sun-like Protostar is 100 million times what the Amazon Rainforest produces every second.
Burger me, who wrote that sentence.
>The Bible is full of nonsense, not much science in it all, which is a pity, its a pity too that the bible doesn’t have much critical thinking in it either, if it did, it wouldn’t exist I would imagine”
Don’t be like that, we’ve all some of the child in us, the modern ‘authority’ attributed the stories, and the further insane literal interpretations, that’s just crazy ‘grown up’ stuff.
sibeen said:
> Astronomers say the amount of water released from the young sun-like Protostar is 100 million times what the Amazon Rainforest produces every second.Burger me, who wrote that sentence.
Seems crommulent to me. Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land. The Bedouins would probably appreciate a bit of rain.
transition said:
perhaps Noah’s flood was from an asteroid sweeping near earth’s atmosphere, or near earth.What would happen of one did come very close, for a heads up you know. Not impact though.
I would have thought that the Amazon takes in about as much water as it releases…
Just having a read here.
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BAsteroidsandBible.htm
“…Catastrophism, including impacts of asteroids, was still considered unscientific…”
Stealth said:
transition said:
perhaps Noah’s flood was from an asteroid sweeping near earth’s atmosphere, or near earth.What would happen of one did come very close, for a heads up you know. Not impact though.
If the extra water for Noah’s flood came from an asteroid, and it was enough to cover all the lands, then where did all that water go 40 days later???
just make up anything
70 angles floated down from the heavens in golden ships and they drunk the extra water thinking it was beer
>..then where did all that water go 40 days later???..”
Don’t get hung up on technical details, stealth :).
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.
steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
ChrispenEvan said:
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
so, on that, have they done any computer modeling on fictitious continents surrounded by water, I imagine that underwater mountains and underwater canyons would play a part as well? to see how all that changes cloud forming and rain
ChrispenEvan said:
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
That’s right. If there is no moisture to precipitate then rain can’t happen.
We get something similar here. In winter it’s cold enough to snow but as it’s the dry season there is no moisture to make snow.
Central Australia was a few million years ago covered in rainforest, but due to climate change as we drifted north it became too dry to support that type of vegetation. It was replaced by much shorter drought tolerant vegetation, so what you have today is about as much as you can grow there, unless of course you water them, which rather defeats the initial aim of the project.
PermeateFree said:
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
That’s right. If there is no moisture to precipitate then rain can’t happen.
We get something similar here. In winter it’s cold enough to snow but as it’s the dry season there is no moisture to make snow.Central Australia was a few million years ago covered in rainforest, but due to climate change as we drifted north it became too dry to support that type of vegetation. It was replaced by much shorter drought tolerant vegetation, so what you have today is about as much as you can grow there, unless of course you water them, which rather defeats the initial aim of the project.
Would it be possible to have a solar powered desal plant with solar powered water pumps all the way inland?
PermeateFree said:
Tamb said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Though I don’t know why we don’t just plant rainforests in deserts to provide water and open up lots of land.steve used to cover this one. when people asked why we didn’t plant a forest in inland australia to make it rain his answer was it doesn’t get much rain there because of it’s position and planting trees wont help.
That’s right. If there is no moisture to precipitate then rain can’t happen.
We get something similar here. In winter it’s cold enough to snow but as it’s the dry season there is no moisture to make snow.Central Australia was a few million years ago covered in rainforest, but due to climate change as we drifted north it became too dry to support that type of vegetation. It was replaced by much shorter drought tolerant vegetation, so what you have today is about as much as you can grow there, unless of course you water them, which rather defeats the initial aim of the project.
Objects in the landscape as well as trees which transpire all tend to increase the possibility of more rain falling locally but as has been said, not without ingress of moisture laden air.
Would it be possible to have a solar powered desal plant with solar powered water pumps all the way inland?
yes.
dvsbl.
CrazyNeutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
Tamb said:That’s right. If there is no moisture to precipitate then rain can’t happen.
We get something similar here. In winter it’s cold enough to snow but as it’s the dry season there is no moisture to make snow.Central Australia was a few million years ago covered in rainforest, but due to climate change as we drifted north it became too dry to support that type of vegetation. It was replaced by much shorter drought tolerant vegetation, so what you have today is about as much as you can grow there, unless of course you water them, which rather defeats the initial aim of the project.
Would it be possible to have a solar powered desal plant with solar powered water pumps all the way inland?
The ability of continually water large trees is unsustainable especially over any sizable area, which you would need the stimulate additional rainfall. It is like trying to grow a wheat crop in an arid area that required additional watering, as against growing something like grapes that could be put in rows on a water dripping system, where the water concentration makes it feasible. Large rainforest trees need a considerable amount of water.
