Source of water for the flood

[Baggins]

In fact, the water content of earth material was probably less then 1/100 of a percent to begin with. You may calculate how much water would there be if you time the tiny percentage to the volume of the earth's mantle. So, if you think the ocean holds most of water on earth today, you ain't see nothing yet.

oops fail

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

the ocean's contain 97% of the earth's water.

ground water accounts for 0.3%

I hope I have gleaned the posters meaning, as it didn't make sense as English, I feel what he was getting at was that there is a vast amount of water in the earth's crust compared to the oceans, if that was the case he is wrong by a factor of around 300. If that wasn't his meaning he will have to try and write in grammatically accurate English.

 

[Adivi]

There are 98 posts here, but none of them can answer your question. Sorry for the late. But I am answering it now. It is quite disappointed that all the evolution people in this forum do not know much about science.

In fact, the water content of earth material was probably less then 1/100 of a percent to begin with. You may calculate how much water would there be if you time the tiny percentage to the volume of the earth's mantle. So, if you think the ocean holds most of water on earth today, you ain't see nothing yet.

All right. Assuming a radius of 6380 km and a mantle thickness of 2900 km, the mantle's volume is 9.1 * 10^11 km^3; 1/100 of a percent of that would be 9.1 * 10^7 km^3. But the current volume of earth's oceans is about 1.37 * 10^9 km^3. So doing the math proves you wrong.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Ok, so some of you gouys are pretty knowledgable in the mathematical department. Certainly, I cannot work out the exact figures for the solution I presented earlier.

However, maybe some of you can.

Ok, so, what is the total volume of water in the Black Sea and the Meditteranean Sea combined?
Add to that figure a total ocean depth of, let's say, 1 metre.
Add both figures together.
Then freeze that amount and add it to the Ice caps.

This increase in Ice cap size would be, I presume, a minute percentage of the orginal state of the Ice caps 120 million years ago, when the present meltdown began. But what percentage would that be assuming similar thickness to today?

Logically, I can invisage that only a tiny amount of Ice cap melt needs to occur in order to flood the Meditteranean and Black Sea basins, but that's ignoring all the other flood events across the globe.

I imagine the information on global volumes of water filled basins is somewhat difficult to ascertain, but it seems logical to me, that the melted Ice cap water is in them, and if one were to calculate that volume, then it would exactly match the extent to which Ice cap formation at it's ultimate, is known.

As an additional source of information, known early civilizations lived off the coasts that presently exist. Rising water levels have drowned these evidences, particularly off the coast of India. This could be a prime source of world ocean level rise estimates, and resultantly the amount of water released from the Ice caps.

It's too much of a headache for me, but maybe someone is good enough to work it out - hopefully.

Oh yes, one last thing.
The maths may not work out too neatly, as the Chixalub meteor would have released massive amounts of water to space. That would be the only significant event to disrupt the figures during the last 120 million years, although how significant that global water loss was, I do not know. I imagine the event was far more disruptive than most people imagine, particularly in terms of this water loss and the rise in global temperatures.

Anyway, over to whoever, and oh yes, thanks.

 

[Adivi]

Black sea volume: 550,000 km^3
Mediterranean volume: 4,000,000 km^3
The volume necessary to raise the ocean levels 1 m can be approximated as surface area of the oceans * 1 m = 361,000 km^3
Add those up and we get 4.9 * 10^6 km^3. This would weigh 4.9 * 10^18 km^3, so that would be 5.3 * 10^6 km^3 of ice (density of ice is about .917 g/mL)

The current ice cap volume is about 32 * 10^6 km^3, so the change in volume would be about 16%.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Don't you just love the knowledgable mind.
Thanks Adivi.

The current ice cap volume is about 32 * 10^6 km^3, so the change in volume would be about 16%.

So, to be clear, to realistically flood the Meditteranean and Black Seas, would take less than 16% of the present Ice cap volume, which is massively less than the total volume of the Ice caps 120,000,000 years ago.

So, clearly the global rise in sea levels is accounted for across 119.5 million years, and the final tip over into the two mentioned seas, is a minor melt that had massively significant effects upon local populations of the time, evidenced by deep scans of sea floor geology, that show mountains and valleys with considerable non-water erosion effects.

Well, that seems to have solved the biblical flood then.

