[meteorite-list] Meteoric water?
From: mafer <mafer_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:20:59 2004 Message-ID: <002101c34414$4b4edc80$6501a8c0_at_vs.shawcable.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C343D9.8B5D0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Most current geology profs state that volcanic action accounts for most = of earth's water since there isn't other sources which don't leave = questions as to where other elements went. But of course, these profs = can be wrong.=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Howard Wu=20 To: meteorite-list=20 Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteoric water? Sounds alittle like Venus, earth without the moon HWu "Sterling K. Webb" <kelly_at_bhil.com> wrote: Hi, Dave, There is long standing debate as to the source of the Earth's = waters. Did all this H2O come from interior outgassing, primordial solar = nebulae, early heavy atmosphere, water delivery by comets? by meteorites? and = so on. One hears (on this list especially) references to the notion that = the Earth is essentially made from planetesimals which were essentially = made from asteroidal rubble which were made from... You get the idea: = that you can approximate the Earth by just piling up sufficient jillions of = tons of chondrites. This is a very common notion in cosmology, even today. But if the Earth were nothing but compressed chondrites (and irons = for the core), it would have H2O oceans 200 to 300 kilometers deep, the atmosphere would contain 100 to 200 bars of carbon dioxide, the = carbon content of the Earth would be 1000 times greater than it is, with a = graphite surface and diamonds everywhere! Doesn't sound familiar. Everybody's geological textbook has a reference to a 1950 study by = Rubly that is the standard source for the notion that the Earth's water is endogenous, but what he actually said is that all the proposed = sources for water only account for half of the Earth's water. And, water is removed throughout geologic time. It is lost by a = variety of atmospheric mechanisms (like photo dissociation in the high = atmosphere and the escape of the hydrogen), so that however much water the = Earth has now, it had to have had more in the far past, which only makes the = problem worse. Anyway, cosmological geologists are always looking for more water = for their model of the early Earth, so they've leaped on the "just a = pile of chondrites" model, with way too much water, and assumed that somehow = 99% of it was "lost." Nobody is very specific about just how you lose 99% = of a planet's water and dead silent about how you lose 99.9% of a = planet's CARBON for which there is no imagined removal mechanism whatsoever. Assumptions like these have a way of just sort of sliding along from decade to decade until everybody accepts them as true simply because = they don't think about them anymore. Does that help? Or make it worse? Sterling K. Webb = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- David Freeman wrote: > Dear List, Geologic Associates; > I came across the term "meteoric water" while reading up on = pre-cambrian > iron formations. Then, there was a relation to more modern/later = times > meteoric waters. > Does this have any relationship to meteorites? Guess I am at = maximum > absorption level presently. > Thank you in advance for any input, > Dave Freeman > > _______ ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! = Messenger ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C343D9.8B5D0800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Most current geology profs state that volcanic = action accounts=20 for most of earth's water since there isn't other sources which don't = leave=20 questions as to where other elements went. But of course, these profs = can be=20 wrong. </FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A href=3D"mailto:freewu2000_at_yahoo.com" = title=3Dfreewu2000_at_yahoo.com>Howard Wu</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20 href=3D"mailto:meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com"=20 title=3Dmeteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>meteorite-list</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 06, 2003 = 1:02 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [meteorite-list] = Meteoric=20 water?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Sounds alittle like Venus, earth without the moon</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HWu<BR><BR><B><I>"Sterling K. Webb" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:kelly_at_bhil.com">kelly@bhil.com</A>></I></B> = wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = PADDING-LEFT: 5px; WIDTH: 100%">Hi,=20 Dave,<BR><BR>There is long standing debate as to the source of the = Earth's=20 waters.<BR>Did all this H2O come from interior outgassing, = primordial solar=20 nebulae,<BR>early heavy atmosphere, water delivery by comets? by = meteorites?=20 and so on.<BR>One hears (on this list especially) references to the = notion=20 that the<BR>Earth is essentially made from planetesimals which were=20 essentially made<BR>from asteroidal rubble which were made from... = You get=20 the idea: that you<BR>can approximate the Earth by just piling up = sufficient=20 jillions of tons of<BR>chondrites. This is a very common notion in=20 cosmology, even today.<BR>But if the Earth were nothing but = compressed=20 chondrites (and irons for<BR>the core), it would have H2O oceans 200 = to 300=20 kilometers deep, the<BR>atmosphere would contain 100 to 200 bars of = carbon=20 dioxide, the carbon<BR>content of the Earth would be 1000 times = greater than=20 it is, with a graphite<BR>surface and diamonds everywhere! Doesn't = sound=20 familiar.<BR>Everybody's geological textbook has a reference to a = 1950 study=20 by Rubly<BR>that is the standard source for the notion that the = Earth's=20 water is<BR>endogenous, but what he actually said is that all the = proposed=20 sources for<BR>water only account for half of the Earth's = water.<BR>And,=20 water is removed throughout geologic time. It is lost by a = variety<BR>of=20 atmospheric mechanisms (like photo dissociation in the high=20 atmosphere<BR>and the escape of the hydrogen), so that however much = water=20 the Earth has<BR>now, it had to have had more in the far past, which = only=20 makes the problem<BR>worse.<BR>Anyway, cosmological geologists are = always=20 looking for more water for<BR>their model of the early Earth, so = they've=20 leaped on the "just a pile of<BR>chondrites" model, with way too = much water,=20 and assumed that somehow 99% of<BR>it was "lost." Nobody is very = specific=20 about just how you lose 99% of a<BR>planet's water and dead silent = about how=20 you lose 99.9% of a planet's CARBON<BR>for which there is no = imagined=20 removal mechanism whatsoever.<BR>Assumptions like these have a way = of just=20 sort of sliding along from<BR>decade to decade until everybody = accepts them=20 as true simply because they<BR>don't think about them = anymore.<BR>Does that=20 help? Or make it worse?<BR><BR><BR>Sterling K.=20 = Webb<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------<BR><BR>David=20 Freeman wrote:<BR><BR>> Dear List, Geologic Associates;<BR>> I = came=20 across the term "meteoric water" while reading up on = pre-cambrian<BR>>=20 iron formations. Then, there was a relation to more modern/later=20 times<BR>> meteoric waters.<BR>> Does this have any = relationship to=20 meteorites? Guess I am at maximum<BR>> absorption level=20 presently.<BR>> Thank you in advance for any input,<BR>> Dave=20 Freeman<BR>><BR>>=20 = _______<BR><BR><BR>______________________________________________<BR>Mete= orite-list=20 mailing=20 = list<BR>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com<BR>http://www.pairlist.net/ma= ilman/listinfo/meteorite-list</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P> <HR SIZE=3D1> <FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Want to chat instantly with your online=20 friends? <A=20 = href=3D"http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline_messenger/*http://uk.messenge= r.yahoo.com/"><B>Get=20 the FREE Yahoo! Messenger</B></A></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C343D9.8B5D0800-- Received on Sun 06 Jul 2003 07:13:32 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|