After hydrogen & helium, oxygen is the most abundant element in our galaxy (and presumably in the rest of the universe): see this table .
Oxygen readily reacts with hydrogen to form water, so when the molecular clouds that give birth to star systems
condense lots of water gets produced. Thus the original ingredients of Earth contained a significant amount of water.
According to current theory, the Earth & other planets were formed by the collision of planetisimals . This collision process generates a lot of heat – more than enough to boil water, in fact it’s hot enough to melt many rocks. So it’s expected that the young Earth lost some of its initial water supply – when its mass was smaller it was easier for the water vapour to escape Earth’s gravity.
The Earth also lost some water through dissociation. UV light in the upper atmosphere can split water molecules into oxygen & hydrogen, and the hydrogen has a tendency to escape before it has a chance to be recombined with oxygen or other reactive species.
Water from asteroids & comets is certainly a significant source of Earth’s water and it has replenished some of the lost water mentioned above, but as DV said earlier, the bulk of the Earth’s water has been here from the early days of its formation. And although a lot of that water has migrated to the surface and atmosphere, there’s still a vast amount of water trapped in the mantle. When volcanoes erupt, one of the main things they bring to the surface is water.
I suppose this thread warrants a re-posting of this:
How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?
All Earth’s water, liquid fresh water, and water in lakes and rivers
Spheres showing:
(1) All water (sphere over western U.S., 860 miles in diameter)
(2) Fresh liquid water in the ground, lakes, swamps, and rivers (sphere over Kentucky, 169.5 miles in diameter), and
(3) Fresh-water lakes and rivers (sphere over Georgia, 34.9 miles in diameter).
ChrispenEvan said:
Would it be possible to have a solar powered desal plant with solar powered water pumps all the way inland?yes.
dvsbl.
Would it help? Not much, unless you moved really vast amounts of water. It’d just get sucked up into the air & moved elsewhere.
PM 2Ring said:
I suppose this thread warrants a re-posting of this:How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?
All Earth’s water, liquid fresh water, and water in lakes and riversSpheres showing:
(1) All water (sphere over western U.S., 860 miles in diameter)
(2) Fresh liquid water in the ground, lakes, swamps, and rivers (sphere over Kentucky, 169.5 miles in diameter), and
(3) Fresh-water lakes and rivers (sphere over Georgia, 34.9 miles in diameter).
That’s a frightening picture.
one other thing about the bible is that it has never changed, while the rest of the world does!
————————————————————-
Yeah it’s like history mate.
Now we have the interwebbness… we can change history with the push of a button.
Just need to burn the few remaining books.
The_observer said:
I was of the impression that our oceans were the result of chemical evolution within our atmosphere; before-during-after oxygen formed.
More & more I read >now< Earth Water isn’t Earth water, and was imported by asteroids, etc.
What the #@%*^
Excellent question, I’ve noticed the same thing. This has a great influence on the question of the origins of life on Earth.
The Old view was as follows:
Earth had a primary atmosphere that was rich in hydrogen and had relatively little water. A surplus of hydrogen is known to have been present because it was necessary for the formation of carbon-based life. This primary atmosphere was lost, possibly as a result of one of those collisions known to have caused the largest craters on the Moon. This period is known as “late heavy bombardment” and occurred 3.8 to 4.1 billion years ago. We know that the primary atmosphere was lost because of the lack of heavy noble gases, particularly krypton and xenon isotopes, in the present atmosphere. After that time there was outgasing of elements from the Earth’s crust which included water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and this formed what is known as the Earth’s secondary atmosphere. Impacts from comets since that time added some water to our hydrosphere, but not much because the Moon is as much in the path of passing comets as the Earth, and the Moon has picked up remarkably little cometary material (hydrogen and water) since its formation.
The Modern view is this:
The Earth never had a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, it’s atmosphere was always an oxidising one. Life did not develop on Earth’s surface but came from somewhere else. Almost all the Earth’s hydrosphere came from comets that hit the Earth after its formation.
My personal view is that the the Old view is correct and that the Modern view is pure bullshit. The Modern view completely fails to explain where the first life on Earth found its food. And it also completely fails to explain why the Moon’s surface has so little hydrogen. I see this as a perfect example of how falseness leads to criticism which leads to controversy which leads to frequent restatement which leads to public acceptance.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
Tamb said:That’s right. If there is no moisture to precipitate then rain can’t happen.