 

[juvenissun]

So, I would think you would suggest that no water is released during a volcanic eruption. Would that be correct?

It depends on at what time.

Currently, more than 95% of water from volcano is recycled water. But at the time when the ocean water was accumulated, there should be much more original water from volcanic activity. Can not say how much because we still do not understand the process well enough.

 

[juvenissun]

oops fail

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

the ocean's contain 97% of the earth's water.

ground water accounts for 0.3%

I hope I have gleaned the posters meaning, as it didn't make sense as English, I feel what he was getting at was that there is a vast amount of water in the earth's crust compared to the oceans, if that was the case he is wrong by a factor of around 300. If that wasn't his meaning he will have to try and write in grammatically accurate English.

Smart guy, you are WRONG.

I am talking about the mantle of the earth.

Can you read? Since you skipped such a critical word, I assume you can not.

 

[juvenissun]

All right. Assuming a radius of 6380 km and a mantle thickness of 2900 km, the mantle's volume is 9.1 * 10^11 km^3; 1/100 of a percent of that would be 9.1 * 10^7 km^3. But the current volume of earth's oceans is about 1.37 * 10^9 km^3. So doing the math proves you wrong.

No, the water is conventionally expressed in wt%.

So, the order of magnitude on the mantle "mass" should be 10E12 larger than your number.

 

[Baggins]

Smart guy, you are WRONG.

I am talking about the mantle of the earth.

Can you read? Since you skipped such a critical word, I assume you can not.

Not so smart guy; that water is held as hydrated minerals and is going nowhere.

learn some geology

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

 

[FishFace]

Now --- don't get me wrong --- I don't believe God shrunk the animals, but "scientists" arguing volume and density problems from the perspective of a universe that was once the size of a pixel is ironic (to me, anyway).

I suppose it's easy to laugh at things when you don't have the first foreign clue what they mean.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Smart guy, you are WRONG.

I am talking about the mantle of the earth.

Can you read? Since you skipped such a critical word, I assume you can not.

Granted there are hydrous minerals in the mantle as well as "nominally anhydrous minerals" that can "store" water under extremes of pressure. Here's a couple of important questions to consider. Remember it isn't enough to just say you have a "water budget", but you have to be able to move that "water budget" around. (think of it like economics and "liquidity" of your investments!)

1. How do you get the water from within the mantle in sufficient quantities at one time (ie in a year or less) to flood the planet? Remember, a great deal of your mantle "water budget" is tied up in hydrous phases which can include the presence of water that is integral to the crystal structure or is bound as -OH (hydroxyl) groups in the mineral. When you cook these you can release water as a separate phase but you drastically alter the structure and size of the mineral phase.

2. How do you then, within an even shorter time get that water back into the mantle to the "storage points" (ie extremely deep, high pressure points where you can get more water into the deep mantle perovskites and other silicates) as well as to the hydrous minerals.

3. Without completely destroying the planet into a pile of dust, how do you account for the massive stresses in either process?

4. What do you do for that "year" as the mantle is now made up of dramatically altered mineral phases and much of the tectonic and transport phenomena we see that makes the earth the earth are either altered beyond recongnition or shut down?

5. How do you "restart" usual tectonic processes so that we end up with an earth that looks pretty much the same tectonically as it has for the rest of the past of the history of the earth since it cooled enough to have a crust-mantle-and-core?

6. Why is this dramatic and catastrophic event completely absent from the geologic record?

There, that's six "simple" questions that come to mind. Of course I'm an "evolutionist" (as well as a geochemist by degree) and as you said here:

There are 98 posts here, but none of them can answer your question. Sorry for the late. But I am answering it now. It is quite disappointed that all the evolution people in this forum do not know much about science.

So maybe I don't know much about science.

Please teach!

 

[Adivi]

No, the water is conventionally expressed in wt%.

So, the order of magnitude on the mantle "mass" should be 10E12 larger than your number.

All right, let's try it again. 1.37 * 10^9 km^3 of water masses in at 1.37 * 10^21 kilograms. The mass of the entire earth is 5.972 * 10^24 kilograms, and the mantle is about 2/3 of that, or 3.98 * 10^24 kilograms. So the weight percentage would have to be greater than the figure of 1/100th of a percent that you gave (and never gave a source for, interestingly enough). Oh, and you specifically said 'volume of the earth's mantle', so that led me to conclude that you were talking about a volume percentage.