We get something similar here. In winter it’s cold enough to snow but as it’s the dry season there is no moisture to make snow.Central Australia was a few million years ago covered in rainforest, but due to climate change as we drifted north it became too dry to support that type of vegetation. It was replaced by much shorter drought tolerant vegetation, so what you have today is about as much as you can grow there, unless of course you water them, which rather defeats the initial aim of the project.
Objects in the landscape as well as trees which transpire all tend to increase the possibility of more rain falling locally but as has been said, not without ingress of moisture laden air.
How much would de-forestation for grazing, human settlement etc have contributed to droughts ?
rumpole said:
How much would de-forestation for grazing, human settlement etc have contributed to droughts ?
>Interesting question. There is one theory that attributes the entirety of the reduction in precipitation in SW WA in the last 30 to deforestation.
I’d think this and increased ground wind surface speeds, compounds the problem.
morrie said:
rumpole said:
How much would de-forestation for grazing, human settlement etc have contributed to droughts ?
Interesting question. There is one theory that attributes the entirety of the reduction in precipitation in SW WA in the last 30 to deforestation. There is another theory that correlates that decline to a shift in the weather pattern in the Antarctic and increased snowfall there that reduces the amount reaching us.
morrie said:
morrie said:
rumpole said:
How much would de-forestation for grazing, human settlement etc have contributed to droughts ?
Interesting question. There is one theory that attributes the entirety of the reduction in precipitation in SW WA in the last 30 to deforestation. There is another theory that correlates that decline to a shift in the weather pattern in the Antarctic and increased snowfall there that reduces the amount reaching us.
Oh, and if that isn’t enough to confuse the issue, the decline in SW WA is correlated with a similar decline somewhere in China.
Every time I take off from an Australian airport it makes me wonder how the large change in reflectivity between native forest and cultivated areas can not be significant, although no-one seems to talk about it much.
The Rev Dodgson said:
morrie said:
morrie said:Interesting question. There is one theory that attributes the entirety of the reduction in precipitation in SW WA in the last 30 to deforestation. There is another theory that correlates that decline to a shift in the weather pattern in the Antarctic and increased snowfall there that reduces the amount reaching us.
Oh, and if that isn’t enough to confuse the issue, the decline in SW WA is correlated with a similar decline somewhere in China.Every time I take off from an Australian airport it makes me wonder how the large change in reflectivity between native forest and cultivated areas can not be significant, although no-one seems to talk about it much.
When I was a kid I flew all over SW WA in a light plane with my father and an American who was searching for a spot to lay down a huge strip of bitumen to cause a thermal updraft and so induce rain on the downwind side. It never came to pass of course. t was at the time when bitumen was applied to the sand dunes at Lancelin and to the sand piles that sat in front of Perth city.
rumpole said:
How much would de-forestation for grazing, human settlement etc have contributed to droughts ?
very interesting question, which needs more science research now
Thinking about your comment Rev, the change in the practice of burning the stubble compared to the current trend towards disc seeding with minimal soil disturbance must have made a bit of a difference in the reflectivity in total.
transition said:
>Interesting question. There is one theory that attributes the entirety of the reduction in precipitation in SW WA in the last 30 to deforestation.I’d think this and increased ground wind surface speeds, compounds the problem.
yes
morrie said:
Thinking about your comment Rev, the change in the practice of burning the stubble compared to the current trend towards disc seeding with minimal soil disturbance must have made a bit of a difference in the reflectivity in total.
yep
Would it help? Not much, unless you moved really vast amounts of water. It’d just get sucked up into the air & moved elsewhere.
i agree. my response was to answer the question accurately. not to opine whether it was practical to implement.
;-)
ChrispenEvan said:
Would it help? Not much, unless you moved really vast amounts of water. It’d just get sucked up into the air & moved elsewhere.i agree. my response was to answer the question accurately. not to opine whether it was practical to implement.
;-)
Understood. My comment was in addition to what you said, so I hope nobody got the impression that I was disagreeing with you.
i did think that for a moment but then i slapped myself for being silly.
PM 2Ring said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Would it help? Not much, unless you moved really vast amounts of water. It’d just get sucked up into the air & moved elsewhere.i agree. my response was to answer the question accurately. not to opine whether it was practical to implement.
;-)
Understood. My comment was in addition to what you said, so I hope nobody got the impression that I was disagreeing with you.
What we need to see here is the results of the science on the losses created by irrigated agriculture both by using river flows and by the heinous crime of pumping from groundwater.
100 million times what the Amazon Rainforest produces every second.
how many sydney harbours is that?
six hunnit and fiddy.
ChrispenEvan said:
six hunnit and fiddy.
let me write a cheque