 

[Restube]

God can bring the waters from other realms

 

[juvenissun]

All right, let's try it again. 1.37 * 10^9 km^3 of water masses in at 1.37 * 10^21 kilograms. The mass of the entire earth is 5.972 * 10^24 kilograms, and the mantle is about 2/3 of that, or 3.98 * 10^24 kilograms. So the weight percentage would have to be greater than the figure of 1/100th of a percent that you gave (and never gave a source for, interestingly enough). Oh, and you specifically said 'volume of the earth's mantle', so that led me to conclude that you were talking about a volume percentage.

The water is in the mantle rock, in general, called lherzolite. And in average, the rock has specific gravity 4 in the mantle. So you can figure out the mass.

 

[Adivi]

The water is in mantle rock, in general, called lherzolite. And in average, it has specific gravity 4 in the mantle. So you can figure out the mass.

Why would I need to know the specific gravity of the water to calculate its mass if I know that the water's mass is less than 1/100th of a percent and that the mantle has a certain amount of mass?

 

[thaumaturgy]

God can bring the waters from other realms

I think it is quite obvious that "God can do anything" in any of these discussions. God can do whatever he wants to do with anything. He could turn all the elements into hydrogen and oxygen.

And if that is the case then we can just throw up our hands and assume we can never know anything about anything.

Science, and indeed, all human endeavors for knowledge become completely pointless. Everything we "know" is simply what God allows us to know. We are nothing more than epistemological toys for God.

What value does the Bible then have? It is just more stuff that God is allowing us to know. Tomorrow God could change the meaning of words, or even further, we could all wake up tomorrow and God could change every word into the bible into other words. But it goes deeper still! When we awoke tomorrow he might have changed all the words and changed our memory and understanding such that we would never know a change had occurred!

Since God is so incredibly powerful it makes me wonder what possible relationship we can have with such a being excepting that he allows us to have such a relationship.

Of course now we are left wondering if "free will" is real. I mean, how "free" can our will be unless God allows us to have free will and utilize it?

I am going a bit extreme with this example, and it is verging on a level of nihilism most Fundamentalists wouldn't much like.

The point being; telling us that God could bring water in from other "realms" or telling us that God could do thus and so only serves to be, in the words of another poster on here, an epistemological atomic bomb.

It destroys the discussion by effectively destroying everything. It eliminates our ability to make value judgements on any given declaration or point.

Is it worth the cost? Even to the YEC (Flood Advocate) side of the debate can reasonably be assumed to suffer from its devestating effect.

 

[juvenissun]

Not so smart guy; that water is held as hydrated minerals and is going nowhere.

learn some geology

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

If so, then your wife will never have any diamond ring to wear. Oh, I forgot that she could buy an artificial one today.

To confuse you more, if it were so, we would not have any land to stand on. The earth would a true water world.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The water is in mantle rock, in general, called lherzolite.

But how do you get the water in and out of the mantle quickly (POST 111)?

 

[juvenissun]

Why would I need to know the specific gravity of the water to calculate its mass if I know that the water's mass is less than 1/100th of a percent and that the mantle has a certain amount of mass?

Because the density of the core is dramatically different from that of the mantle. You can not get the mass of the mantle by volume% of the mantle.

Sorry, I miss read you and you miss read my earlier one. You need to know the density of the rock, not the water.

 

[juvenissun]

But how do you get the water in and out of the mantle quickly (POST 111)?

It is complicate. It would take me a while if I choose to answer them, and frankly, no one knows the details for sure so far.

An extremely rough idea is called "fractionation". That is why we got so called the hydrothermal deposit.

The hard part of your question is on the rate. We do know kimberlitic magma is very wet and erupted very very quickly (incredibly fast). The water in kimberlitic magma must have accumulated in the asthenosphere for a long time. Beside, it is not likely that water would tickle up. It must have gone up in an eruption style. What would this water do as it accumulates in the mantle is anybody's guess. That is why the idea of "accelerated tectonics" is not only still around, but is getting hotter.

If you could imagine the early earth had a much faster pace on all these processes, it is not impossible that a lot of water could erupted in a pretty short period of time. We know a similar process is probably still active on Venus today.

Also, once the water is out, it will not go back to the mantle. Why do you suggest that it will be back?